Produced by Curtis Weyant, Charlene Taylor, Charlie Howard,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net. Images generously provided by
www.history-matters.com.









Transcriber's note: Stylized "U" is denoted as =U=. Italics are
represented by _underscores_.




    INVESTIGATION OF

    THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

    HEARINGS
    Before the President's Commission
    on the Assassination
    of President Kennedy

PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11130, an Executive order creating a
Commission to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating
to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination and
S.J. RES. 137, 88TH CONGRESS, a concurrent resolution conferring upon
the Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations, examine
witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpenas

_Volume_ XI


UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1964

For sale in complete sets by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402




    PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
    ON THE
    ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY


    CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN, _Chairman_

    SENATOR RICHARD B. RUSSELL
    SENATOR JOHN SHERMAN COOPER
    REPRESENTATIVE HALE BOGGS
    REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD
    MR. ALLEN W. DULLES
    MR. JOHN J. McCLOY


    J. LEE RANKIN, _General Counsel_


    _Assistant Counsel_

    FRANCIS W. H. ADAMS
    JOSEPH A. BALL
    DAVID W. BELIN
    WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, Jr.
    MELVIN ARON EISENBERG
    BURT W. GRIFFIN
    LEON D. HUBERT, Jr.
    ALBERT E. JENNER, Jr.
    WESLEY J. LIEBELER
    NORMAN REDLICH
    W. DAVID SLAWSON
    ARLEN SPECTER
    SAMUEL A. STERN
    HOWARD P. WILLENS[A]

    [A] Mr. Willens also acted as liaison between the Commission
        and the Department of Justice.


    _Staff Members_

    PHILLIP BARSON
    EDWARD A. CONROY
    JOHN HART ELY
    ALFRED GOLDBERG
    MURRAY J. LAULICHT
    ARTHUR MARMOR
    RICHARD M. MOSK
    JOHN J. O'BRIEN
    STUART POLLAK
    ALFREDDA SCOBEY
    CHARLES N. SHAFFER, Jr.


Biographical information on the Commissioners and the staff can be found
in the Commission's _Report_.




Preface


The testimony of the following witnesses is contained in volume XI:
John Edward Pic, Lee Harvey Oswald's halfbrother; Edward John Pic,
Jr., John Edward Pic's father; Kerry Wendell Thornley, a Marine Corps
acquaintance of Oswald; George B. Church, Jr., Mrs. George B. Church,
Jr., and Billy Joe Lord, who were on the boat Oswald took when he left
the United States for Russia; Alexander Kleinlerer, Mrs. Donald Gibson,
Ruth Hyde Paine, Michael Ralph Paine, and Gary Taylor, who became
acquainted with Oswald and his wife after their return to Texas in
1962; M. Waldo George, the Oswald's landlord at Neely Street in Dallas;
William Kirk Stuckey, who gave testimony relating to Oswald's political
views; Horace Elroy Twiford and Estelle Twiford, who gave testimony
relating to the date and route of Oswald's trip to Mexico in 1963;
Virginia H. James, James D. Crowley, James L. Ritchie, and Carroll
Hamilton Seeley, Jr., of the U.S. State Department; Louis Feldsott,
who gave testimony relating to the purchase of the C2766 rifle; J.
Philip Lux and Albert C. Yeargan, Jr., employees of sporting-goods
stores in Dallas; Howard Leslie Brennan, who was present at the
assassination scene; Louis Weinstock, an official of the Communist
Party, Vincent T. Lee, an official of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee,
and Farrell Dobbs, an official of the Socialist Workers Party, who
testified concerning contacts Oswald had with their groups; Virginia
Gray, who gave testimony concerning a letter written by Oswald;
Albert F. Staples, who gave testimony concerning records relating to
Marina Oswald; Katherine Mallory, Monica Kramer, and Rita Naman, who
encountered Oswald while touring Russia in 1961; John Bryan McFarland,
Meryl McFarland, and Pamela Mumford, who were on the bus Oswald took to
Mexico in the fall of 1963; Dial Duwayne Ryder, Hunter Schmidt, Jr.,
Charles W. Greener, Gertrude Hunter, Edith Whitworth, James Lehrer, and
Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, who gave testimony concerning an allegation
that Oswald had taken a rifle to a gun-repair shop in Dallas; Eugene D.
Anderson and James A. Zahm, of the U.S. Marine Corps, experts on the
subject of marksmanship; C. A. Hamblen, Robert Gene Fenley, and Aubrey
Lee Lewis, who gave testimony concerning an allegation that Oswald was
sending and receiving telegrams through a Dallas Western Union office;
Dean Adams Andrews, Jr., Evaristo Rodriguez, Orest Pena, Ruperto Pena,
and Sylvia Odio, who testified concerning contacts they believed they
had with Oswald in New Orleans and Dallas under various circumstances;
Edwin A. Walker, who testified concerning an attempt on his life on
April 10, 1963, and his attorney, Clyde J. Watts; Ivan D. Lee, an
agent of the FBI, who gave testimony regarding photographs which he
took of General Walker's residence; Bernard Weissman, who paid for an
advertisement concerning President Kennedy which appeared in a Dallas
newspaper on November 22, 1963; Warren Allen Reynolds, who was present
in the vicinity of the Tippit crime scene; Priscilla Mary Post Johnson,
who interviewed Oswald in Moscow; Eric Rogers, who lived in the same
building as Oswald and his wife in New Orleans in 1963; Bardwell D.
Odum, James R. Malley, and Richard Helms, who testified concerning
a photograph which was shown to Marguerite Oswald for purposes of
identification; Peter Megargee Brown, who testified concerning records
relating to Oswald when he lived in New York during his youth; Francis
J. Martello of the New Orleans Police Department, who interrogated
Oswald in August 1963; John Corporon, an official of a New Orleans
broadcasting station; Mrs. J. V. Allen, who testified concerning the
schooling of Oswald's brothers; Lillian Murret, Oswald's aunt; and John
W. Burcham, Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr., Hilda L. Smith, J. Rachal, Bobb
Hunley, Robert J. Creel, Helen P. Cunningham, Theodore Frank Gangl,
Gene Graves, and Robert L. Adams, who testified concerning Oswald's
employment history.




Contents


                                                           Page
    Preface                                                   v

    Testimony of--
      John Edward Pic                                         1
      Edward John Pic, Jr                                    82
      Kerry Wendell Thornley                                 82
      George B. Church, Jr                                  115
      Mrs. George B. Church, Jr                             116
      Billy Joe Lord                                        117
      Alexander Kleinlerer                                  118
      Mrs. Donald Gibson                                    123
      Ruth Hyde Paine                                  153, 389
      M. Waldo George                                       155
      William Kirk Stuckey                                  156
      Horace Elroy Twiford                                  179
      Estelle Twiford                                       179
      Virginia H. James                                     180
      James L. Ritchie                                      191
      Carroll Hamilton Seeley, Jr                           193
      Louis Feldsott                                        205
      J. Philip Lux                                         206
      Howard Leslie Brennan                                 206
      Albert C. Yeargan, Jr                                 207
      Louis Weinstock                                       207
      Vincent T. Lee                                        208
      Farrell Dobbs                                         208
      Virginia Gray                                         209
      Albert F. Staples                                     210
      Katherine Mallory                                     210
      Monica Kramer                                         212
      Rita Naman                                            213
      John Bryan McFarland and Meryl McFarland              214
      Pamela Mumford                                        215
      Dial Duwayne Ryder                                    224
      Hunter Schmidt, Jr                                    240
      Charles W. Greener                                    245
      Gertrude Hunter                                       253
      Edith Whitworth                                       262
      Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, Edith Whitworth, and
          Gertrude Hunter                                   275
      Eugene D. Anderson                                    301
      James A. Zahm                                         306
      C. A. Hamblen                                         311
      Robert Gene Fenley                                    314
      Aubrey Lee Lewis                                      318
      Dean Adams Andrews, Jr                                325
      Evaristo Rodriguez                                    339
      Orest Pena                                            346
      Ruperto Pena                                          364
      Sylvia Odio                                           367
      Michael Ralph Paine                                   398
      Edwin A. Walker and Clyde J. Watts                    404
      Bernard Weissman                                      428
      Warren Allen Reynolds                                 434
      Priscilla Mary Post Johnson                           442
      Eric Rogers                                           460
      James Lehrer                                          464
      Bardwell D. Odum                                      468
      James R. Malley                                       468
      Richard Helms                                         469
      Peter Megargee Brown                                  470
      Gary Taylor                                           470
      Francis L. Martello                                   471
      John Corporon                                         471
      Mrs. J. V. Allen                                      472
      Lillian Murret                                        472
      John W. Burcham                                       473
      Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr                              473
      Hilda L. Smith                                        474
      J. Rachal                                             474
      Bobb Hunley                                           476
      Robert J. Creel                                       477
      Helen P. Cunningham                                   477
      Theodore Frank Gangl                                  478
      Gene Graves                                           479
      Robert L. Adams                                       480
      Ivan D. Lee                                           481
      James D. Crowley                                      482


EXHIBITS INTRODUCED

                                 Page
    Allen Exhibit No.:
       1                          472
       2                          472
       3                          472
       4                          472
       5                          472
       6                          472
       7                          472
       8                          472
       9                          472
      10                          472
      11                          472
      12                          472
      13                          472
      14                          472
      15                          472
    Anderson Exhibit No. 1        303
    Brown Exhibit No. 1           470
    Burcham Exhibit No.:
      1                           473
      2                           473
      3                           473
    Creel Exhibit No.:
      1                           477
      2                           477
      3                           477
      4                           477
      5                           477
      6                           477
      7                           477
      8                           477
    Cunningham Exhibit No. 4      477

    Gangl Exhibit No. 1           479
    Graves Exhibit No. 1          479
    Gray Exhibit No. 1            210
    Greener Exhibit No.:
      1                           246
      2                           247
      3                           251
      4                           251
    Hunley Exhibit No.:
      1                           476
      2                           476
      3                           476
      4                           476
      5                           476
      6                           476
      7                           476
    James Exhibit No.:
       1                          181
       2                          186
       3                          187
       3-A                        187
       4                          188
       5                          188
       6                          189
       7                          189
       8                          189
       9                          189
      10                          190
      11                          190
    Johnson Exhibit No.:
      1                           442
      2                           442
      3                           443
      4                           443
      5                           443
      6                           443
    Kramer Exhibit No.:
      1                           212
      2                           213
    Lee Exhibit:
      A                           482
      B                           482
    Lewis Exhibit No. 1           323
    Murret Exhibit No. 1          472
    Odio Exhibit No. 1            373
    Odum Exhibit No. 1            468
    Pena Exhibit No. 1            359
    Pic Exhibit No.:
       1                            5
       2                           13
       2-A                         15
       3                           14
       4                           15
       5                           15
       6                           66
       6-A                         66
       7                           66
       7-A                         66
       8                           66
       8-A                         66
       9                           66
       9-A                         66
      10                           66
      10-A                         66
      10-B                         66
      11                           66
      11-A                         66
      12                           66
      12-A                         66
      13                           66
      13-A                         66
      14                           66
      15                           66
      16                           66
      16-A                         66
      17                           66
      17-A                         66
      18                           66
      18-A                         66
      19                           66
      19-A                         66
      20                           66
      20-A                         66
      20-B                         66
      21                           67
      21-A                         67
      22                           67
      23                           67
      23-A                         67
      24                           67
      24-A                         67
      25                           67
      25-A                         67
      26                           67
      26-A                         67
      27                           69
      27-A                         69
      27-B                         69
      28-A                         69
      28-B                         69
      29-A                         69
      29-B                         69
      29-C                         69
      30-A                         69
      30-B                         69
      31-A                         69
      31-B                         69
      32-A                         69
      32-B                         70
      33-A                         70
      33-B                         70
      34                           70
      35-A                         70
      35-B                         70
      36-A                         70
      36-B                         70
      37-A                         71
      37-B                         71
      38-A                         71
      38-B                         71
      39-A                         71
      39-B                         71
      40-A                         71
      40-B                         71
      41-A                         71
      41-B                         71
      42-A                         71
      42-B                         71
      43-A                         71
      43-B                         71
      44-A                         71
      44-B                         71
      45-A                         71
      45-B                         71
      46-A                         71
      46-B                         71
      47-A                         71
      47-B                         71
      48                           35
      49                           35
      50                           29
      51                           29
      52                           28
      53                           28
      54                           30
      55                           30
      56                           36
      57                           36
      58                           36
      59                           35
      60                           60
    Rachal Exhibit No.:
      1                           475
      2                           476
      3                           476
    Rogers Exhibit No. 1          463
    Seeley Exhibit No.:
      1                           195
      2                           196
      3                           198
      4                           199
      5                           199
      6                           200
      7                           201
    Smith Exhibit No. 1           474
    Staples Exhibit No. 1         210
    Stuckey Exhibit No.:
      1                           161
      2                           163
      3                           169
      4                           177
    Thornley Exhibit No.:
      1                           112
      2                           113
      3                           114
    Twiford Exhibit No. 1         179
    Walker Exhibit No.:
      1                           408
      2                           409
      3                           411
      4                           411
    Weinstock Exhibit No. 1       207
    Weissman Exhibit No. 1        429




Hearings Before the President's Commission

on the

Assassination of President Kennedy




TESTIMONY OF JOHN EDWARD PIC

The testimony of John Edward Pic was taken at 10:25 a.m., on May
15, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs.
John Hart Ely and Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the
President's Commission.


Mr. JENNER. Sergeant Pic, do you swear in your testimony you are about
to give that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. State your full name, please.

Mr. PIC. Staff Sergeant John Edward Pic, sir, U.S. Air Force.

Mr. JENNER. And that Pic is spelled P-i-c-?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Give me your home address.

Mr. PIC. 7306 Westville, San Antonio, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. You are a married man?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Give the full name of your wife including her married name,
children, if any, ages and names and where born.

Mr. PIC. My wife's maiden name is Margaret Dorothy Fuhrman. My eldest
is John Edward Pic, Jr., 14 May, 1952. My daughter, Janet Ann Pic, 18
October 1954; James Michael Pic, 22 February 1960.

Mr. JENNER. Your wife Margaret is--she was born where?

Mr. PIC. New York City, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Her parents are native Americans as well as she?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; they are not.

Mr. JENNER. What do you know of them?

Mr. PIC. Her father died; I never met the man while we were going
together. Her mother and father were separated. Her mother was born in
Hungary, I think. Her father was also, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What do you understand as to when they came to this country?

Mr. PIC. I have never inquired. It has probably been mentioned but I
have forgotten.

Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression they had been here a good many years?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; they have seven children. The eldest being in her
forties, I am pretty sure.

Mr. JENNER. I see. When you met your wife she was living with her
mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. PIC. 325 East 92d Street, New York City.

Mr. JENNER. And you were at that time in the service?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; U.S. Coast Guard, assigned to U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter _Rockaway_.

Mr. JENNER. How old is Mrs. Pic?

Mr. PIC. Thirty, sir. She turned 30 the 21st of December.

Mr. JENNER. Of 1963?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. She was born December 21, 1933?

Mr. PIC. It may be 22, sir; I never remember. I am giving sworn
testimony, I don't want to lie about my wife's birthday; it is either
the 21st or 22d, I am pretty sure it is the 21st.

Mr. JENNER. You are stationed where at present?

Mr. PIC. I am attached to Wilford Hall, USAF Hospital, Lackland Air
Force Base, San Antonio, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. Do you--what is your particular assignment?

Mr. PIC. I am NCOIC, Special Procedures Branch, Department of
Pathology, Wilford Hall Hospital. I have had this job since the 10th of
February this year, and my other ones, I had another job when I talked
to the Secret Service if you would be interested in that.

Mr. JENNER. How long have you been at Lackland?

Mr. PIC. I have been there since August 1962, sir.

Mr. JENNER. My information is you were born in New Orleans on January
17, 1932?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You entered the Coast Guard.

Mr. PIC. It was either 25 or 26 January 1950, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were then 18 years of age?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that was where?

Mr. PIC. I processed my enlistment in Fort Worth. I was sworn into the
Coast Guard in Dallas, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. I think it might be well if we had your service history
all in one spot so you go ahead and for my benefit speak a little more
slowly so I can absorb it.

Mr. PIC. All right, sir. Approximately 26 January 1950, enlisted in
Coast Guard in Dallas, Tex.; from January 1950 until May 1950, I was
in boot camp at U.S. Coast Guard Training Station, Cape May, N.J. In
May 1950 until January 1951, I was attached to U.S. Coast Guard cutter
_Rockaway_. January 1951 until approximately June 1951 was stationed at
U.S. Coast Guard Training Station, Groton, Conn. From June 1951 until
January 1952, I was stationed at U.S. Coast Guard Base, St. George,
Staten Island, N.Y. From January 1952 until April 1952, I was stationed
at U.S. Naval Training Station, Bainbridge, Md. April 1952 until
February 1953, I was stationed at U.S. Coast Guard PSU, which is Port
Security Unit, Ellis Island, N.Y. February 1953 until September 1953, I
was stationed aboard the U.S. Coast Guard cutter _Firebush_.

Mr. JENNER. Were you at sea?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this was classified as sea duty. It was really a
buoy tender.

Mr. JENNER. In what area?

Mr. PIC. New York area, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you on ship all the time during that period?

Mr. PIC. We would go out a day, come back the next; back and forth.

Mr. JENNER. What I am really getting at is when you were ashore were
you home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I went home the minute I got off the ship.

Mr. JENNER. OK.

Mr. PIC. September 1953 until April 1954--these months I am pretty
sure, I am certain are OK.

Mr. JENNER. That is all right.

Mr. PIC. I was stationed at U.S. Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, Va.
My address when I lived there was, for 3 months we lived with my
sister-in-law in Norfolk.

Mr. JENNER. Name her, please.

Mr. PIC. Mrs. Emma Parrish, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. That was your wife's sister?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir. Then in January of 1954 we moved over to
Portsmouth, Va., 1234 Holliday Street.

April 1954 for about 2, 3 weeks, I was then stationed again at St.
George, Staten Island, and I received orders through the Coast Guard
cutter _Halfmoon_, and I was on the Coast Guard cutter _Halfmoon_ until
January 1956.

Mr. JENNER. And at sea or----

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this was weather patrol duty.

Mr. JENNER. You did come ashore when you got home?

Mr. PIC. We pulled weather patrol, sir. We would be out 5 or 6 weeks
and we would be in 5 or 6 weeks; and this I tolerated for 21 months.
On 1 February 1956, I joined the Air Force. I joined the Air Force on
Staten Island, N.Y. My address at this time was 80 St. Marks Place,
Staten Island, N.Y.

Mr. JENNER. In a few words, what was that transition. Had you
appeared----

Mr. PIC. My enlistment from the Coast Guard was complete, sir, and I
decided that staying in the Coast Guard for 20 or some odd years I
wouldn't see much of my family and I understood the Air Force was a
family man's outfit and I figured that was for me. So the day after I
got out of the Coast Guard I joined the Air Force--no broken service. I
was stationed at Mitchel Air Force Base, Hempstead, Long Island, N.Y.,
until October, end of September, October 1958, and received orders to
Japan, APO 323, Tachikawa, Japan.

Mr. JENNER. What year were you in?

Mr. PIC. 1958 when I received my orders.

Mr. JENNER. At this time when you were assigned to Japan, that was the
period of time also when your brother Lee Oswald, then in the Marines,
was also stationed in Japan?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware of that fact when you were stationed in
Japan?

Mr. PIC. When I received my orders, I was under the impression he was
in Korea, sir. I knew he was overseas in the Japanese-Korean area.

Mr. JENNER. Had you had any communication from him prior to your going
to Japan?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my knowledge, sir, sometime after he entered
the service and went overseas I received a letter from him, very short
note. He wrote a very short note. I no longer have this.

Mr. JENNER. He entered the service in October of 1956?

Mr. PIC. I was in the Air Force at Mitchel Air Force Base at the time.
Do you want me to finish with my military dates, and then I can go back?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. November 1958, 10 November 1958 until 17 July, 1962, I was
stationed in Japan. In August 1962 until the present date assigned to
Lackland, Wilford Hall Air Force Hospital, Lackland Air Force Base.

Now, in the time period from--my mother paid us a Christmas visit, sir,
during the Christmas holidays of 1957, I believe, after Lee had joined
the Marine Corps.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; that would be a little over a year, that would be a
year and 2 months after he had joined the Marine Corps.

Mr. PIC. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you at that time?

Mr. PIC. I was stationed at Mitchel Air Force Base, sir, and I believe
my address was 105 Avenue C, East Meadow, Long Island. I was living
right next to the Air Force base.

Mr. JENNER. Had you known prior to that time, which presumably you did,
that Lee had entered the service?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I knew this.

Mr. JENNER. Had enlisted in the Marines?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And how had you learned that, through your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; through my mother.

Mr. JENNER. Had you learned that at or about the time he actually
enlisted? What were the circumstances?

Mr. PIC. Concerning what, sir?

Mr. JENNER. His enlistment, when you learned about it, and how. He
enlisted in October 1956. He was then 17 years old.

Mr. PIC. My mother told me some way or another, I don't remember, sir.
This is how I learned about it, either by phone call or by letter or
some way. Of course, I knew he would do it as soon as he reached the
age.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Why did you know he would do it and tell us
the circumstances upon which you, the facts upon which you base that
observation?

Mr. PIC. He did it for the same reasons that I did it and Robert did
it, I assume, to get from out and under.

Mr. JENNER. Out and under what?

Mr. PIC. The yoke of oppression from my mother.

Mr. JENNER. Had that been a matter of discussion between you and for
example, between you and your brother Robert?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; it was just something we understood about and never
discussed.

Mr. JENNER. And that would include Lee as well as your brother Robert;
that is, you were all aware of it?

Mr. PIC. I know this includes my brother Robert. Of course, when I was
18 years old I didn't discuss things like this with Lee, who was much
younger.

Mr. JENNER. Please elaborate on that. You made a general statement----

Mr. PIC. OK.

Mr. JENNER. Which lawyers would call a mixed matter of conclusion and
of fact and we would like to know the circumstances in general.

Mr. PIC. OK.

Mr. JENNER. They would probably go back for a good many years and it
involves a personality.

Mr. PIC. Well, why don't I start with the death of Lee's father, and I
think really starting there I can tell you more of my own feelings and
so forth. I can make one statement but to bring out the circumstances I
think I should go back a little further.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I will come back to this eventually. I will
start you off this way. You are the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you are also the brother of Robert?

Mr. PIC. Robert Lee Edward Oswald, Jr.

Mr. JENNER. Robert Lee Edward Oswald?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I notice in your statements that you refer to him as Robert
Lee Edward Oswald. There are some references by others to Robert E. Lee
Oswald.

Mr. PIC. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your stepfather is generally referred to in the record and
by witnesses as Lee Oswald. What was his full name?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my knowledge, sir, it was Robert Lee Edward
Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. In any event your brother Robert was a junior.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your brother Robert was born April 7, 1934; is that to the
best of your recollection?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; to the best of my recollection.

Mr. JENNER. And your brother Lee Harvey Oswald, October 18, 1939?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, air.

Mr. JENNER. Your father's name?

Mr. PIC. Edward John Pic, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You are named after him except----

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The two surnames were reversed?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I think it appears on here. Yes, sir; I think it
appears on here. Yes, sir. John Pic, Jr., in fact his name is----

Mr. JENNER. Edward John Pic, Jr.

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And your mother was Marguerite Claverie Oswald?

Mr. PIC. Claverie, Marguerite Frances.

Mr. JENNER. And your mother and father were married what date?

Mr. PIC. Eighth day of August 1929, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you are now reading from what?

Mr. PIC. The marriage certificate of Edward John Pic, Jr., and Mrs.
Marguerite Frances Claverie.

Mr. JENNER. That is a marriage certificate that you, that is among your
personal papers?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I am going to put an exhibit number on it. We will take a
photograph of it and return the original to you.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Reporter, would you mark that as John Pic Exhibit No. 1.

(John Pic Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence as John Pic Exhibit No. 1, a marriage
certificate certified and dated August 8, 1929, reflecting the marriage
of Edward John Pic, Jr. and Miss Marguerite Frances Claverie on the 1st
day of August 1929, in Harrison County, Miss. The marriage certificate
does not show the town.

Sergeant, do you have any recollection of your father?

Mr. PIC. My own father?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. PIC. No, sir, I don't.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection of ever having seen your
father?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. You were too young at the time but you eventually became
aware of the fact that your mother, Marguerite, and your father,
Edward, were divorced not long after your birth?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become aware also of the fact that at the time of
your birth that your father and mother were separated?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. This is the first information, I take it, then, in the
utterance I have just made?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That you have become aware that your mother and your father
were separated at the time of your birth?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You did learn about that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. From your mother?

Mr. PIC. From Life magazine, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Well, that is what I was really getting at.

Mr. PIC. O.K.

Mr. JENNER. It was only in the last 6 or 8 months that you learned that
at the time of your birth your mother and your father were separated?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir. I had always been told that they were
divorced because he didn't want children. I didn't know anything else
but that. I didn't know the time periods or anything else, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your stepfather, when your mother and your stepfather--I
will call him Lee Oswald because all the witnesses have referred to him
as Lee Oswald, is that what he was called, do you have any recollection
of it?

Mr. PIC. I remember him being referred to as Mr. Oswald, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Oswald?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have a recollection at the time, at least--that
is an inelegant question. Do you recall your mother then marrying Lee
Oswald or Mr. Oswald?

Mr. PIC. I knew they were married, I don't recall the marriage ceremony.

Mr. JENNER. What do you recall about him, sergeant?

Mr. PIC. I recall he was an insurance salesman, sir, for the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. He used to take me on his rounds for
collections sometimes. He was very strict with us. We got whippings
when we were bad.

Mr. JENNER. You don't mean to claim that any of them was undeserved?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. Not in the least.

Mr. JENNER. I should say this to you, I think. The witnesses all,
everybody spoke well of your stepfather.

Mr. PIC. That is how I remember him, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were born in New Orleans?

Mr. PIC. I was?

Mr. JENNER. I am really putting a question mark at the end.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I was born at New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. And the family lived in New Orleans?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you ever informed by anybody as to the business of
your father, not your stepfather but your----

Mr. PIC. My real father?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; or occupation?

Mr. PIC. From what I was told he was a stevedore and had once been a
professional basketball player. This is all I remember ever hearing
about him.

Mr. JENNER. And this was information that came from primarily your
mother?

Mr. PIC. From my mother; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. As a boy as you grew up in New Orleans were you advised
whether your father was alive, whether he was in New Orleans or where
he was or anything about him in that connection?

Mr. PIC. Being the nosy child I was, every once in a while I would look
him up in the phone book so I knew he existed.

Mr. JENNER. Did you make any inquiries to find out what his business
was or occupation?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever make any attempt to go to where he might be
working or living to see what he looked like?

Mr. PIC. I thought of it several times but I never made an attempt.

Mr. JENNER. Were you influenced in this in any respect by your mother?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. I do remember on several occasions when we would
visit the Lillian Murrets the name would come up that he had visited
them, they would see him now and then and, of course, every time this
cropped up it made me more inquisitive.

Mr. JENNER. You mentioned Lillian Murret, that is your aunt, your
mother's sister?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And her husband is Charles "Dutz" Murret?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In those early years, did your family reside somewhere near
the Murrets? I am going to get into all those addresses if I can, but I
am thinking of the overall relationship geographically.

Mr. PIC. As I recollect, the house was where Mr. Oswald died, all I
know is that it was on the corner of Alvez and Galvez.

Mr. JENNER. 2109 Alvar?

Mr. PIC. There you go. I think the street that ran next to it was
Galvez.

Mr. JENNER. You are correct.

Mr. PIC. This is the first real--I remember a first real house prior to
this, where it was, sir, I don't know. I was about 5 at the time.

Mr. JENNER. But the first one you remember is the house on the corner
that you have mentioned?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do any of these addresses refresh your recollection? 2205
Alvar?

Mr. PIC. It may be the address of the house on Alvez and Galvez, I
don't know.

Mr. JENNER. No?

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. 2123 Alvar?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. 1661 Paul Morphy?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. 2132 Gallier?

Mr. PIC. The name, the streets sound--I may have heard it before.

Mr. JENNER. 1917 Gallier?

Mr. PIC. Only the street sounds familiar.

Mr. JENNER. 805 Greenwood?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. 220 North--my pronunciation will be bad--Telemachus.

Mr. PIC. No.

Mr. JENNER. 123 South Cortez?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You had to get away yesterday before a letter arrived
which is at your base now, from Mr. Rankin, general counsel for the
Commission, confirming arrangements for you to appear and have your
deposition taken before the Commission, and enclosing with that letter
copies of the legislation being Senate Joint Resolution No. 137
authorizing the creation of the Commission, and a copy of President
Johnson's Executive Orders bringing the Commission into existence No.
11130, and a copy of the rules and regulations of the Commission itself
for the taking of depositions.

When you return to Lackland base you will find that letter probably in
the possession of your Commanding Officer, and he will deliver it to
you.

The Commission was authorized by the resolution I have mentioned and
brought into existence by the President to investigate the facts
and circumstances involved in and surrounding the assassination of
President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and we have understood from
witnesses and other information we have, that you had and still have
information bearing upon the facts and circumstances relative to that
assassination, and it is this line of questioning that is directed
toward that.

We appreciate your appearing voluntarily from Lackland base to appear
here today.

That letter, and the enclosures state that you are entitled to counsel
if you want counsel present, and if you desire to have counsel present
I can suspend this now.

Mr. PIC. I have nothing to hide, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Go ahead, John.

Mr. ELY. I just wanted to check on a couple of addresses with you, sir.
914 Hennesey, do you remember that?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. ELY. What about Taft Place?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You attended William Frantz Elementary School in Dallas,
did you not?

Mr. PIC. New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. With your brother, Robert?

Mr. PIC. What grade was I in, sir. He was two grades behind me. If I
was in the third, he was there. If I wasn't, he wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. Well, the record shows you enrolled in William Frantz
School at 3811 North Galvez on the 16th of September 1936 at which time
you were 4-1/2 years old.

Mr. PIC. Well, he wouldn't be there.

Mr. JENNER. Not at that time. He was then 2-1/2.

Do you recall transferring from William Frantz Elementary School to
George Washington Elementary School?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Was that some time in late September or in November,
perhaps of 1940.

Mr. PIC. Well, prior to that we went to another place, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your first elementary school was William Frantz?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you attended William Frantz until when, to the best of
your recollection?

Mr. PIC. I don't think I attended William Frantz after----

Mr. JENNER. The death of your stepfather?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; somewhere around there. We went to a boarding school
over in Gretna, La. Infant Jesus College was the name of it, I believe,
both Robert and I, and we hated the place.

Mr. JENNER. That was a very short period of time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; because we hated the place.

Mr. JENNER. I will get to that in a moment.

Mr. PIC. I don't know whether it was before Washington or after. I
think it was before Washington.

Mr. JENNER. Perhaps I can refresh your recollection this way. Your
stepfather died in August of 1939. You were then living in the house at
the corner of Alvar and Galvez which you recall as Alvez and Galvez.

Do you recall that some months after the death of your father and in
the following year, the late winter or early spring, that you moved
from that house?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall a physician by the name of Mancuso?

Mr. PIC. It may or may not be familiar, sir. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. He was the doctor who delivered Lee, and also the man who
rented the house in which you had been living. Do you recall that?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You do recall leaving that house in which you had been
living at the time of the death of your stepfather?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; sometime afterward.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall that it was a matter of months and not a
matter of years?

Mr. PIC. It had to be months, sir, because I have got something else
for 1940 here.

Mr. JENNER. When you moved from the house in which you had been living
at the time of the death of your stepfather, do you recall moving to
1242 Congress Street?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. I remember moving to a Bartholomew Street.

Mr. JENNER. That Bartholomew Street, I will get to that in a moment,
perhaps to refresh your recollection was a little house that your
mother purchased on contract.

Mr. PIC. What, Bartholomew?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. I remember that house.

Mr. JENNER. 1010 Bartholomew.

Mr. PIC. That could be it, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Before you moved to 1010 Bartholomew you lived, did you
not, at 1242 Congress?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother didn't sell the Alvar Street house until
January of 1944.

Mr. PIC. I thought it was sold the day we moved out.

Mr. JENNER. It was rented by Dr. Mancuso the day you moved out, and
ultimately your mother regained possession in January 1944, and he then
purchased that house substantially contemporaneously, in January of
1944.

Mr. PIC. Can I ask you a question?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. PIC. Being Mr. Oswald was in the insurance business, and being I
was rather young, how did he leave her, I have no idea.

Mr. JENNER. Well, I will answer that question. You tell me what you
thought at the time and what your impression now is.

Mr. PIC. Well, he didn't leave her much is what I was told.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the feeling you had at the time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Well, he did leave a small insurance policy, and the house
on Alvar, on the corner of Alvar and Galvez, which was being purchased
under contract, and that is about all.

I take it, it is your recollection, Sergeant, that when you and your
mother and Robert and Lee, who was then an infant child, just a few
months old, left the house on 2109 Alvar you entered some institution.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And what is your recollection of that institution?

Mr. PIC. I believe it was in Gretna, La.

Mr. JENNER. Spell that for the reporter.

Mr. PIC. G-r-e-t-n-a, a whole bunch of little towns right across the
river from New Orleans, West Wego, and a couple of others, that was one
of these, I think it was Gretna, it might be in one of that group.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. And the name of the school was Infant Jesus College and it was
a Catholic school, sir. And us not being Catholics they lowered the
boom on us.

Mr. JENNER. That would be you and your brother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were at that time just about 8 years old. Was it
before your 8th birthday or what?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't remember that, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It was in 1940, however?

Mr. PIC. I thought it was in the end of 1939. It is either the end of
1939 or early 1940.

Mr. JENNER. Is it your recollection that----

Mr. PIC. We were still living on Alvez and Galvez when we went to that
school.

Mr. JENNER. All right. That is what I wanted to straighten out.

Your mother put you and Robert in the Catholic boarding school before
the family actually moved out of the 2109 Alvar home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. How long were you boys at that Catholic
institution?

Mr. PIC. My best recollection is that it was to the end of the school
year, 1940.

Mr. JENNER. That would be the summer of 1940?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Your mother was not working at that time, was
she?

Mr. PIC. As far as I know; no, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your recollection as to why you were placed in that
institution inasmuch as your mother was not working, and at that time
you were still living or she was, with Lee at 2109 Alvar?

Mr. PIC. My impression then, sir; I don't know, I can give you my
impressions now----

Mr. JENNER. Are these impressions that you are about to give me and
I do want you to give them to me, gathered from recollection of the
course of events over a period of years?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Based on discussions in the family over a period
of years?

Mr. PIC. Based mainly on experiences in contact with my mother over a
period of years, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right; tell us about them.

Mr. PIC. I think it was probably because it was cheaper to maintain
Robert and I over at this school than it was to maintain us at home. I
mean we boarded there, they fed us, went to school. I don't know what
the fee was but this was the impression I have now.

Mr. JENNER. While you boys were at the Catholic school, did your mother
and Lee leave, if you have a recollection of this, the 2109 Alvar home?
This would be sometime between the first of January 1940, and the time
you finished the second semester, let us say.

Mr. PIC. If this house between Alvez and Bartholomew is a green house.

Mr. JENNER. Green?

Mr. PIC. Green, I can remember it. You can tell me if it was green, I
don't know, sir. I remember a green house somewhere in this time period.

Mr. JENNER. Let me get at that this way. You and Robert were lodged
eventually in the Bethlehem----

Mr. PIC. Bethlehem Orphans Home, somewhere on St. Peters Street, New
Orleans. I think this was in 1942, though, this happened.

Mr. JENNER. Evangelical Lutheran Bethlehem Orphan Asylum.

Mr. PIC. Right. That is the name.

Mr. JENNER. Known as the Bethlehem Children's Home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And--all right, now, you entered there on the 3d of January
1942. Is that your recollection?

Mr. PIC. That is my recollection.

Mr. JENNER. The winter of 1942?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I know it was a little bit after the war was
declared.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, taking that date, January 1942, and going
back----

Mr. PIC. OK.

Mr. JENNER. To the end of the school year in 1940----

Mr. PIC. Well, the school in September 1940--I think I put in about
a year and a half in this Washington Elementary School after we were
taken out of Infant Jesus College.

Mr. JENNER. At that time didn't you live at 1242 Congress Street in New
Orleans?

Mr. PIC. Sir, if you have a map of New Orleans and show me where this
is maybe I can remember, but I don't remember anything but Bartholomew.

Mr. JENNER. For the purposes of refreshing your recollection the
records of the public school system of New Orleans reflect the
following: that you were enrolled at William Frantz School located at
3811 North Galvez when you were 4-1/2 years old on September 16, 1936.
You continued there thereafter until September 5, 1940.

Mr. PIC. September 1940.

Mr. JENNER. These records would show that you were discharged from the
William Frantz Elementary School on January 2, 1940.

Mr. PIC. That is better.

Mr. JENNER. And that you reentered William Frantz on September 5, 1940,
and you transferred to George Washington Elementary School on November
12, 1940.

At the time of the transfer you lived at 1242 Congress Street. Your
mother purchased the house at 1010 Bartholomew on the 5th of March
1941. And she sold it on the 16th of January 1942.

With that information, does that serve to refresh your recollection
that the course of circumstances might have been these. I will state
them and then you correct me. I don't want you to take my word for it
but this is solely for the purpose of refreshing your recollection, if
it does refresh your recollection.

Your stepfather died in August of 1939. In the winter of 1940, early,
sometime in January 1940, your mother took you and your brother,
Robert, out of school, you were in the William Frantz Elementary School
at that time, and placed you in the Catholic school.

Mr. PIC. I think prior or right after this Catholic school there was
another school which was in downtown New Orleans. It was a day school.
She would bring us there in the morning and take us home at night. I
don't remember too much. We didn't stay there very long.

Mr. JENNER. It is your definite recollection, however, that you were
at the Catholic orphanage school in the winter of 1940, which would be
approximately 5 months after the death of your stepfather.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't make that statement. I make the statement
that it is my definite recollection I was in the Infant Jesus College
School while we lived in this house on Alvez. What months these were,
sir, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. And it is the best of your recollection at the present time
that that was the school period ending in the summer of 1940?

Mr. PIC. I think so, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your recollection as to the school you attended
commencing the school year September 1940? Did you return to William
Frantz?

Mr. PIC. I went to George Washington--if I was there at William Frantz,
I don't remember. Well, the dates you give me it would be----

Mr. JENNER. A short time?

Mr. PIC. Right. I remember George Washington.

Mr. JENNER. Were you living at home at that time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was that 1242 Congress?

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Would a map of New Orleans help you any?

Mr. PIC. Possible; I don't remember this Congress, I remember a green
house, this was a green house I remember. What street it was on, I
don't know. But I do remember something about a green house.

Mr. JENNER. Was it in the French quarter, in the old city?

Mr. PIC. The way I remember the French quarter is down in here
somewhere, and this is certainly not the French quarter. Here is this
Gretna. It may be in Algiers that Infant Jesus, one of these two,
either Gretna or Algiers. I think it was Gretna.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother said it was Algiers, and there is evidence that
it was located in Algiers.

Mr. PIC. OK, sir; Algiers. I know it was across the river.

Mr. JENNER. You do have a recollection, however, of living in a house
on Bartholomew?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you happen to remember, you don't remember now the exact
address?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It was at 1010 Bartholomew. Did you live in the 1010
Bartholomew house?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was it before or during, or when was it with respect to
when you and Robert entered the Bethlehem Orphanage?

Mr. PIC. We was living there when I went to Washington.

Mr. JENNER. George Washington Elementary School at 3810 St. Cloud?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Our records show your mother purchased the 1010 Bartholomew
property in March of 1941, March 9 to be exact.

Mr. PIC. When I was at Infant Jesus College, I couldn't very well
remember that Congress Street because I probably--we wasn't living
there.

Mr. JENNER. You weren't living----

Mr. PIC. At home.

Mr. JENNER. No.

Mr. PIC. So, I am afraid I can't remember that Congress Street address.
I remember a green house.

Mr. JENNER. A green house.

Mr. PIC. Yes; that is about the best I can do.

Mr. JENNER. In any event it was a house different from or other than
the 2109 Alvar?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In which you were living at the time of the death of your
stepfather?

Mr. PIC. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is good enough. You remember being with your brother
Robert in the Bethlehem Orphanage?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your initial utterance voluntarily was that you entered
there in 1942.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it was right after the war.

Mr. JENNER. The records show that it was in the month of January
1942. You were then 10 years old so you might have some reasonable
recollection of it. Tell us the circumstances and what you understand
about it.

Mr. PIC. Well, while we lived on this Bartholomew Street my mother
opened in the front room a little store called Oswald's Notion Shop. I
think she sold spools of thread and needles and things like this.

Mr. JENNER. Did she sell any sweets or candy for children?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I remember we used to go in there and swipe it.

Mr. JENNER. Was your mother working at that time other than managing or
operating this little notions and sweet shop?

Mr. PIC. Not that I remember, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And it was in a segment of the home at 1010 Bartholomew?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it was the very front room.

Mr. JENNER. And you boys were then attending school where?

Mr. PIC. Washington.

Mr. JENNER. When I say you boys, it is your brother Robert and yourself.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I am sure Robert was attending school then. It was
Washington.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. Your brother Robert entered grammar school on
September 8, 1938. That was William Frantz so he was of school age at
the time we are talking about.

Describe that little house to us on Bartholomew. Was it a new house?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; it wasn't new. I guess it had about a minimum of two
bedrooms, rather large back yard. We had a dog, and the dog's name was
Sunshine. There was a fence ran down it. I remember the house.

Mr. JENNER. Was it a nice neighborhood?

Mr. PIC. It wasn't as nice as Alvez and Galvez.

Mr. JENNER. At that time. I see. Now, you lead me to ask something I
should have asked heretofore, tell me about the neighborhood at 2109
Alvar. What do you recall about that?

Mr. PIC. They were all brand new houses. In fact, I think we were the
first ones to move in on the street, and most of the other ones were
under construction there. William Frantz was building a new school. It
was a rather nice neighborhood. Middle income, I guess, at that time.

Mr. JENNER. And the 1010 Bartholomew home was not as new and the
neighborhood was not quite the same as at 2109 Alvar, but what kind
of a neighborhood was it? Was it a reasonably nice place, area? You
describe it. Don't ever let me put words in your mouth.

Mr. PIC. Well, digging back in my sociology courses, I would say it was
upper-lower class, if there is such a classification.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember any neighbors at 1010 Bartholomew?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; there was a milkman, his name was Bud. Right on the
other corner from Bartholomew, on St. Cloud was a theater, I think was
called the Nola, and he lived behind this theater, he was our milkman,
and my mother and his wife and him were rather friendly, and we used to
go on trips on the weekends to the parks and things like this.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I ask you again what you recall to have been the
circumstances under which you entered the Bethlehem Orphanage, you and
your brother Robert?

Mr. PIC. I can only give you impressions, I have now, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are these impressions that you gained now, gained from an
attempt to refresh your recollection?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. As to the circumstances at that time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. I think properly the notion store wasn't a booming business,
and she had to go to work and since we were reminded we were orphans
all the time, the right place to be would be in an orphan home.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother did remind you repeatedly that you were orphans?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That sort of thing. Would you elaborate on that, please?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; she constantly reminded us we were orphans, that
she didn't have the money to support us in everything, and she opened a
notion store to make money, and she wasn't making money, and I remember
she closed it and went to work at about the same time that we entered
Bethlehem.

Mr. JENNER. In January 1942, Lee was a little over 2 years old, is that
correct; he was born October 1939.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were then 10 and your brother Robert was 8, I am
talking about approximate ages now.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I think you entered Bethlehem before your tenth birthday.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And a few months before his eighth birthday. Did Lee
eventually join you at Bethlehem?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he did. The exact date I don't remember. I know
he was there for only a matter of months. He wasn't there as long as
Robert and I was.

Mr. JENNER. I show you a document I will have marked as John Pic
Exhibit No. 2, please, for purposes of identification which appears
to be a Xerox reproduction of an application blank executed by Mrs.
Marguerite Oswald and related minutes for admission of Lee Oswald to
the Evangelical Lutheran Bethlehem Orphan Asylum Association, dated at
New Orleans, December 26, 1942, and showing entry of Lee Oswald into
the orphanage asylum on the 26th day of December 1942.

(John Pic Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Sergeant, I direct your attention to the line on which
appears what purports to be the signature of "Mrs. Marguerite Oswald."
You are familiar with the handwriting, are you not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Of your mother Marguerite?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And with her signature?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Drawing on that familiarity, is that signature the
signature of your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence the document now identified as John Pic
Exhibit No. 2.

Having done that, Sergeant, does that refresh your recollection as to
the time when your brother Lee Oswald was admitted to the orphanage
asylum?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall it to have been sometime in late 1942 or
thereabout?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your recollection as to when he was--he joined you
at the orphan asylum.

Mr. PIC. I remember we were there a while, sir. He came, and to the
best of my recollection he didn't stay but 6 months at the longest, and
left again. I don't think--he wasn't there as long as we were.

Mr. JENNER. I direct your attention, Sergeant, to the fact your mother
has listed on this application her address as 111 Sherwood Forest Drive.

Mr. PIC. That address is familiar to me. Sherwood Forest Drive part of
it, the numbers are not.

Mr. JENNER. I wouldn't expect you to remember the exact number but the
street you do recall?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I do. In fact, the Murrets lived on the same street.

Mr. JENNER. Is it your impression then that the address of 111 Sherwood
Forest Drive was probably the address of the Murrets?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I wouldn't say that.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall your mother moving out of 1010 Bartholomew?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And so that it is your recollection that sometime between
your entry into the Bethlehem Orphanage at which time the family lived
at 1010 Bartholomew, that your mother and Lee or at least your mother
left, it must have been your mother and Lee, left the 1010 Bartholomew
residence and moved to another home on Sherwood Drive?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that. You put it in sequence as best you can.

Mr. PIC. If there was anything between Bartholomew and Sherwood Forest
Drive, I don't remember, sir. I do remember the Sherwood Forest Drive
house, and if I remember right it was three or four doors down from the
Murrets.

Mr. JENNER. Where would that be in your recollection with respect to
Bartholomew?

Mr. PIC. Oh, that is way across town, sir. That is in the city park
area. In fact, it was only a block from city park.

Mr. JENNER. And Lee was then--your mother had him with her because at
this time, December 1942, he was just a little over 3 years old.

Mr. PIC. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. The records show that the 1010 Bartholomew home was sold
on the 16th of January 1942. Does that refresh your recollection as to
sequence that prior to her sale of the house she moved out of the house
and over to Sherwood Drive and the placing of you boys in the Bethlehem
orphanage school was all part of the picture? She sold the Bartholomew
house, entered you boys in the orphanage in January 1942.

Mr. PIC. You want to know if I think she sold the house before we were
placed in the home?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But after you were in the home, that is the Bethlehem
Orphanage Home that house was disposed of in some fashion at least?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And she moved into another house on Sherwood Drive?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, do you remember anybody, an uncle of yours by
the name of John Oswald?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Or----

Mr. PIC. I remember an uncle on my stepfather's side. I don't recall
his name, sir.

Mr. JENNER. W. S. Oswald, is that familiar to you?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But other than an uncle on your stepfather's side, that is
you don't recall his name, his first name?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. His name was Oswald, though?

Mr. PIC. I know it was on his side, sir. It may have been his sister, I
don't know. Maybe his brother-in-law.

Mr. JENNER. But you don't know.

I will identify as John Pic Exhibit No. 3 another application blank,
this one dated January 3, 1942, for admission of Robert Edward Oswald,
Jr., to the Evangelical Lutheran Bethlehem Orphan Asylum, which is
dated January 3, 1942, and direct you, Sergeant to the signature
appearing on that exhibit reading "Mrs. Lee Oswald." Are you familiar
with that signature?

Mr. PIC. That is the first time I have ever seen her use the word "Lee."

Mr. JENNER. But the handwriting; that is her handwriting?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence a document now identified as John Pic
Exhibit No. 3.

(John Pic Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, directing your attention to that exhibit which shows
the entry of your brother Robert in the orphanage asylum on January 3,
1942, is it a fact that you and your brother Robert entered the asylum
at the same time?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I direct your attention to this. There appears in the line
designated "mother" written in longhand Marguerite Claverie Oswald,
address, 1010 Bartholomew, and then right above it there is written 831
Pauline Street--January 28.

Do you recall your mother moving with Lee to a place on Pauline Street
in January of 1942?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All you recall is that she and Lee did move to a place,
another place from the 1010 Bartholomew address?

Mr. PIC. Well, it shows it there. I thought it was Sherwood Forest, I
don't know.

Mr. JENNER. It might have been shortly after that?

Mr. PIC. This is not familiar at all, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is the 831 Pauline Street address is not at all
familiar?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is any of this application blank, that is any of the
longhand on it, in the hand of your mother other than her signature?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your religion is Lutheran, is it not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were baptized in the Lutheran church, were you not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your recollection is that your brother Lee was taken from
the orphanage home before you and Robert were?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were released in June of 1944?

Mr. PIC. I have--I may have. If you say it was June, sir, OK. It was
May or June.

Mr. JENNER. May or June of 1944. And does it refresh your recollection
that your brother Lee was released from that home the previous January,
as a matter of fact on----

Mr. PIC. He didn't go when we went and he didn't leave, all I know is
he didn't enter when we entered and he didn't leave when we left. It
was between those periods the best I can state.

Mr. JENNER. The record (Pic Exhibit) shows he was released from the
home on the 19th of January, 1944 (Pic Exhibit No. 2A), and that he
entered the home on the 26th of December, 1942 (Pic Exhibit No. 2).

So he was there 2 years.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; that is not right.

Mr. JENNER. That doesn't square with your recollection, you mean?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. He may have been in and out of there off and on but
he didn't spend full time there that long. You see she may have pulled
him out there for a couple of weeks to stay with the Murrets, and
things or even longer and still have him charged against Bethlehem.

Mr. JENNER. I misspoke when I said 2 years. It would be the period from
December 26, 1942, to January 29, 1944, which is 1 year and 1 month.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; that would only be a year and 1 month.

Mr. JENNER. For the record then that span of time for your brother
between January 29, 1944, when he was released, and December 26, 1942,
when he entered is approximately 13 months.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is about what you remember, isn't it?

Mr. PIC. Well, I remember it about 6 months. But I guess that is right.
I know he wasn't in there a full 13 months at a clip. He was in and out
of there in 13 months. At that school if your parents wanted to take
you home for a couple or 3 weeks they took you home for a couple or 3
weeks.

Mr. JENNER. And you do remember your mother did that?

Mr. PIC. Sure, I am sure he stayed at the Murrets also.

Mr. JENNER. Well, the Murrets recall that. Now, I show you an exhibit
which we will identify as John Pic Exhibit No. 4 which for purposes of
identification is a Xerox duplication of a letter from Mrs. Marguerite
Oswald to the Reverend Harold of the Evangelical Lutheran Orphanage
Asylum dated February 1, 1945, addressed 4801 Victor, Dallas, Tex.

It is in longhand. Would you please examine it for the purpose of
answering a question I will put to you as to whether it is in the
handwriting of your mother?

Mr. PIC. It appears to me, sir; to be her handwriting.

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence John Pic Exhibit No. 4.

(John Pic Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I have marked as John Pic Exhibit No. 5 another application
for admission to Evangelical Lutheran Bethlehem Orphan Asylum
Association dated December 23, 1942, for the admission of John Edward
Pic and Robert Oswald to that orphanage, but the information on the
application is confined to John Edward Pic.

Unfortunately, Mr. Pic, this application, for some reason by oversight
was not signed by your mother. Do you remember a pastor by the name of
Rev. J. H. Nau?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At the Redeemer Lutheran Church?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, Mr. Reporter, for purposes of the record, there
appears on this application the fact that the marriage of Sergeant
Pic's mother Marguerite and his father Edward John Pic, Jr. was at
Gulfport, La.

Mr. PIC. Mississippi.

Mr. JENNER. No, it says Gulfport, La. here and should have been
Gulfport, Miss.?

Mr. PIC. Yes; Mississippi.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a pastor by the name of Reverend Scherer?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The Trinity Evangelical Church.

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a Rev. M. R. Lecron?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Of the Redeemer Church?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, all you boys were christened in the Lutheran
church, faith, were you not?

Mr. PIC. I don't know or remember if Lee was. I don't know about Lee.

Mr. JENNER. The record of the Bethlehem Children's Home show that he
was baptized by the Rev. M. R. Lecron of the Redeemer Lutheran Church.
The exact date, however, is not given.

Mr. PIC. They even have his birthday wrong there.

Mr. JENNER. 1 day. They have it as the 19th whereas it was 18th. As a
matter of fact, your mother on one of her papers fixes it on the 19th.

Mr. PIC. So does one of the letters.

Mr. JENNER. I offer John Pic Exhibit No. 5 in evidence.

(John Pic Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. We will adjourn now and reconvene at 3 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the proceeding was recessed.)


TESTIMONY OF JOHN EDWARD PIC RESUMED

The proceeding was reconvened at 3:25 p.m.

Mr. JENNER. All right, Sergeant.

Do you recall along about this time that you were in the Bethlehem
Orphanage your mother became acquainted with a man by the name of E. A.
Ekdahl and subsequently married?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And it was about this time, around 1944, that you boys were
withdrawn from the Bethlehem Orphanage and taken to Texas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I will go back a little bit because I want you to put
it in sequence. Before we adjourned for noon recess, I covered the
matter of the period of the birth of Lee, the death of your stepfather
Lee Oswald, and then brought you up to the Bethlehem School and stopped
there.

To the extent you have impressions commencing with, let us say, your
entry into grammar school, at that time your stepfather Lee Oswald was
alive.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were, when you entered grammar school that was
kindergarten you were only four and half years old.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall moving from place to place before you finally
settled in----

Mr. PIC. I just remember one residence prior to Alvez and Galvez.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. Where that would have been, I don't remember.

Mr. JENNER. OK. But you sort of settled down in 2109 Alvar?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That your stepfather had purchased that home in 1938?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And then you went along, he died about a year and a half
later after he purchased it.

Take us from the time that your stepfather died and tell us your
impressions of how the home life changed; if it did change, what
effect, if any, you observed that you now can recall that circumstances
had on your mother; and what kind of life you and the boys began to
lead as distinguished from the life you led while your stepfather was
alive if there is any change now.

I don't want to put any words in your mouth.

Mr. PIC. Well, we were from the time of his death, placed in two
boarding schools prior to Bethlehem, this Infant Jesus, and the other
one I don't recall the name of, the other one being a day school.

Mr. JENNER. Sort of a day school, your mother took you in the morning
and brought you back. That is two of the boys, not Lee?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He was almost a suckling child?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember. I don't see how he could have been there.

Now this day school was prior to Infant Jesus, it had to be. We went
to Infant Jesus and out of there back home for a year or so where we
attended Washington and then into Bethlehem.

Like I said before, we were constantly reminded we were orphans and had
financial difficulty.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, sir; when you just talked about Washington and
Bethlehem you put Washington before Bethlehem, and this morning you put
Washington into Bethlehem.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; we went to Washington before Bethlehem.

Mr. JENNER. I think you will find that the record of this morning, I am
pretty sure, will show a different sequence. That is your impression,
that you went into Bethlehem a few months after your stepfather died?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; Infant Jesus.

Mr. JENNER. Infant Jesus. I see. Go ahead. You are right.

Mr. PIC. We were constantly reminded we were orphans and there were
financial difficulties, and I was rather young, I don't remember
too much about this, but it was always something to do about money
problems. We kind of liked Infant Jesus, it wasn't bad at all. We had a
pretty good childhood while we lived on Bartholomew Street, there were
no major problems there. And even at Bethlehem we both, Robert and I
enjoyed Bethlehem. I mean we were all there with the kids with the same
problems, same age groups, and everything. Things for myself became
worse when Lee came there, that is why I know he wasn't there too long.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about it?

Mr. PIC. At Bethlehem they had a ruling that if you had a younger
brother or sister there they had bowel movements in their pants the
older brothers would clean them up, and they would yank me out of
classes in school to go do this and, of course, this peeved me very
much, and I wasn't but 10 or 9 or 11.

Mr. JENNER. He was only 3 years old?

Mr. PIC. Yes; but I was 10. And they did quite a few things like this.
If there was an older brother or sister there they had to take care of
the younger child. The people there didn't all the time.

Mr. JENNER. Was this 7-year spread as the years went on between you and
Lee, did that affect your relationship with him as distinguished from
your relationship with your brother Robert who was only 2 years younger?

Mr. PIC. Well, anything I was involved in Robert always was. Lee was
left out because of the age difference. Robert and I went to all these
homes together and all the schools together. Lee didn't, of course.

Mr. JENNER. During the course of the years your companions and friends,
I assume were different, that is you and Robert on the one hand?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And Lee on the other?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. His life differed a little from yours too, didn't it, that
is at the outset of this early period your mother, except for this
period at Bethlehem, when he was there, except for his being withdrawn
for a few weeks at a time, he was largely with her?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Living with her?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And did she express problems on her part with him?

Mr. PIC. Well, she referred how would she work and take care of a child
and things like this, both. It would seem that the problem with Robert
and I was easier to solve than the problem with Lee.

Mr. JENNER. I interrupted you. Go ahead with your account.

Mr. PIC. Well, up until we left Bethlehem, I can only recall three
places of employment for Mrs. Oswald, one being Oswald's notion store
which was 1941-42, thereabouts.

Mr. JENNER. While you had the Bethlehem house?

Mr. PIC. No; that was before Bethlehem.

Mr. JENNER. I don't mean Bethlehem, Bartholomew Street?

Mr. PIC. Yes; after we were placed in Bethlehem she was a manager of
Princess Hosiery on Canal Street and Pittsburgh Plate and Glass Co., I
don't remember which one came first.

Mr. JENNER. Myrtle Evans referred to Pittsburgh Plate and Lillian
Murret referred to Pittsburgh Plate. You do recall that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; in fact, I think at the time she worked at
Pittsburgh Plate she was going with Mr. Ekdahl. In fact, I think I
remember him driving us over there or something once.

Mr. JENNER. When you were at Bethlehem, did your Aunt Lillian ever have
occasion to visit?

Mr. PIC. She never visited us that I recall. We visited her many times.

Mr. JENNER. While you were at Bethlehem?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall Myrtle Evans visiting on any occasion?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember. Wait a minute. Myrtle Evans, is she kind of
heavy?

Mr. JENNER. She is now.

Mr. PIC. She was then too, that is the same one.

Mr. JENNER. Energetic?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I remember a Myrtle.

Mr. JENNER. She had taken some accounting and----

Mr. PIC. The name is familiar, sir. I can't place the lady.

Mr. JENNER. She had been a girl friend of your mother's?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I wouldn't speculate whether she visited us or not at
Bethlehem, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember the Evanses coming over to see you when you
were at Covington, one time?

Mr. PIC. I don't recollect, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recollect Myrtle Evans coming and visiting when you
first went to Texas?

Mr. PIC. Sir; I don't remember Myrtle Evans that much. The name Myrtle
is familiar to me. Just like this woman that worked at Holmes for 30
years is familiar to me. Where I had seen her and different places?

Mr. JENNER. H-o-l-m-e-s?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this is a department store in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. Of course you would recall the Murret family.

Mr. PIC. Yes; I recall them very good.

Mr. JENNER. There were a couple of those children about your age and
Robert's, is that right?

Mr. PIC. I can only--let's see, Charles, there is Marilyn and Charles.

Mr. JENNER. Marilyn is the youngest?

Mr. PIC. Marilyn is the youngest, no, sir; Boogie is the youngest.

Mr. JENNER. B-o-o-g-i-e?

Mr. PIC. What is he doing now. I heard he was playing semipro ball.

Mr. JENNER. No. He is not doing that any more. Is Boogie John?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I think----

Mr. JENNER. One is a dentist, one is with Squibb, Gene is a seminarian.

Mr. PIC. Gene is the priest. Gene is the one who is my age or
thereabouts. Boogie was closer to Robert's age.

Mr. JENNER. She had five children?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Marilyn.

Mr. PIC. Joyce.

Mr. JENNER. Marilyn, Joyce, John, Gene----

Mr. PIC. Charles.

Mr. JENNER. And Charles. They are all alive?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. That was a fairly lively family, apparently all nice people.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; we enjoyed going there very much.

Mr. JENNER. How did Lee get along with them?

Mr. PIC. Well, I don't know how he got along with them. I know he was
placed there several times to stay for a while. I don't know if the
people resented this or was glad to have him or not.

Mr. JENNER. Well, they were glad to have him. They appeared to me to be
generous people.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. We always could count on our uncle for a dollar or
two.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. I take it from the questions I asked you this morning
that you had little or no contact with your stepfather's family, with
the Oswald family?

Mr. PIC. There was no contact that I remember at all, sir, after his
death. Prior to his death, there was quite a bit of contact from what
I remember. I remember maybe it was his mother, grandmother we would
visit. He had this other Oswald who was either a brother or sister
or something, we visited these people. I remember the older woman we
visited always gave us kids, including me, it was just Robert and I, a
whole bunch of toys for Christmas every Christmas. But after his death,
there was no contact at all, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your impression as to why that took place?

Mr. PIC. I will speculate and say that----

Mr. JENNER. Give me the impression you have rather than speculate.

Mr. PIC. They couldn't get along with Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. With your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall an incident, sergeant, when your mother went
to work in 1942, and she had a couple, a Mr. and Mrs. Roach taking care
of Lee who was then----

Mr. PIC. What was Roach's first name, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Thomas.

Mr. PIC. What street did he live on?

Mr. JENNER. 831 Pauline.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't. The only one I could think of that may have
taken care of Lee was this milkman Bud and his wife.

Mr. JENNER. To help refresh your recollection, it is a fact that your
mother lived with Lee at 831 Pauline Street in 1942, and a couple
present there by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Roach, Thomas and Dora
Roach. They had been living on de Lessups Street in New Orleans, in the
800 block.

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And moved into 831 Pauline, or your mother moved into 831
Pauline Street with them. There was a whole question as to who was the
renter, whether it was the Roaches or your mother?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; this I don't recall at all.

Mr. JENNER. And it wasn't long after they were there that some
difficulty arose with respect to Lee and that ended that. It was about
6 weeks or a month, 2 months. But you have no recollection of that?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. The question I asked you and which I keep
interrupting in was to give me your impressions of change, if any, with
the coming of the death of your stepfather, and you were in the course
of recounting that.

Mr. PIC. Well, it struck me or it strikes me that we became lower and
lower in the class structure.

Mr. JENNER. As your financial status----

Mr. PIC. And our class structure, both.

Mr. JENNER. Would you elaborate on that? Your financial status went
down?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And then you say lower in the class structure?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about that?

Mr. PIC. I would say we were in the middle classes while we lived on
Alvez.

Mr. JENNER. While your father was alive?

Mr. PIC. And, being we moved to Bartholomew, and being in orphan homes,
I think we went to the upper lower class, one class structure dropped,
two class structures dropped, something like that.

Mr. JENNER. Were you conscious of that even as a 10-year-old?

Mr. PIC. Well, I realized that we weren't living as good as we used to,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. Go ahead.

Mr. PIC. Well, once we were placed in an orphan home, and we were with
our own kind, so to speak. I had no feelings whatsoever. I mean, we
enjoyed that place. They were rather strict but we enjoyed it. We had
quite a bit of freedom even though they were strict. We would sneak out
of the place at night and do all kinds of childish things. But Robert
and I enjoyed it.

Mr. JENNER. I am thinking more of your relations with your mother. Was
her personality affected by the death of your stepfather?

Mr. PIC. Probably she confided and put to me most of her problems since
she didn't have a husband to do this with, always referring to me as
the oldest and things like this. When we were in Bethlehem we didn't
see that much of her.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. Maybe once every 2 weeks, that would be the most often. Maybe
once in a while she would drop around.

Mr. JENNER. While you were at Bethlehem did you visit the Murrets?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; several times, lots of times. You see the home once
or twice a year, would take us to the city park there in New Orleans.
We would get on the rides and naturally the Murrets were right there,
and so we would rent bikes for free. It was on the home and I would
ride over to their house and visit with them a while, so did Robert.
Whenever we had a chance we were more than glad to go there.

Mr. JENNER. While at least through the Bethlehem Orphanage period your
present recollection is you accommodated to circumstances and within
the limits of the circumstances your impression is that you lived a
reasonably happy life?

Mr. PIC. We enjoyed it.

Mr. JENNER. Like all children you accommodated yourself to the
circumstances?

Mr. PIC. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Well, I think probably a good new start off point is Mr.
Ekdahl. Tell us your recollection of him, what led up, your present
recollection of the circumstances which brought him into your lives and
when you first were aware of his existence and what your circumstance
was at that time, what your mother's was?

Mr. PIC. Okay.

Mr. JENNER. Give times as best you can.

Mr. PIC. If you can date for me when I had my appendix out I can
practically date for you Mr. Ekdahl's----

Mr. JENNER. I am afraid I can't. Were you at Bethlehem Orphanage?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I was at Bethlehem so it would be either 1943 or 1944,
and I am sure she was at Pittsburgh at that time.

Mr. JENNER. Pittsburgh Plate?

Mr. PIC. Right. And it was right after I had my appendix out that he
appeared on the scene. And she visited us more often when she was
going with him.

Mr. JENNER. And she brought him with her, did she?

Mr. PIC. Yes; he had the car.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, did your mother have an automobile during this
period following your stepfather's death?

Mr. PIC. I don't think so, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But Mr. Ekdahl did have an automobile?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he had a 1938 Buick.

Mr. JENNER. And your mother visited you more often?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. And they on weekends took us to Covington. I remember once, it
may have been more.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I wanted to ask you about that. While your
stepfather was still alive, did you occasionally visit Covington?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; we did.

Mr. JENNER. Covington, as I understand it, Covington, La., is sort of a
summer resort area, is it not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it is on the--it is north of New Orleans on the
northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain, and the Murrets used to go
to Mandeville, which is about 30 miles closer to New Orleans than
Covington was, and we used to visit them back and forth during the
summer.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall the names of any of those people that
you--whose homes you, the summer resort homes that you rented during
the summer period?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my recollection, sir, we were in cabins at
these tourist places. We were never at anybody's home. The Murrets
were, I believe, at somebody's home in Mandeville. They had a large
house there.

Mr. JENNER. Does Mrs. Benny C-o-m-m-a-n-c-e, is that name familiar to
you?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At 600 West 24th Street, Covington, familiar to you?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Does the address 311 Vermont stimulate your recollection
over in Covington?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; if it was this time period it doesn't. That may have
been the street we lived on when we went there in 1946, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I ask you to relate the circumstances respecting
Mr. Ekdahl.

Mr. PIC. Well, in June 1944, we were removed from Bethlehem, and----

Mr. JENNER. Did you know about that in advance? Were you aware you were
going to be removed and why?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember how much in advance we knew this. We knew
maybe a couple of weeks ahead of time.

Mr. JENNER. Or maybe the more important thing is why were you being
removed from Bethlehem? What were the circumstances of bringing that
about?

Mr. PIC. Well, she was marrying Mr. Ekdahl, and if you had two parents
they wouldn't allow you to stay at Bethlehem.

Mr. JENNER. She was not yet married to him?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Didn't marry him until the 5th of March 1945?

Mr. PIC. That is about right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. So you were removed in June or May 1944, and the record
shows in June. Describe Mr. Ekdahl, please, to the extent you now have
a recollection?

Mr. PIC. He was----

Mr. JENNER. Who was he? Who did you understand he was?

Mr. PIC. He was an electrical engineer. His home was in Boston, Mass.,
somewhere around there. He was described to us as a Yankee, of course.
Rather tall, I think he was over 6 feet. He had white hair, wore
glasses, very nice man.

Mr. JENNER. Very nice man. I take it he was older than your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he appeared to be somewhat older, quite a bit.

Mr. JENNER. A man of at least, apparently of considerably better means
than your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Than you boys had been accustomed to?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What about his health, what did you understand as to that?

Mr. PIC. I have no recollection of knowing anything about his health at
that time, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I see. When you were taken from Bethlehem Orphanage in June
of 1944, where did you go?

Mr. PIC. Dallas, Tex., sir.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recall where you lived in Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. PIC. I remember what the house looks like, sir. I don't remember
the address. You can probably refresh me on that.

Mr. JENNER. I will do so and I want to make it accurate. 4801 Victor
was the address.

Mr. PIC. That sounds familiar.

Mr. JENNER. In Dallas. Would you please describe that 4801 Victor
Street home?

Mr. PIC. It was white, two story.

Mr. JENNER. Frame, brick?

Mr. PIC. Frame. I think it contained four apartments, maybe only two. I
am pretty sure it was four though, two up and two down. We lived on the
lower right, in boxcar-type rooms.

Mr. JENNER. What do you mean by that?

Mr. PIC. Well, railroad style, living room, bedroom, bathroom, bedroom,
kitchen.

Mr. JENNER. One lined the other, you mean?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I see. With a long hallway to connect it; is that it?

Mr. PIC. The hall ran into each room as you walked by it.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; you lived there with your mother, with Lee, and with
Robert?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At the outset?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Ekdahl did not live with you when you first went to
Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection where he lived? First, was he
in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. I think he was in Fort Worth, sir. And he used to come over to
Dallas to see us. Is that right?

Mr. JENNER. I think that is right. I can't answer.

Mr. PIC. Okay.

Mr. JENNER. That was one of the reasons why I asked my first question.

Mr. PIC. I think that is the way the setup was, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I think that is so but I don't know. He would come over
from Fort Worth and visit you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You boys, when you reached Dallas in 1944, you entered
school, grammar school at that time, did you?

Mr. PIC. Robert--just a moment, sir; I remember I attended a summer
school session of the 6th grade. Robert may have. I don't really
remember. I think he did.

Mr. JENNER. We are in the summer of 1944?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; we went to summer school. I did, I know. I think he
may have.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember that it was the Davy Crockett----

Mr. PIC. No, sir; it was not the Davy Crockett. It was another school.
Davy Crockett is where we entered in September. We meanwhile went to
summer school.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. If you can give me a map of Dallas?

Mr. JENNER. You never heard of it?

Mr. PIC. Give me a map of Texas and I can show you where approximately
the school was and I will show you where it was.

Mr. JENNER. You did, after that summer school period in the summer of
1944, enter grammar school in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. That is right. Davy Crockett Elementary School. I entered the
7th grade and Robert entered the 5th.

Mr. JENNER. Let's see, Lee is now almost 5 years old. Did he enter Davy
Crockett at that time?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my recollection, no, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At that age he would be going to kindergarten anyhow. All
right, you and Robert then entered Davy Crockett?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You continued on at Davy Crockett in the fall semester?

Mr. PIC. Just a moment.

Mr. JENNER. Yes?

Mr. PIC. This house we went to in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. My mother owned it and rented the rest of it or she owned one
side of it.

Mr. JENNER. It was a duplex?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Myrtle Evans testified that she recalled visiting you,
the family, on a trip she made to Dallas on one occasion, on a buying
trip or something or accompanied a friend of hers, it was on a ladies'
apparel buying trip and she remembered it as what she called them,
two-place houses. To me they are duplexes.

Mr. PIC. Right; duplex.

Mr. JENNER. So her recollection is fairly good then. Does that affect
your recollection that it was a four-apartment building rather than it
was a two-apartment building?

Mr. PIC. I am pretty sure it was four apartments.

Mr. JENNER. Okay; go ahead.

Mr. PIC. Well, I was under the impression and always have been that she
owned the house, and there was some arrangement with Mr. Ekdahl as to
how she got it or something. She was renting to one couple upstairs, I
know; is this right?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. We are in Davy Crockett Elementary School, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Carry on.

Mr. PIC. Well, that would be September 1944. In the summer of 1945 she
married Mr. Ekdahl. I think you dated that as March or April.

Mr. JENNER. She married him, in fact, on May 7, 1945. I said March
before; I misspoke. It was May 7, 1945.

Mr. PIC. I have got summer. It is pretty good.

Mr. JENNER. Did he then move into the 4801 Victor Place?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she took a short honeymoon for a day or two and came
back and moved in.

Mr. JENNER. In the summer of 1945 did you and Robert continue on
at--through that summer in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That following September, however, you transferred to some
other school; did you not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; and we were aware of this school before the school
session ended in 1945. I knew before we left Davy Crockett we were
going.

Mr. JENNER. What was the name of that?

Mr. PIC. In September 1945, sir, Robert and I entered Chamberlain-Hunt
Academy, military school for boys, Port Gibson, Miss.

Mr. JENNER. And you were aware of that--that that was forthcoming?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; as early as May 1945 I think.

Mr. JENNER. And what were the circumstances?

Mr. PIC. Mr. Ekdahl had to travel and so we were going to boarding
school.

Mr. JENNER. I exhibited to you earlier, and you identified a letter of
your mother's dated February 1, 1945, to the Bethlehem Orphanage, John
Pic Exhibit No. 4 in which your mother is petitioning the Bethlehem
Orphanage for the return of you two boys to the orphanage.

Mr. PIC. I don't think I was aware of this letter.

Mr. JENNER. You were not aware?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. So circumstances that you can recall now of the possible
relationship between your mother and Ekdahl that might have led to her
seeking to do this?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. She says in her letter she is thinking in terms of
returning you to Bethlehem because she is going to be traveling with
her husband when she does marry him--that is Mr. Ekdahl. There was no
discussion in your presence that you can recall on that subject?

Mr. PIC. Not returning to Bethlehem, no, sir; not that I remember. I
have to find Victor Street and from there I can just about guess where
the school was. I am lost on this map. I can't find Victor Street and
where I lived.

Mr. JENNER. Was Davy Crockett Grammar School near your home at 4801
Victor Street?

Mr. PIC. About three blocks, sir. Three long blocks.

Mr. JENNER. Describe that neighborhood to us.

Mr. PIC. I think it would be middle class.

Mr. JENNER. A level up from what you had been accustomed back in New
Orleans?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. There were fine brick homes; in fact, I had a paper
route out there that I delivered, and easily middle class. Maybe some
upper middle class.

Mr. JENNER. Was your life there pleasant?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And when Mr. Ekdahl moved in were the relationships
generally among all, now five of you, pleasant?

Mr. PIC. Between Mr. Ekdahl and the three boys they were pleasant, sir.
I think there were some arguments between Mr. Ekdahl and my mother from
time to time.

Mr. JENNER. You were aware of those?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. I am going to need a map with a listing of the
schools. This one doesn't seem to have one. This summer school was
about a good 2 miles away. We walked it in the morning.

Mr. JENNER. You and Robert?

Mr. PIC. I think me and Robert. We had other friends that we went to
school with.

Mr. JENNER. Of course.

Mr. PIC. And there were always a group of us. I don't remember if
Robert went or not, sir, to tell you the truth.

Mr. JENNER. I see. When you came around to the fall of 1945, however,
you entered the Chamberlain-Hunt Military Academy?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; in fact, the trip to Chamberlain-Hunt was a side
trip because Mr. Ekdahl, my mother, and Lee were on their way to Boston
to visit his folks. And so they dropped us off at the school and then
proceeded to Boston.

Mr. JENNER. Was that a motor trip?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it was in a 1938 Buick.

Mr. JENNER. You remained at Chamberlain-Hunt Military Academy except
for summer vacation, or something of that nature, for how long?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir, you just want a blanket statement. I have got a
whole bunch of goodies while I was at Chamberlain-Hunt.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. PIC. During Christmas vacation of 1945 Robert and I received money
to go home for the Christmas holidays. We were to take the train from
Vicksburg, Miss., to Shreveport, La. These were instructions and when
we arrived at Shreveport, we were to wait for Mr. Ekdahl to pick us
up. We arrived and he wasn't there. So I think we waited around, I have
an estimate of between 1 and 2 hours, and then he showed up. He then
drove us to Fort Worth, Benbrook, Tex., and we had a house about 15
miles below Fort Worth in Benbrook, it was way out. It wasn't the same
Benbrook house, it was further. This was a brick house.

Mr. JENNER. The first house in Benbrook?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Had you known the family had moved to Benbrook, Tex.?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; because we was writing.

Mr. JENNER. Because of correspondence?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. This was your first view of that house?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us what it was; describe it to us?

Mr. PIC. It was rather isolated on one of the main highways. In fact, I
just drove that way recently and I couldn't find the place. When I went
up to Fort Worth in 1962 I was looking for the house, I couldn't find
it.

Mr. JENNER. Was it Granbury Road, Box 567, Benbrook, Tex.?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that sounds familiar. This was a brick house, with
quite a bit of ground. I think way back they told us that one of the
Roosevelt sons had a house out there, that is how I remember. We
arrived there sometime the next day or two; my mother quizzed us on why
we were so late. One reason we were late besides the wait was the heavy
fog, and I informed her we had to wait a while for Mr. Ekdahl, and she
kind of hinted to me, I think I was 15 at the time, did I see another
woman or was there anything shady about it or something. That is all I
have to say about that. She was under the impression years later, she
told me that he had met some woman in Shreveport and they were having
some fun.

Mr. JENNER. You were in Benbrook, Tex., then for the Christmas holiday?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You and Robert?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Lee was living with Mr. Ekdahl and your mother at the
Benbrook, Tex., home out on the outskirts of Fort Worth; I guess this
is----

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And you returned after the Christmas holiday to----

Mr. PIC. It would be January 1946 we returned to, back to
Chamberlain-Hunt.

Mr. JENNER. Did you return home at all from then on until the summer of
1946?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you during the summer of 1946?

Mr. PIC. In the summer of 1946, Robert and I were informed that we
would stay at the academy to attend summer session there. Well, school
let out in May and I think summer session starts in June, so there was
a waiting period of about 2 to 3 weeks, so we just stayed there. This
suited us fine. We really liked the school.

Sometime during that waiting period my mother showed up and informed us
that her and Mr. Ekdahl had separated, and she showed up with Lee, of
course, and she was going to take us to Covington where we would stay
the summer. We had--the commandant of the school was an attorney, and I
think she got some legal assistance from him about divorce proceeding
or something. She talked to him about it, I know. His name was Farrell,
Herbert D. Farrell. He was commandant of the school. Did you ever talk
to him?

Mr. JENNER. Not that I know of.

Mr. PIC. A real nice man, too. She had the car.

Mr. JENNER. The 1938 Buick?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. She had it.

Mr. JENNER. Had she taken a home or a house in Covington?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. When we arrived there she looked for a house, and
there always is one neighborhood two or three blocks from the downtown
area that we stayed in during the summers and she took a house in this
area. That address I don't remember.

Mr. JENNER. Does the address, the street Vermont Street refresh your
recollection, 311 Vermont?

Mr. PIC. The only thing I remember about the house is a lady next door
was plagued by squirrels throwing nuts on her roof because she was out
every morning chasing them with a broom.

Mr. JENNER. The squirrels?

Mr. PIC. The squirrels. This was a one-story brick house, and we lived
on the right side.

Mr. JENNER. You stayed there throughout the summer?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you return to Chamberlain-Hunt that fall?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; we returned to Chamberlain-Hunt in September 1946.
Then for the Christmas holidays, 1946, 1947, we returned to Covington
where she and Lee still were, and spent those holidays there. During
those holidays we made one trip to New Orleans with this other boy who
lived in Covington also that we went to school with, and they were
driving to New Orleans so we all bummed a ride and went to New Orleans
and visited the Murrets a day or so. I think it was 1 day.

Mr. JENNER. Did your mother accompany you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Had Lee entered grammar school at this time?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Our records show that he entered----

Mr. PIC. He probably did.

Mr. JENNER. He entered in September 19, 1946, and continued to January
23, 1947, old Covington Grammar School.

Mr. PIC. Probably.

Mr. JENNER. Is that your impression at the time that he was in school,
he is now 7 years old?

Mr. PIC. I think he had to be in school or they came and got him. My
next note says that sometime between January 1947 until May 1947 Mr.
Ekdahl and my mother were reunited. Robert and I----

Mr. JENNER. Had she returned to----

Mr. PIC. To Fort Worth. She didn't return to Fort Worth. They moved
to Fort Worth. We had never been to Fort Worth before that except in
Benbrook.

Mr. JENNER. I see. This was from Benbrook, Tex., to Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. Right. This address I don't remember, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Does the address 1505 Eighth Avenue, Fort Worth, refresh
your recollection?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is it.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. PIC. OK. During that summer her and Mr. Ekdahl had their ins and
outs.

Mr. JENNER. You were home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I was assistant manager of an ice cream parlor. Now
let's go back further than that. When we first got there I got a job
for the summer at Walgreen's, and I worked there for a couple of weeks
before they fired me.

Mr. JENNER. You are now 15 years old?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. And while I was working there I met this other
boy, his name was Sammy, his last name I don't remember, he was from
California. He was working in Walgreen's in Fort Worth, also. So, after
I lost my job at Walgreen's I got this other job, assistant manager of
Tex-Gold Ice Cream Parlor which was on Eighth Avenue, about 6 blocks
from the house.

Mr. JENNER. Describe that house, please.

Mr. PIC. It was the second house from the corner. On the corner lived
the McLeans who was an attorney and I think he was her attorney or
his brother was her attorney in her divorce proceedings. They had a
couple of boys we became friendly with. The house itself was a brick, I
remember brick with a garage in the back. I think there was an upstairs
or side.

Mr. JENNER. Describe the neighborhood, please.

Mr. PIC. I would say it would be middle class.

Mr. JENNER. It was comparable to the neighborhood you lived in at 4801
Victor in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. I was assistant manager of this Tex-Gold Ice Cream
Parlor.

Mr. JENNER. What was Robert doing?

Mr. PIC. Nothing.

Mr. JENNER. He didn't work?

Mr. PIC. I don't think so.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. That is right, he was playing around with girls at that time.

Like I said, my mother and Mr. Ekdahl were having problems. It would
seem they would have a fight about every other day and he would leave
and come back. Well, it seems one night, as I was returning from work,
I think we closed the store about 10 o'clock, Mr. Ekdahl and she drove
up and told me that they wouldn't be home that night, that they were
going downtown to the Worth Hotel. This was one of their reunions, and
this was one of their longer separation periods.

So, I went back and I told Lee and Robert, and this seemed to really
elate Lee, this made him really happy that they were getting back
together. Mr. Ekdahl, while Robert and I were at the academy would
write us, he was a great one for writing poetry. He would send us a
poem about ourselves or something, treated us real swell. Well----

Mr. JENNER. I--what is your impression of Mr. Ekdahl, did Lee like him?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is your definite impression that he liked him.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I think Lee found in him the father he never had. He
had treated him real good and I am sure that Lee felt the same way, I
know he did. He felt the same way about it, because Mr. Ekdahl treated
all of us like his own children.

Mr. JENNER. There appears to be in the file at Chamberlain-Hunt
Military Academy a letter from Mr. Ekdahl to your--to you boys dated
August 1946, carrying a return address of the Fayette Hotel on Third
Street of Fort Worth.

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. This would be at the time when your mother was living in
Covington. During that period.

Mr. PIC. I didn't know about it.

Mr. JENNER. You have no recollection of it?

Mr. PIC. I don't know where Mr. Ekdahl was when she was in Covington. I
know he was in the Fort Worth-Dallas area is all I knew.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother and Ekdahl, this incident you mentioned, you
mentioned that because it impressed you that they were getting back
together again, more friendly?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I mentioned it because it impressed Lee.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. I think it impressed him more than it did either of the older
boys.

Mr. JENNER. Did anything else occur during that summer?

Mr. PIC. A whole bunch of stuff.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. PIC. I think this is the same summer when we made the raid. I don't
know if you know about the raid or not.

Mr. JENNER. I don't think so.

Mr. PIC. Well, this guy Sammy that I knew had another--knew a couple,
a young married couple named Marvin and Goldie, I don't remember
their last names, sir, and Sammy and I were friends, Sammy lived in a
downtown hotel, and Marvin and Goldie had a house somewhere in the Fort
Worth area. So we became friendly the four of us, and then they would
come over to my house, and they got to know my mother and everything.
Well, after they broke up again, after this last incident.

Mr. JENNER. This is still during the summer of 1947?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this is still during the summer, my mother had
strong suspicions that Mr. Ekdahl was seeing another woman and she
was following him, I don't know how. I know she had the lead, she knew
where the woman lived and everything.

So, one night Marvin, Goldie, Sammy, my mother and I all piled into
this young couple's car, went over to these apartments, and Sammy acted
as a messenger, and knocked on the door and said, "Telegram" for this
woman, whoever she was. I don't remember the name. When she opened
the door, my mother pushed her way in, this woman was dressed in a
nightgown negligee, Mr. Ekdahl was seated in the living room in his
shirt sleeves and she made a big fuss about this. She's got him now and
all this stuff. That is about it. Well, that is all to that incident.

In September, Robert--well, in August--Robert and I in September
returned to Chamberlain-Hunt, this is September 1947. During the school
year 1947-48 I was informed about divorce proceedings. Christmas
holidays, 1947, Robert and I returned to the house on Eighth Avenue in
Fort Worth and those are the pictures of Lee sitting on the bike, it is
in that time period.

Mr. JENNER. Let's identify those. I hand you Pic Exhibit Nos. 52 and 53.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this was taken during that time period. This is the
front lawn of the house on Eighth Avenue and the white house in the
background would be that of the attorney Mr. McLean.

Mr. JENNER. Did you take those pictures?

Mr. PIC. Sir?

Mr. JENNER. Did you take the pictures?

Mr. PIC. My brother Robert and I each had a box camera we received--no,
we had the box camera before that. We took it with our box camera.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I offer those exhibits in evidence.

(John Pic Exhibits Nos. 52 and 53 were marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Was Mr. Ekdahl living in the home at that time?

Mr. PIC. We did not see him during those holidays.

Mr. JENNER. You returned to the academy following the Christmas
vacation?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you continued on through the end of that school year,
did you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; to May 1948.

Mr. JENNER. Give me your impressions of Lee, he is now getting to
be 8 or 9 years old, his attitudes and course of conduct, and his
relationships with other children, either in the neighborhood or at
school.

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; when we were home, Robert and I, of course, that
was the only time we seen Lee, he would tag along with us to the movies
and everything. He did what we did, got in the same trouble we did and
so forth. I don't remember observing him with the other children. I had
my own problems at the age of 14. We did know that during the school
year of 1947-48, divorce proceedings were going to take place shortly.

We returned from Chamberlain-Hunt in May 1948, to a house I don't
remember the address of, sir, but we were back down in the lower class
again.

Mr. JENNER. The house at----

Mr. PIC. It was right slap next to the railroad tracks.

Mr. JENNER. 3300 Willing Street, Fort Worth.

Mr. PIC. If that is next to the railroad tracks, that is it. I remember
we had to listen to the trains going back and forth. She had moved in
this house a couple or 3 months prior to us returning from school.

Mr. JENNER. The divorce had taken place in the meantime?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; it had not.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mr. Ekdahl in this lower class house?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see him during that summer?

Mr. PIC. No, sir--yes, sir. But not prior to May 1948. I seen him later
during the summer.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. You and Robert were home during that summer of 1948,
were you?

Mr. PIC. May I continue?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. When we returned home I seen this house and my first
impressions were that we are back to where we were. Lee had a dog that
a woman had given him, I think it is the same dog we have pictures
of, and I kind of had the feeling that our days at Chamberlain-Hunt
were ended even though it didn't come officially. Then sometime in the
summer of 1948, the divorce took place in Tarrant County, city of Fort
Worth. I had to testify. I think they attempted to put Lee on the stand
but he said that he wouldn't know right from wrong and the truth from a
falsehood so they excused him as a witness being he was under age.

I don't remember my testimony completely. I do remember that my mother
had made the statement that if Mr. Ekdahl ever hit her again that she
would send me in there to beat him up or, something which I doubt that
I could have done.

I was told by her that she was contesting the divorce so that he would
still support her. She lost, he won. The divorce was granted. I was
also told that there was a settlement of about $1,200 and she stated
that just about all of this went to the lawyer. Right after this is
when she purchased the house in Benbrook, Tex., the little house.

Mr. JENNER. Describe that house.

Mr. PIC. It was an L-shaped house, sir, being the top of the L was her
bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living room with a screened-in porch.
She and Lee slept together. My brother and I slept in the living room
in the screened-in porch on studio couches. When we moved into this
house and after the divorce and everything became final, I was----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall the street you were on in Benbrook; this
first house?

Mr. PIC. There were no streets. We used a post office box number up at
the post office there. Because I was sending away for stamps at the
time from different companies, and I was collecting stamps and I would
go pick up the mail at the post office.

Mr. JENNER. The first house in Benbrook was on Granbury Road, that
is your recollection? That is the one you have already mentioned
heretofore?

Mr. PIC. Granbury Road is familiar, sir, if that is the one that is way
far south of town on Granbury Road, then that is it.

Mr. JENNER. Well, there is a letter in the file at the Hunt Military
Academy in October of 1945 informing them that a new address would be
Granbury Road, Route 5, Box 567 in Benbrook.

Mr. PIC. That is the one further south of Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. That is the first one?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. The house you are now mentioning in Benbrook was the summer
of 1948 is different from the first one?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. JENNER. You can't remember the street address?

Mr. PIC. There was no street address. This was the first and only house
built there.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. They just built up this area and she got the very first house.
Two pictures there, Lee and Lee's dog and this is taken at the house in
Benbrook, that house.

Mr. JENNER. Would you select those, please?

Mr. PIC. These were taken in Covington.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, the witness has referred to two pictures marked
John Pic Exhibits Nos. 50 and 51. Those were taken when?

Mr. PIC. It would be the summer of 1946 at Covington, La.

Mr. JENNER. And those pictures are pictures of whom?

Mr. PIC. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. Holding a fish.

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence John Pic Exhibits Nos. 50 and 51.

(John Pic Exhibits Nos. 50 and 51 were marked for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The witness has now handed me two pictures, Pic Exhibits
Nos. 54 and 55 one of which shows a young boy with a black-and-white
dog, and the other shows with a house in the background. The other
shows a house in the background and a black-and-white dog in front and
an automobile. Could you decipher, referring to the exhibit numbers,
the handwriting appearing at the top of each of those? You are looking
at Exhibit what now?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 55, sir, shows Lee's dog and the family car.
This car belonged to us, that is why I brought it. The house in the
background was the one and only grocery store, groceteria, whatever you
want to call it, and laundromat in the area. This is where we did all
of our food buying.

Mr. JENNER. Shopping?

Mr. PIC. As far as the neighborhood was concerned.

Mr. JENNER. There is some writing at the top of the picture; what does
it say?

Mr. PIC. This says "Blackie, 1949."

Mr. JENNER. Blackie was the name of the dog?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Take that other exhibit and tell us what it was.

Mr. PIC. This was the same dog Lee had in 1948 when we returned from
the school. Exhibit No. 54 shows the same store in the background and
Lee Harvey Oswald, and a dog named Blackie. And to the right of the
picture is the roof and corner of the house.

Mr. JENNER. The house in which you lived?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence John Pic Exhibits Nos. 54 and 55.

(John Pic Exhibits Nos. 54 and 55 were marked for identification.)

Mr. PIC. After the divorce she bought the house in Benbrook, Tex., and
then she was either working at or just got the job at Leonard Bros.,
Fort Worth, department store, Fort Worth, Tex.

At this time Robert and I were informed that we would not return to
Chamberlain-Hunt in the fall. This, I think, was the first time that I
actually recall any hostility towards my mother.

Mr. JENNER. On your part?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this was quite a blow to me because we did want to
go back. I had 2 more years in high school and I was going to be in the
11th grade and I did want to finish there.

Mr. JENNER. How did Robert react to that?

Mr. PIC. He felt the same way, sir. He wanted to go back. But we were
informed because of the monetary situation it would be impossible for
us to go back. In fact, my mother informed me that the best thing for
me to do was not return to school but to get a job and help the family
supplement its income.

Mr. JENNER. That is withdraw from school entirely?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I was 16 at this time. In September, Lee and Robert
returned to school, and I went to work. I obtained a job at Everybody's
Department Store which belonged to Leonard Bros. I was a shoe stock boy
at the salary of $25 a week.

Mr. JENNER. Did you pay some of that money to your mother?

Mr. PIC. I think at least $15 out of every pay check I did.

Mr. JENNER. $15 a week?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I think my take-home pay was $22.50 after taxes.
Which left me $7.50 to ride back and forth on the bus with.

Mr. JENNER. Did you continue to live in this home in Benbrook?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; about the same time that I went to work and Lee and
Robert returned to school is when my mother bought the house at 7408
Ewing.

Mr. JENNER. In Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. That is right, sir. It was just impossible for her and I to go
to work and leave them out in the sticks, but being we moved on Ewing
they could walk to school. In fact, I left for work earlier than she
did, a couple of hours, in fact.

Mr. JENNER. Had Lee attended school in Benbrook, Tex.?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; not in the little house because we moved in the
summer and moved out in the early fall.

Mr. JENNER. Had he attended a day school or a nursery school in
Benbrook, Tex., at anytime to your knowledge over this period of years?

Mr. PIC. During the summer, sir, my mother worked at Leonard Bros., the
three boys were left alone at home.

Mr. JENNER. What about the previous years?

Mr. PIC. She didn't work the previous years. She was still married to
Mr. Ekdahl.

Mr. JENNER. I appreciate that. I wonder if he went to nursery
school--when you first went to Benbrook, Tex., when you were on
Granbury Road?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't know that, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You have no impression?

Mr. PIC. That I don't remember.

Mr. JENNER. All right. You now started to work in the fall of 1948.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The family moves into Fort Worth at 7408 Ewing Street.

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And Lee and Robert enter school in Fort Worth.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct? Do you remember the school, one would be a
grammar school and one a junior high school.

Mr. PIC. I think Robert went to Sterling Junior High School. In fact,
she would drive him there in the morning, and Lee was going to Ridglea,
West Ridglea Elementary School, something like that.

Mr. JENNER. What happened to Lee? You were working.

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Robert was in school.

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And Lee was in school.

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Did Robert come home from school to take care of Lee when
he finished?

Mr. PIC. Lee returned home before Robert did, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What did he do?

Mr. PIC. I have no idea, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother was at work?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He would just come home and wait until somebody came home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; there was no TV at that time so----

Mr. JENNER. Was he--what about his habits in that respect? Did--your
mother taught him to return home immediately and to stay in the house
until she arrived?

Mr. PIC. I am sure he always did, sir, knowing his personality. He was
not the type to goof off in things like this.

Mr. JENNER. Did you notice any tendencies on his part to do heavy
reading at this stage of his life?

Mr. PIC. He always read a lot, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He did?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What about his--was he gregarious or not? Did he exhibit
tendencies to be with other people and children in the neighborhood or
the contrary?

Mr. PIC. Not too much, sir. There weren't that many children his age
in the neighborhood. In fact, most of them were my age and my brother
Robert's.

Mr. JENNER. Did this age gap between you and Lee and between Lee and
your brother Robert affect your relationships with him now that you had
reached the age you were now 16, Robert was 14, and Lee was 9.

Mr. PIC. We played with Lee. Lee had his dog. On the weekends, Sunday,
we would all go to the movies, the whole family. I usually went to work
at sunup and returned at dark myself.

In the fall of 1948 it was the fad among high school students and young
teenagers to join either the National Guard or Naval Reserve or some
reserve outfit like this, so I was only 16 at the time, and I wanted
to do this, and my mother thought it would be a real good way to
supplement the income. So----

Mr. JENNER. Did you get paid for this service?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; we would meet once a month and draw a day's salary,
something like this. It wasn't much money, a couple or $3 a meeting;
something like that. So we went to the notary, I think, this was
McLean's office and she swore to a notary that I was 17.

Mr. JENNER. But you were not in fact 17?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I was 16. She gave my birthday as 17 January 1931.
Can we go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. PIC. OK, so I joined the Marine Corps Reserve sometime in October
1948. I was attached to the 2d, 155th Military Howitzer Battalion,
U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Fort Worth, Tex. About that time I started
thinking and decided regardless of how my mother felt what happened,
I was going to go back to school. So in January 1949 I went back to
school and finished my high school education.

Mr. JENNER. To what school did you return?

Mr. PIC. I attended Arlington Heights High School, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you work after school? Did you do anything to
supplement your income?

Mr. PIC. I was able to retain my job at Everybody's as a stock boy for
about 1 month on this part-time basis but at the end of February they
informed me there was no way I could be kept on a part-time basis so
I left the job and I then got a job at Burt's shoestore. At Burt's
shoestore I was working part time but really making more than full time
because I was a stock boy at $15 and all the commissions I could make
in their stockroom plus all day Saturday.

Mr. JENNER. Selling shoes?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What was your mother doing at this time?

Mr. PIC. I believe at this time, sir, she was working at Sterling's
Department Store in Fort Worth after leaving Leonard Bros., before I
left Everybody's, I think.

Mr. JENNER. Was Robert working after school?

Mr. PIC. Yes; he was working at the A & P.

Mr. JENNER. Had he been working at the A & P after school from the
previous fall?

Mr. PIC. This would be 1949. February 1949, and I am sure he was
working at A & P and going to school at that time, some time during
that period. He and I were both working and going to school, both.

So, in January 1949, I returned to high school, Arlington Heights High
School, Fort Worth, Tex., and was a junior, 11th grade there.

The school session ended and then I attended summer school to make up
for what I had lost at Paschal High School, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. P-a-s-k-a-l?

Mr. PIC. P-a-s-c-h-a-l, sir; is the way they spell it, sir. I still had
the job at Burt's. So I attended summer school at Paschal, the summer
of 1949. September of 1949----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, what did Lee do now? Had he been in school in
the fall and winter of 1948 and the winter and spring of 1949?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, vacation is here. What did he do during the
summer? You went to school, and you worked at Burt's, what was he doing?

Mr. PIC. Playing around home. And going to this Camp Carter that we ran
across in the letter, I guess, I don't remember.

Mr. JENNER. What was Robert doing during the summer?

Mr. PIC. He was working at the A & P, sir; I believe.

Mr. JENNER. Were both of you boys contributing to the support of your
mother during this period?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Both of you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you continuing to give your mother the $15 a week you
had started to give her in the fall of 1948?

Mr. PIC. Well, as far as I am concerned, being that I had no set
income, I worked on a guaranteed salary of $15 plus commissions my pay
might fluctuate between $20, $35 a week depending on how good a week I
had. And I pro-rated this accordingly with her.

Mr. JENNER. And was Robert contributing something as well?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he was.

Mr. JENNER. Lee didn't work at any time?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever recall Lee up through this time through the
summer of 1949 doing any work?

Mr. PIC. No.

Mr. JENNER. He is now 10 years old?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He didn't have any paper routes or do the things that a
10-year-old sometimes does?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. We have now reached the fall of 1949.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; September 1949, I decided--well, let's go back to
when I went back to high school.

Mr. JENNER. All right. It is January of 1949.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Lee was at Ridglea.

Mr. PIC. OK. I figured since I was smart enough to decide to go back
to high school and my mother tried to talk me out of it I felt it was
my own doing and therefore it was my own responsibility, so I decided
since that is the way she felt and that was the way I felt I would sign
my own report cards and take care of my own notes and everything.

My hostility towards her increased at this time because she pushed me
to work and make money, and I knew an education, as much as I could get
would be the best thing for me.

Since I took on the responsibility of going back to school I figured I
could take care of the rest of it and I wanted nothing from her in this
regard. This I did. I signed my own report card, wrote my own notes
when I played hooky and missed school.

Mr. JENNER. Signing her name?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; so in----

Mr. JENNER. By the way what kind of a student were you?

Mr. PIC. I was a pretty good student at Chamberlain-Hunt. I had an A-B
average at Chamberlain-Hunt, I believe, I did not do too good in the
public schools, it was a little bit different, in Chamberlain-Hunt. The
classes being a little larger, no individualized concern, just mass
teaching. This was a little hard for me to adjust to. I did, I think I
had a B or C average at Arlington Heights.

My summer school session, I think I maintained a B-C average. Maybe an
A in one subject. So that in the 1949, the summer of 1949, I went to
Paschal High School for the summer session, and I decided at this time
that I liked Paschal better than Arlington Heights, so I fixed up my
own transfer papers and I transferred to Paschal High School in the
fall of 1949, which I did enjoy the school better.

Arlington Heights was rather a snobbish school, the rich kids went
there and everything, and being I was enrolled in what was called
distributive education which means you go to school and work part time
you are kind of looked down upon in these type schools. But in Paschal
it wasn't that way. The kids weren't snobbish and they weren't so high
class, the majority of them.

I didn't do too good that particular year. I was working pretty hard,
and I think I flunked one subject. So right after the Christmas
holidays 1949, I was coming towards my 18th birthday and I decided I
had just about finished school and I would be graduated, if I passed
everything I would, and I decided to join the service, the Coast Guard,
and then I processed my paper work, and 3 days prior to graduation I
quit school and joined the Coast Guard.

At this time to get in the Coast Guard was rather hard to do. You had
to get on a waiting list and when they called you and you didn't show
up for it you didn't get in maybe for 6 months or so. I joined the
Coast Guard because it was the hardest service to get into. I wasn't
interested in the Army or the Marine Corps or the Navy. I took the one
that was hardest, the hardest requirement and I got into it.

So, in January, approximately 25 January 1950 I joined the Coast Guard,
and left for Cape May, N.J. I did not see Robert, Lee, or my mother
until October 1950, 9 months later.

Mr. JENNER. October of 1959?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; 1950. 1950.

Mr. JENNER. Before we get to that or probe that any further, Lee
returned to school in the fall of 1949?

Mr. PIC. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. He was still at Ridglea Elementary, then?

Mr. PIC. As far as I know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What was his general attitude and his activities during
this period 1948, 1949, through the summer of 1949.

Mr. PIC. Sir; I was 17 years old, I wasn't interested in what an
8-9-year old kids activities were in school. I mean I had girls on my
mind and other things like that, you know.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. To be honest with you.

Mr. JENNER. Yes, of course. What was your impression of him at that
time?

Mr. PIC. He would get into his trouble, and maybe he would have
trouble with a neighbor now and then about walking across their lawn
or something. I remember once there was a fight on the bus because of
Lee that my brother Robert got beat up because. Robert probably would
remember that better than I did.

Mr. JENNER. I don't know whether he mentioned that.

Mr. PIC. I know he got his rear end whipped because of Lee.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

You entered the Coast Guard, and then you didn't see either of your
brothers or your mother from the time of your enlistment in January of
1950.

Mr. PIC. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Until when?

Mr. PIC. October 1950, sir. Early October 1950.

Mr. JENNER. What was that occasion?

Mr. PIC. I went back home on leave, back to Fort Worth on leave, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How long were you home on leave?

Mr. PIC. I think I took 20 days' leave. I think I stayed there 15, 16,
something like that, about 2 weeks.

Mr. JENNER. What was the general atmosphere around the house at that
time?

Mr. PIC. Well, everybody was glad to see me. I was--well, I come home
with a couple of hundred dollars, you know a sailor off the high seas
always saves his money and the mother right away wanted to hold it for
me and so she conned me into that, and she let me have a few dollars of
my own.

Then I spent most of my time looking up old girl friends and things,
and visiting Mr. Conway. He and I were always playing chess together.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Conway, I took his deposition.

Mr. PIC. Yes, very nice man.

Mr. JENNER. He spoke of playing chess with you a great deal.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I had forgotten that. Lived across the street.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; about five doors, four doors to the right of us.

Mr. JENNER. On the same side of the street?

Mr. PIC. Same side.

Mr. JENNER. Hiram Conway.

Mr. PIC. Hiram P. Conway.

Mr. JENNER. You then returned to the service?

Mr. PIC. Yes. I reported back to my ship.

Mr. JENNER. When next did you see your mother or Lee or Robert?

Mr. PIC. August 1952, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When you were back in the fall of 1950, was Lee in school?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; as far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. At Ridglea Elementary?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; as far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. Robert was still in school. He is now 16-1/2 years of age?

Mr. PIC. I don't know if he was. Going through those letters there was
a time period he was in school, out of school. I don't really remember.
I don't think he was in school when I returned on leave.

Mr. JENNER. What was he doing?

Mr. PIC. A & P, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Working. Are you now and were you then aware of the fact
that your father contributed to your support during all the years
actually until you reached your 18th birthday?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is when I decided to make it all on my own
since she reminded me of the fact that she wouldn't get no money after
I was 18 so that was one thing that contributed to me deciding to leave.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware during all these years of what the amount of
that contribution was?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. But you were aware of the fact that your father was making
contributions?

Mr. PIC. I was always told it wasn't enough, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Apart from that you were aware of the fact your father was
making contributions?

Mr. PIC. Right. She reminded me the day I became 18 that the payments
stopped right then and there.

Mr. JENNER. The fact is that they did.

Mr. PIC. I know. I have no reason to doubt that. What was the amount?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. JENNER. When you were in the service did you make any allotment to
your mother?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you send her any money at any time while you were in
the service?

Mr. PIC. Quite frequently, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that. Tell us as best you can the amount.

Mr. PIC. When I was in boot camp from January 1950 to May 1950, the
only amount they paid us was $15 every 2 weeks and they held back the
rest of our pay until we would graduate and then we would have money to
go to our next station with. They do this to recruits. I don't remember
if I sent any of this 15 or not, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you send any of the excess when you got it?

Mr. PIC. In those letters I presented you could add them up and see how
much I sent in the year 1950. I think I sent $10, $20 at a time when I
had it. I was making $80 a month. How much could I send and still be a
sailor?

Mr. JENNER. This is not in any sense a criticism, sergeant. All I am
doing is seeking some facts.

Mr. PIC. Well, sir, in the letters she refers to 10, 20, 40, sometimes.

Mr. JENNER. I show you John Pic Exhibits Nos. 48 and 59, and referring
to No. 48, at the bottom of which is written Lee, age 2-1/2. Would you
identify that, please?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this is Lee Harvey Oswald age 2-1/2 as the picture
states written in the handwriting of Mrs. Marguerite Oswald. This
picture was taken at Lillian Murret's at Sherwood Forest Drive.

Mr. JENNER. That was your aunt's home in Sherwood Forest, New Orleans.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I am sure of that.

Mr. JENNER. I show you John Pic Exhibit No. 49 which--would you
identify that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this is a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, I guess at
the same time, with a dog, and I am sure this was taken at Lillian
Murret's in Sherwood Forest Drive.

Mr. JENNER. At the same time that John Pic Exhibit No. 48 was taken?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I think so.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I hand you now John Pic Exhibit No. 56, a
photograph of a young man. Would you identify that as to time and place
if you can, and age, his age, the subject's age?

Mr. PIC. Sir, this is a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald which I believe to
have been taken when he was in about the second or third grade.

Mr. JENNER. That would be when you were living in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Fort Worth, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Fort Worth, yes; 7408 Ewing.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I hand you John Pic Exhibits Nos. 57 and 58. I don't know
which depicts this young man at the younger age. Take the younger one.

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 57, sir, I believe was taken either in late
1951 or early 1952, and it shows a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald
approximately how he looked when he came to New York to stay with my
wife and I in August of 1952.

Exhibit No. 58, to my best recollection, I think, is a picture sent to
me by my mother in approximately 1954, 1955, maybe in 1956, from New
Orleans, La. It is a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. It is after they returned to New Orleans?

Mr. PIC. I am pretty sure that picture was taken in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I offer in evidence John Pic Exhibits Nos. 48,
49, 56, 57, and 58.

(John Pic Exhibits Nos. 48, 49, 56, 57, and 58 were marked for
identification.)

Mr. JENNER. What were the circumstances surrounding and leading up to
your mother and Lee coming to New York City in the summer of 1952?

Mr. PIC. I think this was brought on because Robert joined the service
sometime previous to that. That would be about right, April 1952, did
he join the service. I don't know when. He wasn't there at the time. He
was in the service when they came.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. He entered the service as soon as he reached his
majority.

Mr. PIC. So that would be April 1952.

Mr. JENNER. Was there an incident respecting, between Robert and your
mother and some young lady in which, in whom he was interested just
before he entered the service?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You came to know about that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By what means?

Mr. PIC. By way of my mother, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right, what was it?

Mr. PIC. Robert had been seeing this girl and she had a club foot. My
mother didn't feel that they should be married. He wanted to marry her,
and she conned him out of it.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Had you received any letters from Robert on that
subject at anytime?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Between the time you were home in October of 1950 and the
summer of 1952, had you seen your mother or either of your brothers?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, my question to you was what led up to and
what were the circumstances involving or surrounding the visit of your
mother and Lee to New York in the summer of 1952.

Mr. PIC. Well, Robert had joined the service in April 1952. It was the
summer months, so Lee was not in school, and the trip to New York was
feasible, being Lee would have no schooltime lost, it was my impression
and also my wife's--meanwhile, I was married, you know, if you are
interested in this.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I am.

Mr. PIC. August 18, 1951, I married my wife Margaret Dorothy Fuhrman.

Mr. JENNER. You had met her after you had entered the service and while
you were stationed in the New York area?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At this time, that is the summer of 1952 you were living
where?

Mr. PIC. 325 East 92d Street, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any children at that time?

Mr. PIC. In August 1952; yes, sir. I did.

Mr. JENNER. Your first child was born?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; John Edward Pic, Jr.

Mr. JENNER. Was the child born before or after your mother and Lee
arrived.

Mr. PIC. Before, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. He was born 14 May 1952, approximately 3 months before they
arrived.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Did you invite your mother and Lee to come to
New York?

Mr. PIC. The impression that my wife and myself had was they
were coming to visit, sir, and we had nothing against this. My
mother-in-law, we lived with her at the time, she was visiting her
other daughter, Mrs. Emma Parrish, in Norfolk, Va., she was staying
with them, so we had the room for them.

Mr. JENNER. But that was your mother's apartment or home?

Mr. PIC. Mother-in-law's.

Mr. JENNER. Was it an apartment or a home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it was a box, freight-car type railroad apartment.

Mr. JENNER. One room in back of the other?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. So you were then guests of your mother-in-law at that
particular time, that is, living in her home or apartment? And your
impression was that your mother and Lee they were just visiting for
the summer months or for a period, to visit for the summer months or a
period during the summer that was your definite impression.

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right, what happened?

Mr. PIC. At this time I was stationed at U.S. Coast Guard, Port
Security Unit, Ellis Island, New York. My status there, I was, I worked
once every fourth night, also every fourth weekend so I wasn't home all
the time. When they came I took leave so I could spend more time with
them.

Mr. JENNER. "I took Lee," would you elaborate on that? What do you mean
you took Lee.

Mr. PIC. I am allowed 30 days leave a year and I took off, I took a
week or so, I think.

Mr. JENNER. I misunderstood you, I thought you said you took Lee but
you said you took leave.

Mr. PIC. Leave.

Mr. JENNER. You took 30 days leave.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; maybe a week or two.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression, you were with them or tried to be
with them during that 2-week period.

Mr. PIC. Just a minute, sir. That is where I began my notes. August
1952, my mother and Lee came to New York. They brought with them quite
a bit of luggage, and their own TV set. On my way home I had to walk
about 8 to 10 blocks to the subway, and Lee walked up to meet me as I
was walking home, I told my wife and Lee decided to go up and meet me.
We met in the street and I was real glad to see him and he was real
glad to see me. We were real good friends. I think a matter of a few
days or so I took my leave. Lee and I visited some of the landmarks
of New York, the Museum of Natural History, Polk's Hobby Shop on 5th
Avenue. I took him on the Staten Island ferry, and several other
excursions we made.

Mr. JENNER. Go ahead.

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; it wasn't but a matter of days before I could sense
they moved in to stay for good, and this not being my apartment, but my
mother-in-law's apartment, my wife kind of frowned upon this a little
bit. We didn't really mind as long as my mother-in-law wasn't there,
but she was due back in a matter of a month or so.

During my leave I was under the impression that I may get out of the
service in January of 1953, when my enlistment was up, so I went around
to several colleges. My mother drove me to these colleges, Fordham
University, for one, and Brooklyn, some college in Brooklyn, a couple
of other ones I inquired about. I remember one conversation in the car
that she reminded me that even though Margy was my wife, she wasn't
quite as good as I was, and things like this. She didn't say too many
good things about my wife. Well, naturally, I resented this, because I
put my wife before my mother any day.

Things were pretty good during the time I was on leave. When I went
back to work I would come home my wife would tell me about some little
problem they would have. The first problem that I recollect was that
there was no support for the grocery bill whatsoever. I don't think I
was making more than $150 a month, and they were eating up quite a bit,
and I just casually mentioned that and my mother got very much upset
about it. So every night I got home and especially the nights I was
away and I would come home the next day my wife would have more to tell
me about the little arguments. It seems it is my wife's impression that
whenever there was an argument that my mother antagonized Lee towards
hostility against my wife.

My wife liked Lee. My wife and I had talked several times that it would
be nice if Lee would stay with us alone, and we wouldn't mind having
him. But we never bothered mentioning this because we knew it was an
impossibility.

It got toward schooltime and they had their foothold in the house and
he was going to enroll in the neighborhood school, and they planned to
stay with us, and I didn't much like this. We couldn't afford to have
them, and took him up to enroll in this school.

Mr. JENNER. You did?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; my mother did. I think this is a public school in New
York City located on about 89th, 90th Street between Third Avenue and
Second Avenue. Lee didn't like this school. I didn't much blame him.

Mr. ELY. When you visited these colleges, had you received credit for
finishing high school somehow?

Mr. PIC. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear anything to the effect that the reason why
your mother and Lee had come to New York had anything to do with Lee's
being given some sort of mental tests?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was there a period of time just before the enrollment of
Lee in the New York Public School, that he attended for about a month a
Lutheran denominational school?

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir. I am not up to that yet.

Mr. JENNER. I see. All right.

Mr. PIC. At about the same time that Lee was enrolled in school that
we had the big trouble. It seems that there was an argument about the
TV set one day, and--between my wife and my mother. It seems that
according to my wife's statement that my mother antagonized Lee, being
very hostile toward my wife and he pulled out a pocketknife and said
that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use
it on her, at the same time Lee struck his mother. This perturbed my
wife to no end. So, I came home that night, and the facts were related
to me.

Mr. JENNER. When the facts were related to you was your mother present,
Lee present, your wife present? If not, who was present?

Mr. PIC. I think my wife told me this in private, sir. I went and asked
my mother about it.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother was home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she was home.

Mr. JENNER. You went and spoke with your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was Lee present when you spoke to your mother?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say to your mother and what did she say to you?

Mr. PIC. I asked her about the incident and she attempted to brush it
off as not being as serious as my wife put it. That Lee did not pull a
pocketknife on her. That they just had a little argument about what TV
channel they were going to watch. Being as prejudiced as I am I rather
believed my wife rather than my mother.

Mr. JENNER. Did you speak to Lee about the incident?

Mr. PIC. I am getting to that, sir. So I approached Lee on this
subject, and about the first couple of words out of my wife he became
real hostile toward me, and let me get my notes on it. When this
happened it perturbed my wife so much that she told them they are
going to leave whether they liked it or not, and I think Lee had the
hostility toward my wife right then and there, when they were getting
thrown out of the house as they put it.

When I attempted to talk to Lee about this, he ignored me, and I was
never able to get to the kid again after that. He didn't care to hear
anything I had to say to him. So in a matter of a few days they packed
up and left, sir. They moved to the Bronx somewhere.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see them from time to time thereafter?

Mr. PIC. Yes, I can continue if you wish. Unless you want to stop there
and ask me something about it.

Mr. JENNER. Well, at this point, yes, I would like to ask you this: You
hadn't seen them from October of 1950 until the summer of 1952. Did you
notice any change in him, his overall attitude, his relations with his
mother, his demeanor, his feelings towards others, his actions toward
others?

Mr. PIC. He was definitely the boss.

Mr. JENNER. Now, tell us on what you base that?

Mr. PIC. I mean if he decided to do something, regardless of what my
mother said, he did it. She had no authority whatsoever with him. He
had no respect for her at all. He and my wife got along very well
together when they were alone, when she wasn't present, she and Lee got
along very well. She always reminded me of this.

Mr. JENNER. Your wife reminded you of that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Without my mother present she could make it with Lee.

Mr. JENNER. But as soon as your mother came within contact with Lee in
your home, then the attitude changed?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Up to this incident when this knife pulling incident
occurred, how had your relations with Lee been?

Mr. PIC. Been very good, sir. He and I had gone on all these excursions
throughout New York City, and I tried to show him what I could, and
spend as much time as I could with him.

Mr. JENNER. You found him to have--he was interested in that sort of
thing?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he loved to go to the Museum of Natural History,
anything like that he liked.

Mr. JENNER. Did you speak to him about this relationship he appeared to
have with his mother in which he minded her or not as he saw fit and
did as he wished?

Mr. PIC. Not until the knife pulling incident.

Mr. JENNER. And you did discuss that subject with him on that occasion?

Mr. PIC. I attempted to, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you attempt to do it thereafter when you saw him from
time to time?

Mr. PIC. Sir, he would have nothing to do with me thereafter.

Mr. JENNER. He would not.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he wouldn't even speak to me.

Mr. JENNER. There was an absolute, complete change then in his
relations with you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. It was a marked one?

Mr. PIC. That is correct. I have a couple of more incidents in which I
can relate that even more so.

Mr. JENNER. Would you do that?

Mr. PIC. Well, the day they moved out they had done this before I came
home from work.

Mr. JENNER. They had moved out before you came home from work?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir. To elaborate, in my notes I have "after
I approached Lee about this incident his feelings toward me became
hostile and thereafter remained indifferent to me and never again was I
able to communicate with him in any way."

Mr. JENNER. Sergeant, if you can, instead of just reading from your
notes, read your notes, and if they refresh your recollection and then
give in your own words the facts.

Mr. PIC. Well, prior to this particular incident, I would consider
us the best of friends as far as older brother-younger brother
relationship. My wife always says that he idolized me and thought quite
a bit of me.

Mr. JENNER. Up to this time, the relationship between you and your
brother Lee, and your brother Robert, all three of you, had been a
cordial normal friendly relationship that you expect to exist among
brothers?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What was your nickname?

Mr. PIC. Pic.

Mr. JENNER. What was your brother Robert's nickname?

Mr. PIC. In Chamberlain-Hunt we referred to him as "Mouse". I think
that hung on a while after that.

Mr. JENNER. What nickname did he have before that?

Mr. PIC. None that I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Why did he get that? Was he a quiet boy?

Mr. PIC. He was the littlest one in Chamberlain-Hunt and that was why
they called him that.

Mr. JENNER. I see, size.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lee ever have a nickname?

Mr. PIC. Not that I know of, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You had the feeling, did you, up until this incident at
least that Lee is a young boy, 7 years younger than you, and his
brother Robert 5 years older than he, and he looked up to both of you
as older brothers?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you had, both you and your brother Robert had love in
your heart for your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you felt he reciprocated that?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And the relationship between yourself and your brother
Robert was cordial?

Mr. PIC. They always have, and still are, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I may say to you that he so testified. All right.

Mr. PIC. So they moved out in about September 1952, maybe it was
late September, early October, somewhere around there, so from about
somewhere between September of 1952 and January 1953, my brother Robert
came to New York on leave, and we were all invited up to the Bronx.

Mr. JENNER. To visit whom?

Mr. PIC. Sir?

Mr. JENNER. To visit whom?

Mr. PIC. To visit my mother and my brother.

Mr. JENNER. Your brother?

Mr. PIC. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did your brother's wife accompany him?

Mr. PIC. He wasn't married at that time, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He wasn't married?

Mr. PIC. I think this was, his leave was probably in October or
November 1952, a matter of a month or two after they had moved out. We
visited their apartment in the Bronx.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, where did your brother stay?

Mr. PIC. I think he stayed at the Soldier-Sailor-Airmen Club in New
York.

Mr. JENNER. In any event he did not stay with you.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he may have stayed with my mother also. I don't think
so. Maybe for a night or two. We went out, my wife fixed him up with a
date with one of her girl friends and we went out together a couple of
times. So, we were invited up there for this Sunday dinner. So it was
my mother, Lee, Robert, my wife, myself, and my son.

Robert was already there when we arrived. When Lee seen me or my wife
he left the room. For dinner he sat in the front room watching TV and
didn't join us whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. He did not join you for dinner?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. Didn't speak to me or my wife.

Mr. JENNER. That put a kind of pall on the visit, did it not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you--he didn't speak to you. Did you attempt to speak
with him?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Did he answer you?

Mr. PIC. He shrugged his shoulders a couple of times maybe. He wasn't
interested in anything I had to say.

Mr. JENNER. He was definitely hostile to you and to Mrs. Pic?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that continued throughout the entire visit that evening
or was it an evening?

Mr. PIC. It was early afternoon until dusk. We did have an infant son
we had to get home.

Mr. JENNER. Was it a Sunday or Saturday?

Mr. PIC. I am sure it was a Sunday. In January 1950----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, what did you observe with respect to the
attitude of Lee toward his mother on that occasion?

Mr. PIC. When he was eating he came and got what he wanted, picked up
his plate, went to the living room and watched TV. He decided what he
wanted to eat and maybe she helped him. I don't really remember too
much about it. I know he did not eat with us.

Mr. JENNER. Did you notice his relation, if any, with Robert?

Mr. PIC. From what I was told later and so forth when I wasn't present
him and Robert got along real good.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. My question was did you observe on this occasion.

Mr. PIC. There was nothing to observe while I was present, sir. He was
completely withdrawn from the crowd.

Mr. JENNER. He withdrew from everybody?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. Personally, I didn't know if he was more hostile towards me or
my wife. I still don't know this fact. Maybe it was her, maybe it was
me, maybe it was both of us.

In January 1953, I did reenlist in the Coast Guard. I decided to stay
in rather than quit, and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. From the time of that October visit of Robert to January
1953, did you see Lee at any time during that period?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I did not. I seen my mother on several occasions. She
was working on 42d Street in a Lerner's Dress Shop. I guess I would see
her maybe once every 3 weeks to once a month, we dropped downtown, my
wife and I, to see her.

Mr. JENNER. What did she say about Lee during that time when you saw
her on those occasions?

Mr. PIC. Whenever I seen her, whether I was alone or with my wife, I
was usually alone, I went to see her myself, my wife didn't care to see
my mother, she would complain about her financial status and when I
would ask her about how Lee was doing she would say, "OK" but would not
elaborate.

Said "He is OK, but he doesn't have a brother, an older brother to talk
to or no one to do anything with."

Mr. JENNER. During this period of time and up to January 1953, in any
of the contacts you had with your mother did you learn or were you
advised or did you become aware that there was difficulty with Lee with
respect to truancy in attendance at school?

Mr. PIC. I am not quite there, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. The answer is, I take it, that up to this point
of January 1953 you were not aware.

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Despite the fact that you had seen your mother from time to
time during that period?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right, we are at January 1953, when you reenlisted in
the Coast Guard.

Mr. PIC. That is right. So in February 1953, my wife and I were again
invited to their apartment. This may or may not have been the same
apartment we originally visited. I don't remember, sir. I know it was
up in the Bronx. I think it may have been a different apartment. Is
that right?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. As my wife and I walked in, Lee walked out and my mother
informed us that he would probably go to the Bronx Zoo. We had Sunday
dinner, and in the course of the conversation my mother informed me
that Lee was having a truancy problem and that the school officials
had suggested that he might need psychiatric aid to combat his truancy
problem.

She informed me that Lee said that he would not see a head shrinker or
nut doctor, and she wanted any suggestions or opinions from me as to
how to get him to see him, and I told her just take him down there.
That is all I could suggest.

Mr. JENNER. What was her response to that?

Mr. PIC. Well, Lee was still the boss. If he didn't want to go see the
psychiatrist, he wasn't going.

Mr. JENNER. She had no control over him?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were quite aware of that, were you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you discuss that with her?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; she discussed it with me. I mean she told me that she
couldn't control him and so forth. This I knew.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get the impression from anything she said to you
that this truancy or this lack of control problem had been something
that had suddenly arisen or----

Mr. PIC. I think it was gradual, and getting worse and worse as time
went by.

Mr. JENNER. Sergeant, when you were still home and up to the time you
enlisted which was in January 1950, had there been any control problems
with respect to Lee? In other words, had you noticed this problem
developing, any headstrong attitudes on his part? Cudgel your mind and
take yourself back.

Mr. PIC. I would say, sir, that whenever there was a disciplinary
problem to be taken care of that it wasn't enforced with Lee by his
mother prior to 1950. She always reminded Robert and I that we were the
older and we should see to these things that he don't do them and so
forth.

Mr. JENNER. What did you and Robert do about it?

Mr. PIC. Not much, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you speak to him? You were his older brother. He had
the love and affection for you?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; what was serious to her probably wasn't serious to
a 13- and 15-year old kid or 14-16. There was no big troubles he got
into that any kid does.

Mr. JENNER. What did you notice up until the time you enlisted
in January 1950, of Lee's relations with other children in the
neighborhood or his schoolmates. What was your overall impression,
first?

Mr. PIC. To my best recollection, sir; there were no other children in
the neighborhood of his age group that he played consistently with.
I think most of the time he went to play with other children it was
a matter of a couple, couple of blocks away or so, with his own age
group.

Mr. JENNER. Was he inclined to remain in the house rather than go out
and play with other children?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he was more inclined to stay in the house than go
out and play.

Mr. JENNER. Was that noticeable to you?

Mr. PIC. I wasn't there that much, sir; I was working and going to
school, both. I wasn't there to observe this.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. Except maybe on a weekend occasionally.

Mr. JENNER. But you did notice that when they came to New York in 1952,
particularly in the fall of 1952, that by that time he had become quite
headstrong?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that his mother and your mother Marguerite, had pretty
well lost any influence or control over him?

Mr. PIC. That is absolutely true, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, we brought you up to enlistment in January
1953.

Mr. PIC. On the occasion when we visited them in February 1953.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. At this same time in February 1953, I received orders to
go aboard ship again, so from the time period February 1953, until
September 1953, I was in and out of New York at sea.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see either your mother or Lee during that period of
time?

Mr. PIC. I did not see Lee after the February visit, sir. I had seen
her on several occasions.

Mr. JENNER. During this----

Mr. PIC. Downtown where she worked.

Mr. JENNER. She was still working in Lerner's in the spring and summer
of 1953 or had she changed jobs?

Mr. PIC. To my best recollection it was still Lerner's.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall her working at a hosiery shop during this
period of time rather than Lerner's?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't remember, sir.

Mr. JENNER. She might have been but you just don't have a recollection?

Mr. PIC. Wherever she was working at the time, I mean she shifted jobs
quite often and it is kind of hard keeping track of them.

Mr. JENNER. Did she have difficulty with her employers, get along with
fellow workers at these various shops?

Mr. PIC. Whenever she changed jobs she always gave me a rationalized
answer.

Mr. JENNER. Well, that is a conclusion. Tell me what it was.

Mr. PIC. I remember once, it may have been the Lerner shop or it may
have been this hosiery shop which you are referring to, that she told
me that they let her go because she didn't use an underarm deoderant.
That was the reason she gave me, sir. She said she couldn't do nothing
about it. She uses it but if it don't work what can she do about it.

Other times whenever she changed jobs it was always because the next
job was better.

Mr. JENNER. During the time, on the occasions when you saw her, which
was relatively infrequent from January of 1953 to, what is the next
date you gave, September of 1953?

Mr. PIC. August-September 1953.

Mr. JENNER. August of 1953, September of 1953, was there any discussion
with her about Lee?

Mr. PIC. When I asked about him it was the same old stuff, he is
getting along better. She would tell me that he still doesn't have
anybody to confide in, things like this.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any further discussion about truancy, any
possibility of care for him by a psychiatrist?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; when I asked about this she said everything was
working out fine.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. Whenever I would meet her it would be the same old song and
dance, like hinting around I should help support her which I couldn't
afford to do, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You had a wife and child by that time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What was your compensation?

Mr. PIC. For what, sir?

Mr. JENNER. In the service at this time.

Mr. PIC. I was petty officer, second class, I guess my base pay was
maybe $190, plus extras, quarters allowances, maybe total $300 a month.

Mr. JENNER. Was your wife still residing with your mother-in-law?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And were you contributing to the support of that whole
family unit?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mother-in-law, wife and child?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I was paying the rent and buying the groceries. In
fact, that year I claimed my mother-in-law as a dependent on my income
tax, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, you had claimed, did you, at some point in your
service your mother as a dependent?

Mr. PIC. In one of her letters she refers to that. I don't recollect
that, sir. I think it was prior to my joining the service that she
referred to. When I was working full time, maybe the year right after,
I don't remember, sir, that incident at all.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. Well, on these visits that I would spend with her downtown,
we would eat lunch or something on Saturday. It got old after a while
listening to her so I knew I was getting transferred to Virginia in
September, 1953, so my wife left in August of 1953 to live with her
sister until I was stationed there in September, 1953.

Mr. JENNER. Where did her sister live?

Mr. PIC. Norfolk, Va. And I was to be stationed at Portsmouth, Va., at
the Naval hospital there for school purposes.

When I did finally get transferred from the ship to Portsmouth, Va., I
did not make known to my mother our whereabouts or our address.

Mr. JENNER. Why not?

Mr. PIC. Like I said, sir; it was getting kind of old. The only time I
had seen her would be downtown and she didn't have much to say to me
and I didn't have too much to say to her.

Mr. JENNER. During this period of time there came about a substantially
complete rupture then between yourself and your mother?

Mr. PIC. To a certain degree.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see your brother at any time thereafter?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. JENNER. Was there an occasion in Thanksgiving 1962 when you saw him?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I can get to that. There are things happened prior
to that.

Mr. JENNER. You did see him----

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I did not see him. I seen my mother.

Mr. JENNER. I see. All right; go ahead.

Mr. PIC. I returned from Portsmouth, Va., in April 1954, sir; and took
up residency at 80 St. Marks Place, Staten Island, N.Y. We returned
really to 325 East 92d Street, stayed there a matter of a couple of
days until I found us a place to live in Staten Island and then my
wife and I moved over to Staten Island leaving my mother-in-law in
the apartment, being I felt because my wife had six brothers and
sisters that they could worry about her. I didn't see that it was my
responsibility much longer. My wife was the youngest child, and we
lived there almost 2 years.

I was then assigned to the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter _Halfmoon_, which
is a weather vessel, and this is where I am in and out for 6-, 7-week
periods at a time. It was during this time that she wrote me at the
base, my mother, and informed me that they were back in New Orleans,
and you have the letters referring to this, sir.

It was either sometime in the fall of 1955 or the winter of 1956 that
my mother called me from New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. By telephone?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; and said she wanted to visit again.

Mr. JENNER. You were then in New York?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; well, Lee was still with her, and my wife frowned
upon this, and being that we did have a one-bedroom apartment, and we
did have two children at this time there was no way at all we could
accommodate two of them. She was very upset about this that I wouldn't
have her up. There was nothing I could do about it, though. I knew if
she came up they were coming up to stay, and I didn't want a repeat
of what we had. So in February 1956, I joined the Air Force and was
stationed at Mitchel Air Force Base in New York which is about 30, 40
miles east of New York City. In October 1956, Lee joined the Marine
Corps.

Mr. JENNER. How did that come to your attention?

Mr. PIC. My mother informed me of this fact.

Mr. JENNER. By letter?

Mr. PIC. We were writing again. So, it was just a matter of
corresponding by mail up until the Christmas holidays of 1957 when my
mother--let me make sure that date is right--I am fairly certain, sir;
that it was the Christmas holidays of 1957 rather than the Christmas
holidays of 1958--that she visited us.

Mr. JENNER. She did come to New York?

Mr. PIC. Right. She come to--we had moved to 104 Avenue C East Meadow,
on Long Island. I had two children but we had a 3-bedroom apartment
which was part of base housing and we could accommodate her here.

She came from Fort Worth when she arrived. Somehow or another between
New Orleans and this visit she and Lee had gone back to Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. You were aware of the fact she had returned to Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you learned that through correspondence?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. With her.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; her position at that time, so she told us, was that
she was a greeter for the city of Fort Worth. She would welcome people
to town and things like this.

Mr. JENNER. I think she was employed for a while in an organization
called Welcome Wagon. That is a national organization.

Mr. PIC. When she was employed is when she visited us. I think this was
Christmas of 1957, is that right?

Mr. ELY. I think that would be the same thing probably, Welcome Wagon
greets people.

Mr. PIC. Is this 1957 when she had that job?

Mr. JENNER. I am not sure of the date but it is true that during that,
when she returned to Fort Worth sometime along there she did have a
position of that character.

Mr. PIC. She stayed over the Christmas holidays, left approximately the
10th of January, sometime.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have conversations here about Lee during that time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What did she say?

Mr. PIC. Lee was in the Marine Corps, Lee was very happy to be in the
Marine Corps, Lee was proud to be in the Marine Corps. Lee loved the
Marine Corps. He just liked it.

Mr. JENNER. I see. What had occurred to Robert in the meantime? This is
December of 1957. Was he still in the service?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he was not, I don't believe. I think he had gotten
discharged and gotten married, was residing in Fort Worth with his
wife.

Mr. JENNER. He was discharged in the spring of 1956-1957, rather; and
stayed at Exchange Alley for a short while.

Mr. PIC. I don't know that.

Mr. JENNER. Then went to Fort Worth and your mother and your brother
Lee followed and your brother Lee attended high school for about 6 or 7
weeks in the fall of 1957 in Fort Worth, Arlington Heights High School,
and enlisted in October 1957, in the Marines.

Mr. PIC. Lee enlisted in 1956, I believe.

Mr. ELY. 1956.

Mr. JENNER. 1956 was it. Then your brother Robert was discharged,
mustered out in 1956?

Mr. PIC. That sounds about right. And stayed in Exchange Alley a short
time, didn't like it, went on to Fort Worth.

After she left in January of 1958 we continued to communicate by mail
and every now and then a phone call.

Then in August of 1958 I received my orders to Japan, and we left
Mitchel and departed cross country.

Mr. JENNER. You and your wife and children?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By what, automobile?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By this time you owned an automobile?

Mr. PIC. My second one.

Mr. JENNER. Second one?

Mr. PIC. I purchased my first one when I was stationed in Virginia. We
arrived in Fort Worth, approximately 28, 29 October 1958. I remember we
were in her house on Halloween night because I pulled the car up behind
and locked the gates so I would not have my hub caps stolen.

Mr. JENNER. Where did she reside then?

Mr. PIC. I think you ought to refresh my memory on that. It was a
little circle. Did she have an address with a little circle, some kind
of circle or something?

Mr. JENNER. Do you have that?

Mr. PIC. What she lived on described the street, it was a circle,
something like that.

Mr. JENNER. Her first house and apartment in New York was 325, that was
your apartment, 325 East 92. And then she moved over to 1455 Sheridan
Avenue in the Bronx, and then 825 East 179th Street in the Bronx. 3124
West Fifth Street, Fort Worth.

Mr. PIC. That isn't familiar.

Mr. JENNER. It is not familiar?

Mr. PIC. It could be it, though, I can probably find it on the map of
Fort Worth if we still have got it because I remember that place real
well. I was thrown out of there. Some people hold a grudge a long time.
Sir, that is probably it, West Fifth Street, because the location West
Fifth Street is probably about the same place.

Mr. JENNER. You said you were thrown out of there. I assume an incident
occurred?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I am getting to that.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. While we were staying there, I was traveling cross country and
really didn't know where I was going or what time I would have to be
there. We were waiting for our port call to know when we would have to
be in San Francisco to catch our flight out of there, and so I had no
idea how long I would be in Fort Worth, and so I made a phone call from
there to Mitchel to try to find out, and didn't find out anything.

Then the Sunday that we were there--well, prior to this, when we
arrived there the same day my brother Robert came over to see us. He
was then working for a milk company, Borden's Milk Co., I believe. He
was giving my mother free milk, all the extras that he had and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. This is the first time you had seen your brother Robert, I
take it, since his visit to New York City, is that correct?

Mr. PIC. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And that was a cordial reunion, was it?

Mr. PIC. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. Was your mother working at that time?

Mr. PIC. She was working, sir, when we arrived there, at Cox, I
believe, Department Store at the candy counter, I believe it was Cox, I
know she was working at a candy counter.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. When we got there, my mother informed us she had no food in
the house so my wife and I went and bought a whole bunch of groceries
for our stay which we expected to do. I got in contact with some old
friends, and they invited me over for Sunday dinner the following
Sunday at their house, and being I was pressed for time I had another
Sunday dinner invitation at my brother Robert's house. My mother was
invited to this dinner.

Mr. JENNER. At your brother's?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. He then resided at 7313 Davenport Street, I believe. Well, it
seems that my mother declined her part of the invitation, and was quite
put out that my wife and I did not decline our part because she decided
that we should spend Sunday dinner eating with her. So, my wife and
I and two children drove off to my brother Robert's house to go eat.
After we were there for about a half hour, she called us up and told me
to come get our bags, that we would have to leave.

So, my wife and I, we left the kids at my brother Robert's because we
knew there would be a big scene with all the trimmings, and we went
back and we walked in, didn't say nothing, just packed up our bags and
she was yelling and screaming reminding us about the time we threw her
out of the apartment in New York and she was getting even with us for
this when we threw her and Lee out.

I then informed her that I wanted nothing more to do with her and that
every time she and my wife got together, that she had nothing but bad
things to say about her. And I let her know that our relationship ends
right then and there, and since that time, sir, I have not written her,
talked to her, anything.

Mr. JENNER. Or seen her.

Mr. PIC. Or have seen her, except in magazines and stuff. She has sent
me a bunch of junk in the mail. During this conversation when we was
getting thrown out, I reminded her that she made nothing but trouble
for us and especially my wife, she was always on my wife. And so I owed
her a few dollars for the phone call I had made, so I gave her $10 and
this seemed to satisfy, well, probably accomplished what she set out to
do, get some money off of me one way or the other. This I how I looked
at it. This didn't upset her, after we left, after I gave her $10. So,
we went to my brother Robert's, we ate, we stayed at their house until
Tuesday morning, and we left and then went to Japan, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Let's suspend for dinner.

Mr. PIC. Could I just add one thing, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. While we were there, I was informed that Lee was in Japan.

Mr. JENNER. You were informed by your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. And that we should see him when we get there.

Mr. JENNER. Were you advised as to where in Japan he was?

Mr. PIC. I was given his address, sir. After arriving there it was just
a matter of a week or so I received a letter from my mother which I
never acknowledged or maybe it was my brother, it was one of the two,
saying Lee was traveling across the United States at the same time I
was. He had left Japan before I arrived in Japan. I arrived in Japan 10
November 1958 and I don't know what date he left, sir. I never got to
see him in Japan. This would probably be a good time to suspend.

Mr. JENNER. Before we do that, did you have any conversation with your
brother about, your brother Robert about your brother Lee while you
were there in 1958?

Mr. PIC. I think I may have let him know how Lee acted toward me. He
didn't want nothing to do with me. The only things I heard about Lee
was that he was in the Marine Corps and he liked it.

Mr. JENNER. Did your brother Robert say anything about having been in
New Orleans before he came to Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. He told me about a trip that he made to pick them up or
something down there. They called him up one time and he drove down and
got them and drove back all in the same trip.

Mr. JENNER. That must have been the time when they left New Orleans and
came to Fort Worth.

Mr. PIC. Sir, in the testimony of Marilyn Murret, I am going to make a
statement.

Mr. JENNER. What testimony of Marilyn Murret?

Mr. PIC. This is what I am going to tell you that prior to his
defection she knew he was in Europe and everywhere that I read in here,
no one knew he was going to Europe. She informed me before anyone knew
he defected that he was in Europe.

Mr. JENNER. Who informed you?

Mr. PIC. Marilyn Murret in Japan. She was in Japan. She visited with me.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I will go into that right after dinner.

Mr. PIC. All right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. We will suspend until 7:30.

(Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the proceeding was recessed.)


TESTIMONY OF JOHN EDWARD PIC RESUMED

The proceeding was reconvened at 7:55 p.m.

Mr. JENNER. When we adjourned for dinner you were telling us the
incident in August, I believe it was 1958, when you visited your mother
and your brother on your way to California on your assignment to Japan.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read me the last answer of the witness, please?

(The answer, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

Mr. JENNER. Marilyn Murret is your cousin?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. One of the children of Charles and Lillian Murret?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, did your wife and children accompany you to
Japan?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you arrived in Japan about when?

Mr. PIC. 10 November 1958, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware before you left for Japan that Marilyn
Murret, was in Japan?

Mr. PIC. She was not in Japan then, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. You arrived in Japan and went over there
sometime while you were in Japan. By the way, first where were you
stationed?

Mr. PIC. My military address was U.S.A.F. Hospital, Tachikawa, APO 323,
San Francisco, Calif.

Mr. JENNER. You heard from or saw Marilyn Murret after you got there?

Mr. PIC. Right. In approximately October-November, early November,
the end of October 1959 she called me up at the hospital, and it had
been years since I had seen her, and she told me she had come from
Australia. She was traveling around the world, and I invited her out to
the house the next weekend.

She couldn't come during the week. She was teaching school in Japan and
as a freelance teacher working for no agency, just doing this to earn
her own traveling money. So she visited us on a Sunday, I believe.

We talked about the family and everything. She talked about Lee, about
how proud he was to be in the Marine Corps, and he really put on a big
show about this.

Mr. JENNER. How did she know that, did she reveal?

Mr. PIC. She had seen him, evidently, when he was first in the Marine
Corps. She described him in uniform, and----

Mr. JENNER. You had the impression she had actually seen him in Japan?

Mr. PIC. No; she wasn't in Japan the same time he was. This is a year
after I am in Japan, sir, before I had seen her.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. And she had seen him when he first joined the Marine Corps,
is my impression, sometime while he was in the Marine Corps and in the
States.

Mr. JENNER. You had the impression that Lee had visited their home in
New Orleans?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is the impression I got.

Mr. JENNER. Go on.

Mr. PIC. Well, at this time, my mother was still writing to me, I never
answered any of her letters. Maybe I would receive a letter from her
every once, every 2 or 3 months. I also was aware of the fact that Lee
was going to be discharged from the Marine Corps.

Mr. JENNER. You became aware of that through what means?

Mr. PIC. The letters I would receive from my mother. She informed me
that Marilyn Murret--that Lee upon his discharge had gone to Europe. I
asked her how did he ever decide that, and where did he get the money
and she said he saved it while he was in the Marine Corps.

Mr. JENNER. Did she say he had gone to Europe?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Her quote, sir, to the best of my knowledge, "Do you
know that Lee is in Europe?" I said, "No, I don't know that." I had no
way of knowing that. So I started asking her about him, and this is
what she told me that Lee had gone to Europe.

It was that night, sir, on the 9 o'clock news that I learned that Lee
had defected.

Mr. JENNER. You say 9 o'clock news--was that----

Mr. PIC. Japan time, sir, that night.

Mr. JENNER. I mean, what source was the news?

Mr. PIC. American Armed Forces Network. My wife and I were in bed,
and I was about half asleep, and the radio was closest to her and she
nudged me and told me, and I said, "No, it couldn't be." So the next
day it appeared in the paper.

Mr. JENNER. What paper?

Mr. PIC. The Stars and Stripes, sir. Then I heard it on the radio again
the next day. There were a couple or three articles in the Stars and
Stripes about his defection. And I reported to the OSI and told them
who I was, and I told them who he was. Then I got in contact with the
Embassy in Japan.

Mr. JENNER. That is the American Embassy?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; and attempted to contact Lee. The only thing I
could get out was a telegram. I think my quote in the telegram was
"Please reconsider your actions." This, I understand, was delivered to
him at the Metropole Hotel in Moscow. After this defection I received
several----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When you heard this what was your reaction?

Mr. PIC. I didn't believe it. I mean my wife told me it was him, and
I think I stayed awake until the 10 o'clock news to hear it and they
mentioned it, and that was it, and so the next day it was in the paper
and that is when I reported to the OSI.

Mr. JENNER. What is OSI?

Mr. PIC. Office of Special Investigator, I believe, for the Air Force.

Mr. JENNER. Well, after the rebroadcasts and you became convinced it
was your brother what was your reaction?

Mr. PIC. It was hard to believe. It was just something you never expect.

Mr. JENNER. Had he done or said anything during all your life together
which served to lead you to think, well maybe it is so that he has?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir, ever since he was born and I was old enough to
remember, I always had a feeling that some great tragedy was going to
strike Lee in some way or another, and when this happened I figured
this was it. In fact, on the very day of the assassination I was
thinking about it when I was getting ready to go to work, and just,
I was thinking about him at that time and I figured well, when he
defected and came back--that was his big tragedy. I found out it wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. Would you give me--elaborate on that. Why did you have a
feeling for some time that someday he would have, would suffer a great
tragedy?

Mr. PIC. I don't know. It was just one of those things I can't explain.
I always had this feeling about him. Not as a kid, of course, but in my
young adulthood I thought that about him, especially after the incident
in New York. I thought this way. I had this feeling.

Mr. JENNER. You had a feeling at any time that he was groping for
a position or station in life, that he realized was beyond his
attainment, or any resentment on his part of his station in life?

Mr. PIC. I think he resented the fact that he never really had a
father, especially after he lost Mr. Ekdahl and his one and only chance
to get what he was looking for. Maybe that is why he looked to Robert
and I like he did.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see Marilyn Murret again?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she and I never discussed this. Those were the
orders of OSI, not to discuss it with anyone. I made them aware of her,
her presence in Japan. I don't know if they ever contacted her or not,
sir. I told them about her mentioning this to me that she knew he was
in Europe. How she knew, I don't know, sir. And everything I have read
states that no one knew he was going.

Mr. JENNER. But she was in your home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The very day that the announcement was made?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That Lee had defected to Russia?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; and the radio wasn't on or anything. I had the
hi-fi, she liked classical music, and I was playing some of my
records for her, and at no time during the day did we have any radio
broadcasts. She came about noon. Maybe it was on prior to this, I don't
think so, because at 9 o'clock----

Mr. JENNER. If it had been on, prior to that time, she didn't mention
any defection? All she said to you was, "Did you know that Lee was in
Europe?" Is that correct?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir. She didn't specify any country. In fact,
I asked her what country, and she said she didn't know. She just knew
he was in Europe. She had come from Australia to Japan. I think she may
have been in Japan a month prior to contacting me, a month, a little
less probably.

Mr. JENNER. You saw her again after that, did you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she visited our house several times. I think the
last time we seen her was about April or May 1960 when she left Japan.
We never seen her again. She said she would contact us and tell us when
she was leaving, but she never did.

Mr. JENNER. What was your assignment in Japan?

Mr. PIC. I was a medical laboratory technician at the hospital there,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. When did you return to the United States?

Mr. PIC. July 1962, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And to where did you return?

Mr. PIC. To Lackland Air Force Base where I am presently stationed. In
Japan, there is more that happened, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. I received--I wrote Lee, I mean Robert, and asked him about
this. Of course in Japan we didn't get much news and the OSI wouldn't
tell me too much. The Embassy, all they confirmed is that he did
defect. I guess in a period of 2, 3 months I got information from
Robert through several letters. Every time I got some information
I went to the OSI about this. It seems there was a letter, I don't
remember if Robert had copied it from Lee's letter or he had sent me
the original letter. I showed this, I gave it to the OSI. If they gave
it back, it is destroyed now, sir. In this letter he said that no one
should try to contact him because the American capitalists would be
listening over the phone. He mentioned that he had been contemplating
this act for quite awhile. That no one knew it. This is all in my OSI
report.

And from what other information I had, I received the impression that
him turning toward communism or Marxism, whichever you want to call
it, took place while he was in Japan and in the Marine Corps, sir,
from the insinuations that were involved in the letter or from his own
statements.

Mr. JENNER. Up to this time, Sergeant, in all your association with
your brother, had there been occasions when there were discussions
with him in the family about any theories or reactions of his toward
democracy, communism, Marxism, or any other form of government?

Mr. PIC. Sir, the last time he talked to me, I think he was only about
12, 13 years old.

Mr. JENNER. Well, the answer is no?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; that is the answer--no, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is that there hadn't been any such discussions?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You--I take it from that answer--you never heard him assert
any views?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. On his part, with respect to that subject matter?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

While I was processing to return to the States, I had seen in the paper
and everything that Lee was returning to the United States. When I
got my assignment to Lackland, the OSI kind of put it to me that if I
didn't want to be in the same vicinity as Lee that they could change
my orders, and I told them that the United States felt he was reliable
enough for, confident enough in him to let him return, that I would see
no reason to change my assignment. The OSI authorities said there was
no objection to me visiting him, talking to him or anything else. So I
didn't make any attempt to get my assignment changed because of these
reasons. Being it was close enough, you know, to see him fairly easily.

Mr. JENNER. Did anything else occur that you think is pertinent to the
time of your return to the United States?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; the only thing I knew about him was what I read in
the newspaper about him returning with his wife and child.

Mr. JENNER. When you say newspapers this is the Stars and Stripes?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; Stars and Stripes.

Mr. JENNER. That is before you returned to this country you had read in
the Stars and Stripes that he had returned to the United States?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he was on his way, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He was on his way back?

Mr. PIC. He was on his way back at the same time I was on my way back.

Mr. JENNER. You knew he was on his way back, according to the Stars and
Stripes, with his wife and child?

Mr. PIC. Yes; sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you arrived at Lackland Air Force Base when?

Mr. PIC. I arrived in the San Antonio area approximately the 21st of
July 1962, and got a house, got settled and then I signed in on my base
in August. I was permitted 30 days leave, 13 days travel time, which I
took advantage of. I think I took 27 days leave. So I started work in
August, the latter part of August.

Mr. JENNER. During that period of time of your 30 days' leave, after
arriving at Lackland Air Force Base and San Antonio, did you make any
attempt to find out anything about your brother, where he was?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I called Robert, and we wrote a couple of letters,
and he told me Lee was back, and he was living in Dallas and working
there, and everything seemed to be okay.

Mr. JENNER. Did your brother tell you that Lee, when he returned to
this country, had lived with him for a while?

Mr. PIC. I don't know if it was in these conversations. I learned at
the Thanksgiving reunion that he did.

Mr. JENNER. Which was Thanksgiving of 1962?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Up to the time you saw your brother, I take it, you saw him
Thanksgiving 1962?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; we arrived at my brother Robert's Thanksgiving Day
between about 11:30, 12:30.

Mr. JENNER. In the morning?

Mr. PIC. In the morning. We were to meet Lee and his wife at the
Greyhound bus station approximately 2 o'clock. So Robert and I went
down to pick him up. We picked them up outside the Greyhound bus
station. Whether or not they--we had no way of seeing them getting
off a bus. They were at the station when we got there. We did all the
friendly sayings and I was----

Mr. JENNER. Tell us what happened now? What was the attitude, what were
your impressions?

Mr. PIC. Well, I still was wondering if he was going to have this
feeling of hostility toward me that he had shown the last time he had
seen me, but it didn't manifest itself whatsoever. He introduced me to
his wife, and I gave her a kiss, and his child. We got in the car, and
he said I hadn't changed much, and we just talked like that. At no time
did Marina speak any English. She would ask him questions in what I
believe was Russian and he would talk back to her in--and talk through.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any discussion with him on that subject--where
he had learned Russian?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir, I knew he had been in Russia over 2 years, so
evidently he had learned Russian while there.

Mr. JENNER. There was no occasion because of that, it never occurred to
you to ask him about how and when he had learned?

Mr. PIC. I wasn't going to pry into his affairs, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You didn't?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Did you inquire of him as to his life in Russia?

Mr. PIC. We let him do the talking, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did he speak of it?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. PIC. He told us he worked in a factory there.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say what kind of work he did?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he didn't.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of a factory it was?

Mr. PIC. Something to do with metalwork, aluminum, something like that,
I believe. He told me he was making about $80 a month, I think, while
he worked there.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say he had accommodations that supplemented that
salary? Was there anything about whether he had to pay rent or not pay
rent for his quarters?

Mr. PIC. He didn't talk about anything prior to him and Marina being
married.

Mr. JENNER. He did not?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; all the conversation was after their marriage.

Mr. JENNER. No discussion of his as to why he went to Russia in the
first place?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion of his defection or attempted
defection?

Mr. PIC. Per se, no, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You are qualifying that. You say per se.

Mr. PIC. Right. He did mention that because of his actions he had
received a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps and that he was
attempting to get this changed to an honorable status.

Mr. JENNER. Did he appear bitter about it?

Mr. PIC. He showed us his card which stated dishonorable or bad
conduct, something like that. I think it was dishonorable. He showed it
to me.

Mr. JENNER. What was his--what impression did you have as to his
overall attitude? What impression did you have as to his state of mind?

Mr. PIC. He impressed me that he was glad to be back, that he didn't
really enjoy his stay in Russia. He commented about the hard life they
had there.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about that?

Mr. PIC. What did he say, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. A shortage of food, rationing of certain items, about eating a
lot of cabbage. He did say that the U.S. Government gave him the money
to come back on. He was in the process of paying them back. In fact, he
let it be known that regardless of anything else he was going to pay
the Government back.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say "regardless of anything else, I am going to pay
them back"? On what do you base that conclusory statement?

Mr. PIC. Well, he made the statement they paid and he is paying them
back, and he has got this job and he was telling me his financial
situation, and saying so much money is going to pay the Government back.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about his financial situation?

Mr. PIC. He didn't give me--this is what he gave me for an address.
He said he lived in an apartment, one room apartment. They had no
television, no radio, no coffee pot. In fact, we brought him a coffee
pot for a present. Gave them a coffee pot and bought the little girl a
stuffed animal of some type.

Mr. JENNER. Thanksgiving Day you did this?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How come you brought him a coffee pot?

Mr. PIC. I was going to give him a present.

Mr. JENNER. It is the coffee pot that interests me. Here you hadn't
seen him for a long time, you were bringing him a gift--why were you----

Mr. PIC. Well, my wife being a Yankee----

Mr. JENNER. Why did you bring him a coffee pot?

Mr. PIC. My wife in her Yankee ways believed when you don't see people
a long time you bring them a gift. It's just a token. We brought my
brother Robert a present, a set of dishes I had in Japan, I bought
them in Japan, and so naturally we couldn't give them anything without
giving the other people something.

Mr. JENNER. It isn't the fact that you brought him a gift. I can
understand that. That would be, I might be even a little surprised
if you hadn't. It is the particular gift in which I am interested.
Why did you select a coffee pot? Was there something that led to that
particular selection on your part?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; we didn't know what really to bring them, and my wife
says, it was one of these glass coffee pots that you put the candle
under, you see, it wasn't a regular percolator. It was one of these
that a hostess always likes to have available to pour coffee out of.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. And my wife had one, and she liked it so she figured we would
give them one.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Tell us everything that occurred on that day, what he said, what Robert
said that is pertinent, what you said, things that occurred, just
completely exhaust your recollection.

Mr. PIC. Well, Lee informed us that he was working at some type
photography printing company.

Mr. JENNER. In Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. You were advised during the course of that day he was then
at that time living in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is what he said.

Mr. JENNER. And working in some kind of photographic work in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. I said he referred to their living conditions.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. PIC. They had a one-room, I think it was one room. They ate
and slept in the same room, I believe. They had no radio, no TV.
That Marina, when they first arrived, was really astounded about
supermarkets. Every time she went in one she lost control of herself.

Marina herself wore no lipstick, very plainly dressed. Lee appeared to
be a good father in that he would relieve Marina the burden of holding
the child and taking care of it.

Mr. JENNER. How was he attired when you met him at the bus station?

Mr. PIC. He had on a sport jacket and tie. Sports jacket and tie.

Mr. JENNER. He was clean and neat?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How did Marina and your brother Lee appear to be getting
along?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; being they only spoke Russian to each other, I
don't know what they said but they appeared to be just like any other
married couple married a year or 2.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any conversation during the course of the day in
which you participated or overheard as to Marina's undertaking to learn
English?

Mr. PIC. Well, my sister-in-law, Vada----

Mr. JENNER. That is Robert's wife?

Mr. PIC. Wife. Of course, she had, she and my wife had a lot to say
to each other, and through my wife, I found out what Vada had said
to her, that Lee did not permit Marina to wear any lipstick, he did
not permit her to learn English. My wife, she thought this was really
absurd and said the best thing to do was to get them a TV set and let
her sit home and learn English. My wife thought it was terrible the way
her conditions were as far as this was concerned. The girls seemed to
gather in the dinette and we sat around in the living room, talking.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said by Vada or your wife on that occasion as
to the reason why Lee was not permitting Marina to learn English and
speak it and write it?

Mr. PIC. Well, my wife assumed that if she did ever learn English she
would wise up, being we had seen the Japanese wise with their husbands.
For example, while they were living over in Japan and the wife is
usually meek and mild but when they get over here they change, you see,
she gets her American ways, and lowers the boom on the husband like all
the other American wives do. And my wife was under the impression that
this would happen if once she did learn English and everything.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Keep talking about what occurred on this
particular day, what was said, what your impressions were until you
exhaust all of your recollection.

Mr. PIC. Well, Marina and the two wives helped prepare the meal, set
the table, and we ate, and there was family talk. At no time did we
mention our mother. She wasn't present. In fact--I will take that
statement back.

Some time during our stay there Vada mentioned that she had seen my
mother driving around with a man and she thought she had remarried.
This may have been that day, it may have been a day or so later. We
stayed there Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and we left Sunday.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said during the course of that occasion or
in your presence or reported to you by your wife, as to how Vada and
Marina had gotten along while the Oswalds, your brother, and she lived
with your brother Robert and your sister-in-law Vada?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't remember that, sir. If it was any talk it was
probably on caring, and so forth, about the child and so forth, which
is small talk to the men, of course.

Mr. JENNER. Did you learn on that day that Lee had lived with your
brother for a while?

Mr. PIC. I had learned during that time period that Lee and Marina had
lived with Robert when they returned, and that an attempt was made by
the press and TV to contact them, but Robert wouldn't let them. He
wasn't going to go through it again. Robert only had a one--two-bedroom
apartment, I mean house, and I am sure when we stayed there we were
crowded a little bit. My wife and I slept on the floor, and I am sure
Marina and Robert, I don't know where they slept--I mean Lee.

Mr. JENNER. Your children slept in the bed and you and your wife slept
on a mattress on the floor?

Mr. PIC. A couple of blankets on the floor, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you learn during that period of time that Lee had lived
with your brother for a time?

Mr. PIC. Possibly, sir; I don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said about the fact or any allusion to the
fact that during this period, up to Thanksgiving Day, there had been a
time when Marina had not lived with your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. I understood they arrived from New York, at New York
together, and proceeded--there was a short stay, I think, mentioned in
New York. Where they stayed, I don't know, sir, and then they proceeded
to Texas and lived with Robert.

Mr. JENNER. I am referring particularly to September and October and
part of November 1962. Was there any reference or any discussion of it
or anything said in your presence of the fact that Marina had lived
apart, separate and apart from Lee?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. During one or more periods of time in September or October
and November 1962?

Mr. PIC. Possibly it could have been being Marina stayed there while
Lee went to look for a job in Dallas. I think, that may have been
mentioned.

Mr. JENNER. Was there at any time mentioned even while he was working
in Fort Worth, fully employed that she had separated from him and gone
to live elsewhere?

Mr. PIC. I am not aware that he did work in Fort Worth, sir, at any
time.

Mr. JENNER. You didn't learn at that time, Thanksgiving, that he had
worked in Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was the Leslie Welding Co. mentioned at all?

Mr. PIC. Something about welding was mentioned, that he tried it when
he first came back, now that you mention it.

Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression or did you gain the impression then
that he had had some employment in Fort Worth then as a welder?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember if it was Fort Worth, sir, or where it was. I
just know that welding was mentioned.

Mr. JENNER. In that connection, was it mentioned or in any fashion
indicated to you that he had been employed as a welder whether in Fort
Worth or otherwise, but he had been employed as a welder?

Mr. PIC. It was my impression because of his experience in the Soviet
Union working with metals that this helped him in getting his job as a
welder.

Mr. JENNER. When he first returned?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that that was a position or work that he had had prior
to the time that he obtained the position in Dallas about which he
spoke?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is a position preceding his work in the photography
field in some firm in Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Anything said about his financial status--that is, his and
Marina's, and the child?

Mr. PIC. Well, he said he wasn't making very much money, but they were
managing to get by. They couldn't afford a TV, couldn't afford a radio,
couldn't afford these necessities of life.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything during the course of that day on the
subject of any political philosophy of his?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; not at all.

Mr. JENNER. Politics wasn't discussed?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Whether party politics or politics in the broad sense?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; not at all.

Mr. JENNER. How did he look to you physically as compared with when you
had seen him last?

Mr. PIC. I would have never recognized him, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Your brother Robert said something along these
lines. You had last seen him in 19--that was prior to this occasion,
the last time you had seen him was when he was in New York City?

Mr. PIC. Which was a little over 10 years.

Mr. JENNER. Well, just about 10 years.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Of course you had seen him in February 1953, I think you
said.

Mr. PIC. Right. But we walked in and he walked out.

Mr. JENNER. But you saw him?

Mr. PIC. Right, I had seen him for a moment.

Mr. JENNER. He was then at that particular time in the neighborhood of
13 years of age?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, when you saw him 10 years later he was 23.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You noticed, did you, a material change, physically first,
let's take his physical appearance?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Physically I noticed that.

Mr. JENNER. What did you notice?

Mr. PIC. He was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have
as much hair.

Mr. JENNER. Did that arrest your attention? Was that a material
difference? Did that strike you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it struck me quite profusely.

Mr. JENNER. What else did you notice about his physical appearance that
arrested your attention?

Mr. PIC. His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes
were set back maybe, you know like in these Army pictures, they looked
different than I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had
described him to me when he went in the Marine Corps as having a bull
neck. This I didn't notice at all. I looked for this, I didn't notice
this at all, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He seemed more slender?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He had materially less hair?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. His eyes seemed a little sunken?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did he give you the appearance of--was he taut, was he
relaxed or taut, or just what appearance did he have in that connection?

Mr. PIC. Sir, he didn't strike me as being relaxed because I was not
with him.

Mr. JENNER. You were not?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; because of these other feelings we had developed 10
years prior to this. I wondered about how he still felt about that.

Mr. JENNER. But nothing occurred to lead you to believe that he still
remembered it vividly, or did or didn't?

Mr. PIC. When he was introduced to my wife again he did mention that he
remembered her. But other than that, he completely ignored her.

Mr. JENNER. Was that pretty obvious?

Mr. PIC. To her it was, sir. She mentioned it to me several times. He
arrived about 2.

Mr. JENNER. In the afternoon?

Mr. PIC. Right; and that is when we picked him up, so I guess we ate
about 3, 4 o'clock or so. And then the girls cleared off the table and
they sat and had coffee and I took them out, they wanted to see my car.

Mr. JENNER. Took who out?

Mr. PIC. Lee and Robert both. They looked at my car.

Mr. JENNER. Did you take Marina out with you?

Mr. PIC. No; she stayed in the house with the girls, and we talked
about cars.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about a car?

Mr. PIC. I was made aware sometime during the day that he wasn't
driving. Other than this----

Mr. JENNER. How did you become aware of that?

Mr. PIC. He said he couldn't get a license, to me.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say why he couldn't get a license?

Mr. PIC. He said it and give me the impression because of his
citizenship status being he had a dishonorable discharge.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever see your brother Lee Harvey Oswald drive an
automobile?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; never in my life.

Mr. JENNER. While you boys were still in Fort Worth and before you
enlisted in the Coast Guard in January 1950 had you--you had an
automobile, didn't you?

Mr. PIC. I drove the family car.

Mr. JENNER. Did your brother Robert drive?

Mr. PIC. He may have known how. He was not permitted to drive the
family car.

Mr. JENNER. I remember when I was a boy I wasn't permitted to drive the
family car, in the broad sense.

Mr. PIC. Right. He never swiped it.

Mr. JENNER. I was permitted to drive it up and down the driveway or
when my father was with me, I could drive it around the block or
something like that the way kids do. Was Robert permitted to do that on
a limited scale?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't remember that, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you own what we used to call in my day an old jalopy
while you were still in Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. That picture of that automobile there was quite an old jalopy,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. That was before you enlisted?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did your brother Robert ever drive that?

Mr. PIC. To the best of my recollection, no, sir. In fact, I only drove
it a few times myself. This is the picture with the dog.

Mr. JENNER. That is the picture of the car in John Pic's Exhibit No. 55?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Lee never drove it, to your knowledge?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was your brother Robert interested in automobiles?

Mr. PIC. All kids are interested in automobiles.

Mr. JENNER. No; please--was he interested in automobiles?

Mr. PIC. Sure, he wanted to drive. He seen I was driving so he wanted
to drive and he wasn't as old as I was, I was permitted to drive and he
wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. What about your brother Lee Harvey Oswald in that respect?

Mr. PIC. I don't know if he ever was really interested at that age to
drive a car or not, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said on the day, Thanksgiving Day 1962, to
lead you to believe that he knew how to drive or operate an automobile?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, are you right handed?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is your brother Lee right or left handed?

Mr. PIC. I think he was right handed, sir. I think we were all right
handed, Robert had tendencies toward the left hand and I think my
mother made him change.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said during the course of that occasion when
you saw him about his experiences in the Marines?

Mr. PIC. There probably was, sir, but I don't remember what they
referred to. I know he told me he was at Atsugo Naval Air Station. This
I didn't know until he told me exactly where he was in Japan. I was
familiar with the Atsugo area.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about having been in the Philippines?

Mr. PIC. Reading the magazine I now know that----

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything then?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; at that time I don't remember knowing that he had
been in the Philippines.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about ever having been in Formosa?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. Just Japan, I think possibly Korea, maybe, was
mentioned.

Mr. JENNER. But there was no discussion of his marine career to speak
of?

Mr. PIC. He was affiliated with radar, he told me, radio radar.

Mr. JENNER. Did the subject arise of why he went to Russia?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That was not discussed at all?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Nothing was said? Anything said about his experiences in
Russia prior to the time he became married there?

Mr. PIC. No sir; he didn't mention that at all to me.

Mr. JENNER. And anything said about his problems with the--I will
withdraw that.

Was anything said about his defection or attempted defection to Russia?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he did not mention his defection at all. Why he did
it or how he did it, he didn't mention anything, and I didn't ask him.

Mr. JENNER. During the several days you were in Fort Worth visiting
your brother Robert, did you and he go hunting?

Mr. PIC. We went fishing, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Fishing? I take it you did not go hunting.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; not at that particular time. When I first went there
in 1958, we did go hunting.

Mr. JENNER. I see. When you three boys were in Fort Worth, that is
before you enlisted in January 1950, did you boys occasionally go
hunting?

Mr. PIC. We had no firearms whatsoever, sir, in the house.

Mr. JENNER. So you did not go hunting?

Mr. PIC. I didn't. Robert possibly did with some friends of his. I
don't think Lee ever did. We went fishing several times.

Mr. JENNER. After you returned to this country in 1962, thereafter
there were occasions, where there, or some one occasion, at least, when
you did go squirrel or rabbit hunting with your brother Robert?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; that was in 1958.

Mr. JENNER. Oh, yes. When you were traveling across country to
California?

Mr. PIC. Yes; we went to his in-law's farm and we did a little hunting
on his father-in-law's property.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of firearms?

Mr. PIC. .22, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Single shot?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You say the subject of your mother was not mentioned in the
course of this Thanksgiving Day visit?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; Robert and I never brought her up in any
conversations we had.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lee?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about her?

Mr. PIC. He mentioned her, that he had seen her or been in touch with
her when he first came back, maybe even stayed with her for a week or
two when he first came back, I don't remember. My wife later told me
that Marina couldn't get along with my mother.

Mr. JENNER. Marina told your wife that she couldn't get along with your
mother?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I think it was Vada told my wife that Marina
couldn't. I think she rather observed this rather than being told by
Marina.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. PIC. That the two of them, not that they didn't get along, but that
Marina disliked her.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the last time you saw your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir, in the course of that Thanksgiving Day, my brother
Robert offered to drive him back to the bus station. Lee made a phone
call and it was my understanding that the people that he phoned were of
Russian descent, and that Marina often visited with them or talked with
them, so she could talk in her own native tongue, and that their boy,
who was attending, I believe, the University of Oklahoma----

Mr. JENNER. Paul Gregory?

Mr. PIC. Sir, I don't remember his name at all, because I was mad at
the time I was introduced to him.

Mr. JENNER. Introduced to whom?

Mr. PIC. This gentleman who picked him up.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a young man?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right, tell us the circumstances, tell us what led up
to this incident, and tell us all about the incident.

Mr. PIC. Well, they made the phone call, and Lee said that they would
be picked up by their friends, and I think sometime between 6 and 7
that night he came by. Now, my brother Robert, whenever he introduces
me to anyone always refers to me as his brother. Lee referred to me as
his half brother when he introduced me.

Mr. JENNER. On this occasion?

Mr. PIC. It was very pronounced. He wanted to let the man know I was
only his half brother. And this kind of peeved me a little bit. Because
we never mentioned the fact that we were half brothers.

Mr. JENNER. You never had that feeling?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was this the first time that your brother had ever
introduced you to anyone as his half brother? I am talking about your
brother Lee now.

Mr. PIC. I think possibly, sir, this is the first time he ever
introduced me to anyone.

Mr. JENNER. Was this the first time he had ever referred to you as your
half brother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. His half brother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is that so?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that irritated you on this occasion?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Right then and there I had the feeling that the
hostile feeling was still there. Up until this time it didn't show
itself, but I felt then, well, he still felt the same way.

Mr. JENNER. This young man from the University of Oklahoma, whose name,
by the way, was Gregory----

Mr. PIC. He was at the University of Oklahoma.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. I have said this three or four times, I wasn't certain, but
I am sure he was and I was introduced to him as Lee's half brother,
and the man was studying Russian at the school. His parents were from
Russia.

Mr. JENNER. He came alone, did he?

Mr. PIC. The car was parked out front, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Well, he was alone when he came in?

Mr. PIC. He was in the house alone.

Mr. JENNER. Was it night?

Mr. PIC. Yes; it was dark between 6 and 7 in November.

Mr. JENNER. Did you go out to the car?

Mr. PIC. No; I didn't. We stayed in the house.

Mr. JENNER. Did Robert go out to the car?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember, sir. I don't think so.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina appear to be acquainted with this young man?

Mr. PIC. Yes; as soon as he walked in she started talking Russian to
him.

Mr. JENNER. Did he respond in Russian?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Lee spoke to him in Russian?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Except when he was introducing you to him he introduced you
in English as his half brother?

Mr. PIC. Well, Lee would speak to him part Russian, part English. He
was only there maybe a couple or 3 minutes. I had the impression that
this gentleman could speak Russian better than Lee.

Mr. JENNER. What gave you that impression?

Mr. PIC. Because Lee wouldn't converse fully with him in Russian
whereas him and Marina did converse fully in Russian.

Mr. JENNER. Any other impressions you got of this several hours visit
with your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC. Well, right before they left, sir; I told him that if he needs
any help or anything, to let me know. I told him I was unable to help
him financially but he is welcome to pay us a visit any time he wished,
stay with us, talk like that.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. PIC. He said OK. He told me to write to him, and in this book, sir,
which I had there he wrote his post office box address in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. We will give that little book, to which you make reference,
John Pic Exhibit No. 60.

(The document referred to was marked John Pic Exhibit No. 60 for
identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I have John Pic Exhibit No. 60 in my hand. What is this?

Mr. PIC. A black memo book, I guess.

Mr. JENNER. Of yours?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I had it in my car at the time. Whenever I travel I
keep a little book with my mileage on it and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. I notice that the fist ruled page of this book on which
there appear some figures, the letter "B" and then there are some
handwritings which appears to be Russian. I show that to you.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In whose handwriting is that?

Mr. PIC. That is in the handwriting of Marina Oswald, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What was the occasion of her writing in this book?

Mr. PIC. Only part of this, sir, is in the handwriting of Marina
Oswald. This right here [indicating].

Mr. JENNER. That is the word beginning with the letter, it looks like
the letter "N" or "M" and the word right below that beginning with the
letter "D," and a word right below that beginning, it looks like a
capital "H"?

Mr. PIC. That is right, sir. The other ones are in my handwriting.

Mr. JENNER. The others are all figures?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. What was the occasion of her writing that on the page?

Mr. PIC. She being a pharmacist, and me being in the medical field,
we tried to communicate with each other just to make small talk with
medical terminology, metric system and so forth, just some way to kill
time with each other she and I seemed to be able to do this to some
degree.

Mr. JENNER. That is to communicate?

Mr. PIC. Yes; as long as we stuck within the pharmacy and medical field.

Mr. JENNER. Did she know some English terms in the pharmacy, medical
field?

Mr. PIC. She used Latin phrases, some of which were familiar to me.

Mr. JENNER. Just what was that writing, some medical terms?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I think these are names of drugs she was writing down. I
wouldn't know.

Mr. JENNER. There is a large letter "B" on that page. How did that get
on there?

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir. I don't know, sir. I wouldn't venture a
guess whose handwriting it is.

Mr. JENNER. There is a square to the left of the handwriting in
Russian, what does that signify?

Mr. PIC. This was placed there by the Secret Service, in San Antonio,
sir, to identify the handwritings in this book, the square being the
handwriting of Marina Oswald, the parentheses being the handwriting of
myself and the mark with the circle being the handwriting of Lee Harvey
Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. So that wherever throughout that book a zero appears that
is the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Wherever the parentheses mark appears that is your
handwriting?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And wherever the square appears that is Marina's
handwriting?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Turn the page over. On the reverse side of that page that
is all your handwriting?

Mr. PIC. Except this up here, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The reverse side of the previous page.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is my handwriting.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, the front side of the next page which has
the letter "A" printed on it, in the upper right-hand corner. Is that
in your handwriting?

Mr. PIC. Everything except this top portion, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The top portion?

Mr. PIC. Starting with liquid measure would be my handwriting.

Mr. JENNER. And then there is something above that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Whose handwriting is that?

Mr. PIC. I believe that to be Marina Oswald's, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Everything below that is yours?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. The reverse side of that page, that is the
reverse side of the "A" page is in whose handwriting?

Mr. PIC. My handwriting, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Then the page opposite that?

Mr. PIC. That is in my handwriting, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The reverse side of that page is blank. Then the face
of the next page is some figures and the words "Highway start, Fort
Worth," and "highway" again, those are all in whose handwriting?

Mr. PIC. My handwriting, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Then the series of pages are blank, and the first writing
we see thereafter is on the "C" page, some letters and a figure. Whose
handwriting is that?

Mr. PIC. That is mine, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next handwriting appears on the last ruled page. Whose
handwriting is that?

Mr. PIC. That is the handwriting of my wife, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All of it?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she loves to write her name.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Then on the next to the last page in the book
which is a plain white page, appears P.O. Box 2195, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. PIC. That is the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And on the opposite page, which is the inside of the back
cover----

Mr. PIC. This is the identifying mark in the hand of Secret Service
Agent Ben A. Vidles, in San Antonio, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. This book is in the same condition now as it was?

Mr. PIC. When I gave it to the Secret Service.

Mr. JENNER. When you gave it to the Secret Service.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Plus the identifying marks you have described?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I offer in evidence a document, memorandum book now marked
as "John Pic Exhibit No. 60."

(The document heretofore marked for identification as John Pic Exhibit
No. 60 was received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. Did you thereafter prior to November 22, up to but prior to
November 22, 1963, hear anything about your brother?

Mr. PIC. The day or two after they left Robert and I went fishing.
While we were in the boat there was Robert, myself, and my oldest boy,
and at this time I asked him about Lee, I asked him if he considered
or thought that Lee was a little on the pink side and just how he was
getting along. Robert informed me that he had had seen FBI agents once
in awhile who said Lee was doing pretty good and that there was nothing
to worry about. And all reports that he had had were favorable towards
Lee.

Mr. JENNER. Robert did tell you that the FBI had checked with him?

Mr. PIC. He had seen an agent now and then, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He didn't elaborate as to whether the FBI had come to visit
him or whether he had merely run into some FBI agent?

Mr. PIC. I had the impression that they had visited him where he
worked, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear anything else about your brother from that
occasion up to but not including November 22, 1963?

Mr. PIC. Well, other information I gathered from my talks with Robert
in those few days was that Lee and Marina made the trip to see them in
Fort Worth fairly regular, to have dinner, things like this. It seems
that Vada and Marina were at one time, I was told, talking----

Mr. JENNER. By whom?

Mr. PIC. By Vada, Marina was trying to make a point about her wedding
ring being she couldn't speak English, Vada got the impression that
Marina had been married before.

Mr. JENNER. That Marina had been married before?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this is the only thing she could gather from Marina
flashing her wedding ring and talking about this. The four of us were
present, Robert, myself, and the two wives. But this was done over
coffee.

Mr. JENNER. This was after Lee and Marina had left?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; this was after they had left.

Mr. JENNER. What did Robert say on that subject, if anything?

Mr. PIC. Nothing. That he didn't think she had been married before.

Mr. JENNER. Did you visit your brother Robert, and did he visit you
subsequent to that occasion on Thanksgiving up to but not including
November 22, 1963?

Mr. PIC. A couple or 3 days prior to Christmas of 1962, Robert and his
family returned the visit to our home in San Antonio, sir. I asked
Robert this time if he had seen or heard from Lee since we had last
seen him and he told me, no.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any comment on that subject that he had not heard
from Lee up to that time?

Mr. PIC. It was really only a matter of 3 or 4 weeks at the most, sir.

Mr. JENNER. So it didn't occasion any surprise on your part?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you given any other information by Robert with respect
to Lee?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; not that I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see Robert again subsequent to this pre-Christmas
Party 1962?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And up to but not including November 22, 1963?

Mr. PIC. I still haven't seen him since Christmas 1962.

Mr. JENNER. Have you corresponded?

Mr. PIC. We have written a few letters, and I was permitted to make a
phone call to him right after the assassination.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say in the course of that conversation? What
did you say?

Mr. PIC. This was--I was permitted to make the phone call after Lee's
murder. The Secret Service said I could contact Robert. He had called
where I worked and left a number. I contacted the Secret Service. They
told me go ahead and call this number, call them back and tell them the
gist of the conversation.

I called him up at this number. Someone answered the phone and I asked
for Robert and they called him to the phone. He told me that he and
his--told me his wife and children were at the farm with her folks, I
believe that is what he told me. That he was--he couldn't tell me where
he was but he was in Arlington, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. Robert was?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; under custody of the Secret Service.

Mr. JENNER. What day of the week was this?

Mr. PIC. This was Sunday, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The day of the death of your brother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The 24th of November 1963?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What else was said?

Mr. PIC. He told me that some local business people would make
arrangements for the funeral and there would be no expense to him. I
told him I was sorry it happened and everything.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about having seen your brother at the
Dallas City Police Station prior to this telephone conversation?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion in this telephone conversation
about the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; there wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. About the possible involvement of your brother in that
connection?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; there wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. I take it, then, it was confined largely, if not
exclusively, to the death of your brother?

Mr. PIC. The conversation was just about as I related it, sir. It was
mostly confined to the death of Lee.

Mr. JENNER. And his burial?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you attend the funeral services?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I was not permitted. In fact, the Secret Service
did not let me write Robert for, I think, 7 to 8 days after the
assassination. At that time they granted me permission to freely
correspond with him.

Mr. JENNER. And you did so?

Mr. PIC. I think we have written about two, three letters back and
forth. I am the one who fails to write. He never fails to write.

Mr. JENNER. The subject matter of these letters involved Lee; any of
them?

Mr. PIC. I think the very first one I got concerned the welfare of his
family. They were out at the farm. That his company treated him very
good about all the time lost. That Marina asked about us and how we
were getting along. In my return letter to him I told him nobody had
bothered us and we were getting along just fine. He informed me that he
was--I suggested if they could, to come down and stay with us awhile.
We had just purchased a new house, we had the room, and he wrote back
and told me that because he had missed all the time because of the
incidents he was unable to get any more time from his company without
losing his job.

Mr. JENNER. Have you seen Marina in the meantime?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The last time you saw her, I take it, then, was
Thanksgiving Day 1962?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Has there been any correspondence between you?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Has there been any correspondence that was indirect in any
fashion?

Mr. PIC. My last letter I received from Robert was right after he
appeared here. He mentioned that Marina often asked about my wife
and I. Other than this, there has been no mention. He has mentioned
about the grave being desecrated, and some information concerning the
gravesite of Lee.

Mr. JENNER. Before I return to some specifics, is there anything else
that has occurred to you in your reflection on this matter that you
would like to mention?

Mr. PIC. The actual assassination, that time period or what, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Well, anything you think that might be relevant to the
Commission's investigation as to the circumstances surrounding the
assassination of President Kennedy, any persons involved therein, the
subsequent death of your brother.

Mr. PIC. Most of the information that I have seen and heard has been
all new to me, like his escapades in New Orleans, passing out the
leaflets and his radio program.

Mr. JENNER. Those incidents, by the way, were unknown to you until
after the assassination, I take it?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I assure you if I had known he was doing his
escapades again I would have went to the proper authorities about it.

Mr. JENNER. I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first
Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages
of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your
attention first to the lower left-hand spread at the bottom of the
page. Do you recognize the area shown there?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your
brother?

Mr. PIC. This one here with the arrow.

Mr. JENNER. The one that has the printed arrow?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you recognize that as your brother?

Mr. PIC. Because they say so, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Please, I don't want you to say----

Mr. PIC. No; I couldn't recognize that.

Mr. JENNER. Because this magazine says that it is.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.

Mr. JENNER. You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after
studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother
now, I am talking about Lee.

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In the upper portion there are a series of photographs
spread from left-hand page across to the right-hand page. Take those on
the left which appears to be a photograph of three young men. Do you
recognize the persons shown in that photograph?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I recognize this photograph, the people from left to
right being Robert Oswald, the center one being Lee Oswald, and the
third one being myself. This picture was taken at the house in Dallas
when we returned from New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. You mean from--when you came from New Orleans after being
at the Bethlehem Orphanage Home?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you went to Dallas?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It was taken in Dallas at or about that time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young
boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a
striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any impression as to when and where that was
taken?

Mr. PIC. Just looking at the picture, I would guess first, second
grade, maybe. I would have to guess at it.

Mr. JENNER. Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a
young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees,
legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people
apparently in the background.

Mr. PIC. I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as
to where that was taken?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the
upper portion of the--one young man at the bottom and then apparently a
young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either
of those young people?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing
in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do
you recognize that?

Mr. PIC. Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee
Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you
recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Commission Exhibit No. 284--do you recognize anybody in
that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. There is a young fellow in the foreground--everybody else
is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you
recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; looking at that picture--and I have looked at it
several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my
recollection.

Mr. JENNER. All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner,
there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in
that picture?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962,
his profile.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is
pointing her finger at him?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to
bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. Neither one of them?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert
rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never
guess that that would be Lee, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is in the lower left-hand
corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction,
also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that?

Mr. PIC. That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I
seen him Thanksgiving 1962.

Mr. JENNER. Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No.
289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as
your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I do not recognize them.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a
photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of
those persons?

Mr. PIC. He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him.

Mr. JENNER. And the lady?

Mr. PIC. She is his wife, Marina, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page,
there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another
man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the
young man handing out the leaflet?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.

Mr. JENNER. As to whether he was your brother?

Mr. PIC. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 292, in the upper right-hand corner, is a
picture of a lady, a young lady with a child. Do you recognize either
of those persons?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I recognize Marina Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. And the baby?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I couldn't recognize the baby.

Mr. JENNER. Below that is a picture purporting to be that of your
brother with a pistol on his right hip, and with a firearm, a rifle
in his left hand holding up what appear to be some leaflets. Do you
recognize that as your brother Lee?

Mr. PIC. That is how he looked to me in 1962 when I seen him, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is a duplicate of the picture on the cover. You have
produced for us a series of letters from your mother to yourself, from
your brother Lee to yourself, and from your brother Robert to yourself
which have been marked John Pic Exhibits Nos. 6 through 47, inclusive.

Did you assist Mr. Ely, in the preparation of this list of exhibits?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I arranged the stacks. He took it from the stacks I
arranged previously.

Mr. JENNER. For the purpose of the record, then, John Pic Exhibit No. 6
is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic, postmarked May 8, 1950,
and its accompanying envelope as John Pic Exhibit No. 6-A. John Pic
Exhibit No. 7 is a letter from your mother to you, postmarked May 23,
1950, or the envelope is so postmarked. Its accompanying envelope being
marked John Pic Exhibit No. 7-A. John Pic Exhibit No. 8, a letter from
Marguerite Oswald to John Pic enclosed in envelope, Exhibit No. 8-A,
postmarked at Fort Worth, May 24, 1950.

By the way, Exhibit No. 6-A is postmarked Fort Worth. All of these
exhibits until I indicate otherwise from here on are marked with a
return address to M. Oswald, 9048 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. PIC. 7408.

Mr. JENNER. What did I say? 7408; that is correct. You are right.

Exhibit No. 9 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic,
accompanying envelope is Exhibit No. 9-A postmarked June 9, 1950.

Exhibit No. 10 and its reverse side, which is marked Exhibit No. 10-B,
is a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to John Pic enclosed in envelope
marked John Pic Exhibit No. 10-A, postmarked at Fort Worth, Tex., on
August 23, 1950. This envelope has no return address on it.

Exhibit No. 11 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic in an
envelope postmarked August 15, 1950, marked Exhibit No. 11-A.

Exhibit No. 12 is a letter from Marguerite to John Pic enclosed in
envelope postmarked November 6, 1950, and identified as John Pic
Exhibit No. 12-A.

The next is John Pic Exhibit No. 13, a letter from Marguerite Oswald
to John Pic enclosed in envelope postmarked December 13, 1950, the
envelope being marked John Pic Exhibit No. 13-A. This does have the
return address Lee Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.

The next is a short longhand note on a small sheet marked John Pic
Exhibit No. 14 which is undated, Lee Harvey Oswald to John Pic, which
was enclosed with Exhibit No. 13.

The next is a card, Christmas card, marked John Pic Exhibit No. 15,
inside cover of which in longhand says, "Dear Pic," and then there is
in longhand and pencil "I sure am sorry that you can't come home for
Christmas so I am sending you this fruitcake. Merry Christmas"--spelled
Mary--"from Lee."

The next is John Pic No. 16, a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John
Pic enclosed in envelope marked Pic Exhibit No. 16-A and postmarked in
Fort Worth, April 16, 1951, with the usual return address.

Exhibit No. 17 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic enclosed
in envelope postmarked at Fort Worth on April 23, 1951. That envelope
is marked John Pic Exhibit No. 17-A. The previous envelope in which
Exhibit No. 16 was enclosed was marked Exhibit No. 16-A. I will say for
the record in each instance where there is a letter accompanied by an
envelope, the envelope is marked with a letter "A" but with the same
number as the letter.

Exhibit No. 18 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic enclosed
in an envelope marked Exhibit No. 18-A, postmarked at Fort Worth, May
22, 1951.

The next is Exhibit No. 19, a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic
enclosed in an envelope marked Exhibit No. 19-A, postmarked at Fort
Worth on June 18, 1951.

Exhibit No. 20 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic and
Exhibit No. 20-B is a birthday card from Marguerite. Both are enclosed
in an envelope marked John Pic Exhibit No. 20-A, postmarked at Fort
Worth, Tex., June 14, 1952, bearing the usual return address.

Exhibit No. 21 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic enclosed
in an envelope marked Pic Exhibit No. 21-A, postmarked Fort Worth, July
14, 1952, with the usual return address.

The next is a letter without an envelope which is marked John Pic
Exhibit No. 22. The letter is dated May 10, 1954.

The Exhibit No. 23 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic
enclosed is an envelope, Exhibit No. 23-A, postmarked in New Orleans on
June 14, 1954, containing the return address, M. Oswald, 1454 St. Mary,
New Orleans, La.

The next is Exhibit No. 24; it is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to
John Pic enclosed in an envelope postmarked at New Orleans, October 14,
1954, which in turn is marked John Pic Exhibit No. 24-A. It contains
the return address, M. Oswald, 126 Exchange, New Orleans, La. If I
neglected to do so, Exhibit No. 22 is the letter from Marguerite Oswald
to John Pic.

Exhibit No. 25 also is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic
enclosed in an envelope marked Exhibit No. 25-A, postmarked at New
Orleans, La., on November 12, 1954, containing return address, M.
Oswald, 126 Exchange, New Orleans, La.

Exhibit No. 26 is a letter from Marguerite Oswald to John Pic enclosed
in an envelope marked Exhibit No. 26-A, postmarked at New Orleans, La.,
on November 11, 1954, return address, Mrs. M. Oswald, 126 Exchange, New
Orleans, La. Mr. Pic, are Exhibits Nos. 6 and 6-A, 7 and 7-A, 8 and
8-A, 9 and 9-A, 10 and 10-A, 11 and 11-A--excuse me, strike out that 10
and 10-A--11 and 11-A, 12 and 12-A, 16 and 16-A, 17 and 17-A, 18 and
18-A, 19 and 19-A, 20 and 20-A, 21 and 21-A, 22, 23 and 23-A, 24 and
24-A, 25 and 25-A, 26 and 26-A, all in the handwriting of your mother
Marguerite Oswald?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And were those envelopes addressed to you at various places
you were then, that is as of the time they were postmarked received by
you at or about the postmarked dates or shortly thereafter which each
envelope bears?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. There is one exhibit that doesn't have an envelope. Was
that letter received by you shortly after the date it bears?

Mr. PIC. You refer to Exhibit No. 22, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. PIC. To the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. These are all, they all consist of correspondence from your
mother to you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And they happen to be correspondence which you have
retained over the years?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Except for the exhibit marks on those, they are in the same
condition now as they were at the time you received them and opened
them in the case of the envelopes?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that the letters are in the condition they were at the
time you read them?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Go back to Pic Exhibit No. 10, in whose handwriting is that
exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 10, sir, is in the handwriting of--there is
Exhibits Nos. 10, 10-A, and 10-B.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 10, I am referring to.

Mr. PIC. They are both in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibits Nos. 10 and 10-A; correct?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; Exhibits Nos. 10, 10-A, and 10-B. Exhibit No. 10 is
the insert in envelope Exhibit No. 10-A.

Mr. JENNER. Then look at Exhibits Nos. 13 and 13-A.

Mr. PIC. They are marked Exhibits Nos. 13 and 13-A, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. The contents are marked Exhibit No. 13.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In whose handwriting is the envelope?

Mr. PIC. Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. JENNER. And whose handwriting is that which appears in the inside
of that card?

Mr. PIC. My mother's, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is there any handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald on that card?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The card was enclosed, was it in the exhibit marked John
Pic No. 13-A?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Turn to Exhibit No. 14. That is a note you received from
your brother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is that in his handwriting?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It is undated.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have the envelope in which that was enclosed?

Mr. PIC. Sir, it may be Exhibit No. 13-A, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. It may have been enclosed in Exhibit No. 13-A?

Mr. PIC. It may have been enclosed in Exhibit No. 10-A, I don't know,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, it is in the handwriting of your brother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you received it in due course some time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. On or about the holiday period----

Mr. PIC. I would guess that Exhibit No. 15 goes in envelope Exhibit No.
13-A.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Would you put them in there?

Mr. PIC. And the date on envelope Exhibit No. 13-A is 13 December, and
this is a Christmas card from Lee, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That Christmas card on the inside is the handwriting of
your mother, however?

Mr. PIC. No, sir. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, the exhibit marked John Pic No. 14, do you
have a recollection as to the envelope in which that was enclosed?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection as to approximately when you
received it, that is John Pic Exhibit No. 14?

Mr. PIC. I would speculate and say that Exhibit No. 10 goes in envelope
Exhibit No. 10-A, and that Exhibit No. 14 either came some little
period of time before or after the contents in envelope Exhibit No.
10-A.

Mr. JENNER. That is while you were away at military school?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; this is when I am in the Coast Guard.

Mr. JENNER. All right. All those exhibits I have now identified, that
is after I identified your mother's letters, are in the handwriting of
Lee Oswald?

Mr. PIC. All except Exhibit No. 13, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And Exhibit No. 13 is in the handwriting of your mother?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It appears to be and is a Christmas card?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. From its contents are you able to tell us approximately
when you received that?

Mr. PIC. It would be, I would say sometime after Christmas of 1950, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Would you put all those exhibits back in order?

Mr. PIC. What belongs with what I think.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. Exhibits Nos. 13-A and 15 here, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You have already told us of Exhibits No. 13-A belonging
with Exhibit No. 15. You have also produced for us correspondence that
you happen still to have in your possession from your brother Robert
Oswald, have you not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I place that correspondence before you and ask you to
follow me as I place the exhibit numbers in the record. Exhibit No. 27
is a letter from Robert to you.

Mr. PIC. They are marked all with "B's."

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 27-B is a letter from your brother Robert to
you enclosed in an envelope marked Exhibit No. 27-A, postmarked October
1, 1952?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. From where?

Mr. PIC. U.S. Navy 14016, sir. Unit 1.

Mr. JENNER. And to you at?

Mr. PIC. At 325 East 92d Street, New York City, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 28-B is the contents of Exhibit No. 28-A, the
contents consisting of a letter from your brother Robert to you, the
envelope is postmarked June 9, 1954.

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And it is addressed to you where?

Mr. PIC. U.S. Coast Guard Station, Staten Island, N.Y.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Exhibit No. 29-B is the contents of the envelope
marked Exhibit No. 29-A, the contents consisting of a letter from your
brother Robert to you, and the envelope being postmarked June 19, 1954.

Mr. PIC. Plus a picture.

Mr. JENNER. There is also enclosed in that envelope a picture?

Mr. PIC. That is right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Which is marked----

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 29-C.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 29-C. The picture is a picture of whom?

Mr. PIC. Two what appear to be Marines, sir; the one on the left being
Robert Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. May I see it, please, sir? Do you know the other Marine?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 30-A is an envelope postmarked December 13,
1954, its contents being a letter marked Exhibit No. 30-B, being a
letter from your brother Robert to you.

Mr. PIC. Being a Christmas card, sir; with a letter written on the
Christmas card.

Mr. JENNER. On the inside?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And some inscription, also, under the Christmas greetings?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, are those exhibits all in the handwriting, except for
the photograph, of course, in the handwriting of your brother Robert?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; to my best of my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive those exhibits, the envelopes, and the
contents in due course after they were posted?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you have retained them in your possession since that
time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Have you also produced for us some additional
correspondence between your mother and yourself?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Being exclusively letters from her to you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. They being in the following series: Exhibit No. 31-A, an
envelope addressed to you postmarked June 3, 1950----

Mr. PIC. Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. Fort Worth, Tex. What is the return address?

Mr. PIC. M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. And the contents consisting of a letter from your mother to
you?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that is marked Exhibit No. 31-B?

Mr. PIC. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. The next envelope and letter, the envelope is marked
Exhibit No. 32-A. Is it postmarked?

Mr. PIC. Partial postmark, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How much of it can you read?

Mr. PIC. Texas 1950, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Its contents marked?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 32-B, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is a letter from your mother to you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Enclosed with the envelope we have identified?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next exhibit is what?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 33-A, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Postmarked?

Mr. PIC. Fort Worth, August 23, 1950.

Mr. JENNER. What return address?

Mr. PIC. M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. The contents have been marked?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 33-B, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The letter from your mother to you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Enclosed in that envelope?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Is just a letter dated Exhibit No. 34.

Mr. PIC. Is just a letter marked Exhibit No. 34.

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is it dated?

Mr. PIC. The only mention is the word Saturday, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It is undated?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It is in the handwriting of your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You received it in due course?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Some time or other?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But you did not retain the envelope?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Can you tell from its content approximately when you
received it? Was it after you entered the Coast Guard?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; definitely after I entered the Coast Guard, in fact
it mentions the Korean war, so it was after the onset of the Korean war.

Mr. JENNER. Was it received subsequently to the letter and envelope,
the envelope being postmarked August 23, 1950, being the previous
exhibit?

Mr. PIC. I wouldn't know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. The next exhibit.

Mr. PIC. Envelope Exhibit No. 35-A, sir, postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.;
return address, M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. What is the postmark date?

Mr. PIC. September 22, 1950.

Mr. JENNER. Contents marked?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 35-B, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Being a letter from your mother to you?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 36-A bearing the postmark 27 September 1950,
return address, M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing Street, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. And postmarked at Fort Worth?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; postmarked at Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. Its contents marked--what is the exhibit number on the
contents?

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 36-B, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Then the next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. The next Exhibit No. 37-A, postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
December 28, 1950, no return address.

Mr. JENNER. The contents?

Mr. PIC. Christmas card marked Exhibit No. 37-B with a short note.

Mr. JENNER. In the handwriting of your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope Exhibit No. 38-A, postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
January 19, 1951, return address, M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth,
Tex. Contents of envelope marked Exhibit No. 38-B containing a letter
from my mother to myself.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope Exhibit No. 39-A postmarked Fort Worth Tex., April 6,
1951. The only thing made out on the return address is "M.O. 7408 Fort
Worth, Texas."

Mr. JENNER. Contents?

Mr. PIC. Contents Exhibit No. 39-B, a letter from my mother to myself,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope marked Exhibit No. 40-A, postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
May 2, 1951, return address, M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, contents Exhibit
No. 40-B letter from my mother to myself, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope marked Exhibit No. 41-A postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
7 May 1951, return address 7408, Mrs. M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort
Worth, Tex., contents letter marked Exhibit No. 41-B, a letter from my
mother to myself, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. A letter, envelope marked Exhibit No. 42-A postmarked Fort
Worth, Tex., June 4, 1951, return address M. Oswald 7408 Ewing, Fort
Worth, Tex., contents marked Exhibit No. 42-B, letter from my mother to
myself, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope marked Exhibit No. 43-A, postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
June 13, 1951, return address M. Oswald 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.,
contents marked Exhibit No. 43-B, a letter from my mother to myself,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope marked Exhibit No. 44-A postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
July 13, 1951, return address M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex.,
contents marked Exhibit No. 44-B, a letter from my mother to myself,
sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. An envelope marked Exhibit No. 45-A, postmarked Fort Worth,
Tex., February 8, 1952, return address M. Oswald 7408 Ewing, Fort
Worth, Tex. Contents Exhibit No. 45-B, a letter from my mother to
myself, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next exhibit?

Mr. PIC. Envelope marked Exhibit No. 46-A, postmarked Fort Worth, Tex.,
May 8, 1952, M. Oswald, 7408 Ewing, Fort Worth, Tex., contents marked
Exhibit No. 46-B, letter from my mother to myself.

Mr. JENNER. The last of the series?

Mr. PIC. An envelope marked Exhibit No. 47-A, postmarked Fort Worth,
Tex., dated 5th of March 1952, return address M. Oswald 7408 Ewing,
Fort Worth, Tex. Contents marked Exhibit No. 47-A also. The letter from
my mother to myself.

Mr. JENNER. OK, that is a mistake then. We will change that marking to
Exhibit No. 47-B, which I am now doing.

The letters that have been identified with Exhibit No. 31-A and
concluding with Exhibit No. 47-B, are all in the handwriting of your
mother, are they not?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And it is correspondence which you received in due course
on or about the dates or shortly after the dates that the various
envelopes were postmarked?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you have retained them in your possession in the entire
time?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. There is an exhibit still before you marked John Pic
Exhibit No.----

Mr. PIC. Exhibit No. 59.

Mr. JENNER. What is that?

Mr. PIC. This appears to be a "shot" record of Lee Harvey Oswald
written in an unknown hand, which gives him a smallpox date of August
7, 1951.

Mr. JENNER. How did that come into your possession?

Mr. PIC. It was just laying in the box with all this other stuff, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I offer those exhibits now commencing with Exhibit No. 31-A
to and including Exhibits Nos. 47-B, plus 59, in evidence.

(The documents referred to were marked John Pic Exhibits Nos. 31-A to
47-B, inclusive, and Exhibit No. 59 for identification and received in
evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Pic, we have made copies of all those exhibits and we
appreciate your bringing the originals, and you may take the originals
back with you to San Antonio. Those exhibits consisting of the
photographs of your brother which you brought, we will have duplicated
and returned to you in due course.

Mr. PIC. All right.

Mr. JENNER. Direct your attention, if you will, to Exhibit No. 9-A, an
envelope and its contents, Exhibit No. 9, this being a letter from Fort
Worth, June 9, 1950, to you at Brooklyn, N.Y.

There is an inside page reading, "Mother called in on and told some of
my problems." Do you find that?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Uncle Dutz wired $75. That is your uncle Charles Murret?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And then it reads, "And Lee was invited to spend a couple
of weeks, so I sent him on the train by himself. To what is your mother
referring in connection with her problems and the wiring of the $75 by
your uncle?

Mr. PIC. It appears to me, sir, that at this time period she was
between jobs. Further down she states she is starting on a new job
Monday.

Mr. JENNER. Does she refer to that job on the page that is numbered 3,
I believe, as McDonald Kitchens is the name?

Mr. PIC. She first refers to it on the one where it begins, "Mother
called in on".

Mr. JENNER. Now, the mother there mentioned is your mother, isn't it?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Then there is a page numbered 3?

Mr. PIC. That is right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Which referred to McDonald's Kitchens as the name and what
they do is cook food for commercial use?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. "I will drive a station wagon and deliver the food, also."

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is that a job she was about to obtain?

Mr. PIC. I can only assume from the letter, sir; I have no other
knowledge of that.

Mr. JENNER. She makes a reference on that page "Haven't sold the house
as yet but have a good prospect." Calling your attention to the date,
June 9, 1950, what house was that?

Mr. PIC. I am sure this refers to the little house in Benbrook, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It refers to people called DeLogans. Who are they?

Mr. PIC. I assume these people were renting the house from her, I don't
remember them.

Mr. JENNER. That was a duplex of some kind?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; that was this little L-shaped house.

Mr. JENNER. In all this correspondence, Sergeant, by and large your
mother very frequently, if not all the time, refers to her straitened
circumstances, need for funds, and references to you having sent money.
In your testimony you have referred to conversations with her on the
subject and she raised the subject to you. Was that something that was
pretty constantly in her mind all the time?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; it was.

Mr. JENNER. Did she talk about that subject at times when you were of
the opinion that she was not as straitened as she appears to report in
these letters?

Mr. PIC. Will you repeat that, please, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Would you read it, please, Mr. Reporter.

(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

Mr. PIC. I am sorry, sir; I don't understand your question.

Mr. JENNER. Were you of the opinion from time to time that on these
occasions when she talked about what appears to be that she was in
extremis with respect to finances when in fact she was not, she was
overstating this condition or status?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I believe she overstated it most of the time.

Mr. JENNER. Because there were purchases of houses, at least on the
installment plan, and she seemed to have capital to do that, did she
not?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she could always buy and sell a house some way or
other.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression as to why she was doing this; to
impress you boys or was that just her fixation or personality trait?

Mr. PIC. It is my impression that she did it in order to make a profit
on every deal she got involved with.

Mr. JENNER. I am not thinking of a house sale as such. But that
question was more directed to her talking about her financial
circumstances.

Was she attempting to impress you boys that she was working herself
to the bone to support you and you should be more grateful than you
appeared to be, and that sort of thing?

Mr. PIC. That is practically verbatim, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Please; you say that is practically verbatim, you mean you
have uttered what was in her mind?

Mr. PIC. No; just about what she says. She said at those times.

Mr. JENNER. Were you under the impression that she was overstating in
that respect?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was that likewise the feeling of your brother Robert?

Mr. PIC. Yes, I am sure it was.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression as to whether your mother was
always sincere and straightforward with respect to that subject matter?

Mr. PIC. My opinion, sir; at the time was all she cared about was
getting hold of and making some money in some form or another. This is
her god, so to speak, was to get money. And to get as much out of me as
she could and as much out of Robert as she could.

Mr. JENNER. And as much out of anybody else as she could?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any--you talk about the difficulties with Mr.
Ekdahl. Do you recall any discussions between them with respect to any
dissatisfaction on your mother's part with funds that were given her by
Mr. Ekdahl?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; she always wanted more money out of him. That was
the basis of all the arguments.

Mr. JENNER. And was she complaining to him that he didn't give her
enough money?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was your mother an extravagant person money-wise?

Mr. PIC. I don't know what she did with the money, sir. She bought very
little as far as clothes and things. We didn't eat steak every day.
We didn't eat that good. In fact, when I joined the service in 1950,
I was 118 pounds, and my weight prior to that was usually about 130,
140. I think within a month or two after I joined the service I was up
to 145 and none of my uniforms fit me. I was--there is a picture of me
in the Pasqual High School thing, and I am very thin. People couldn't
recognize me from that picture. I lost a lot of weight working, and not
eating too good. I would come home and have to fix my own meals.

Mr. JENNER. Was your mother attentive in that respect? Did she go out
of her way to have meals ready for you boys when you returned to home
either after work or after school or otherwise?

Mr. PIC. If there was a majority eating there was usually something set
aside for the lesser, which was kept warm in the oven.

Mr. JENNER. You mean the member of the family who was absent at
mealtime she would save something for him?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get the feeling, you and your brother, in due
course, that your mother's references to these financial needs at
times, at least when, to use the vernacular, she was crying wolf?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. These continued references by her to her financial needs,
did you think that had an effect on Lee as well as on yourself and your
brother?

Mr. PIC. It didn't affect me that much. I ignored most of them. If I
had money I sent it. If I didn't, that was it. Lee was brought up in
this atmosphere of constant money problems, and I am sure it had quite
an effect on him, and also Robert.

Mr. JENNER. In her letter enclosed in the envelope postmarked June 18,
1951----

Mr. PIC. What number is that, sir?

Mr. JENNER. That is Exhibits Nos. 19 and 19-A--she makes reference that
Robert has been saving his money since January to buy a car and "gives
me $15 a week and never spends a cent unless absolutely necessary (is
he tight) but he has saved $210 since the first of the year and is
hiding"----

Mr. PIC. Hitting.

Mr. JENNER. "For $400" and so on.

Mr. PIC. Before buying a car.

Mr. JENNER. "Won't loan me a penny, pays his room and board regularly.
He gets 2 weeks vacation with pay, I believe, will start in July."

Do you remember your mother attempting to borrow money from you?

Mr. PIC. When I went home on leave in 1950 with a hundred or so
dollars, like I mentioned before, she wanted to hold it, just about the
whole amount except for about $10 from me, so nothing would happen to
it, and I might get robbed or something, she felt. Whenever she could
she attempted to get a buck out of any of us.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get any of that money back?

Mr. PIC. I got it all back and subsequently when I left I gave her, I
think $50 or so.

Mr. JENNER. In that same letter she refers to, she said, "I only made
$92 last month and am just starting to get leads. I am back with the
same company."

To what company is she referring in that letter which is postmarked
June 18, 1951?

Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir. It sounds to me like it would be an
insurance company.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall your mother selling insurance?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I knew approximately at this time period she sold
insurance.

Mr. JENNER. There is a reference to Lee taking tap dancing lessons,
also, in that letter, that he is a good dancer, "with his voice it
would be a good thing to start dancing lessons and when he is a little
older take voice."

Mr. PIC. I think this statement here about this practically like
several other statements which are either direct or indirect were an
attempt to get me to donate some money to this cause or something
else. Of course this, to me, is a come-on for maybe next time I write
I will say, "Hurrah, hurrah, Lee is going to take tap dancing lessons"
and then she will write and say she can't afford it and to send a
little money to help him. She did these things. In fact, in some of
her letters she refers to it is my fault they are in trouble because I
stated I would help pay for the car and since I was in the service I
wasn't holding up my end of the bargain.

Mr. JENNER. What about that incident?

Mr. PIC. Sir, that is in the second group of letters.

Mr. JENNER. What about this particular incident you mentioned? What are
the facts about that?

Mr. PIC. Just what it states here. This is all I know, sir. What it
states in this letter.

Mr. JENNER. About the dancing and voice?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of Lee, other than this letter of Lee
taking dancing lessons?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear otherwise of his taking dancing lessons
than in this letter?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did either you or Robert ever take dancing lessons or voice
lessons?

Mr. PIC. I think when we were very small and Mr. Oswald was still alive
we did, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the other thing to which I referred, as you made
reference to something about making payments on a car. What was that
about?

Mr. PIC. That would be in that second group, sir. In the second group
is really the financial statements. Every one of them contained
something pertaining to her finances.

Mr. JENNER. The early enlistments of yourself and Robert and Lee--do
you think that had anything to do with your mother's persistent
references, allusions to finances?

Mr. PIC. I did not enlist as fast as the other boys. I waited a year
after I was of age. I am sure that prior to my enlistment, as a matter
of fact, I knew she mentioned when I do get in I should make out an
allotment to her and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. Do you think there was an incentive on the part of Lee and
Robert to enlist as soon as possible to get away from your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Did you and your brother Robert have discussions on this
subject?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; we never discussed these things. It was just a
feeling it was always around. We knew these things without discussing
them.

Mr. JENNER. Did you live in an atmosphere in which your mother directly
or indirectly indicated to you that she thought she had been unfairly
dealt with in her life?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You had that very definite impression?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You had----

Mr. PIC. I did not have this impression. She related this to me, sir. I
didn't feel she had it any tougher than a lot of people walking around.

Mr. JENNER. That is what I am getting at, this was an impression she
was seeking to create.

Mr. PIC. That is right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You felt she did not have it any tougher. She was creating
an impression that did not square with the facts?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Every time she met anyone she would remind them she
was a widow with three children.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have an opinion also as to whether this atmosphere
in which Lee lived had an effect upon him and his personality?

Mr. PIC. I am sure it did, sir. Also, Lee slept with my mother until I
joined the service in 1950. This would make him approximately 10, well,
almost 11 years old.

Mr. JENNER. When you say slept with, you mean in the same bed?

Mr. PIC. In the same bed, sir.

Mr. JENNER. As far as you know or say when Lee came and stayed with you
a short while in 1952 did he likewise sleep with your mother?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he did not.

Mr. JENNER. He had reached a measure of independence by that time?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; when I left and went into the service there was a
vacant bed in the house.

Mr. JENNER. And at that time was that literally the first time that Lee
had separate quarters for himself other than the period of time that
Mr. Ekdahl lived with you and the period of time when your stepfather
Lee Oswald was alive?

Mr. PIC. Lee wasn't born when Lee Oswald was alive, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is right. Well, then, except for the time Mr. Ekdahl
lived with you?

Mr. PIC. That is true, sir. That would make him about 10-1/2 years old.

Mr. JENNER. Up to the time he was 10-1/2 years old, why he roomed and
slept with his mother in the same bed?

Mr. PIC. I would like to interject here.

Mr. JENNER. Yes, I am seeking something of the personality of your
mother and the effect on you, had an effect on Robert, and probably a
more material effect on Lee, is that correct?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I am sure it did. When I reached 17, I was eligible for
the service, but I was really in no hurry, I wanted to finish my high
school education, and when I decided to join the Coast Guard--at that
time to join the Coast Guard you needed your parent's consent up until
the age of 21. I asked her for it and she hesitated and I told her if
she didn't give it to me I would join another branch where I didn't
need it and then I got it. I am sure that neither Robert nor Lee needed
their mother's consent to join the Marine Corps at the age of 17. I
know for the Coast Guard we did, sir, the Coast Guard was not a part of
the Department of Defense at that time.

Mr. JENNER. Directing your attention to Exhibits Nos. 21 and 21-A, the
second page of that letter, Exhibit No. 21, reads, "Robert left Friday
morning for San Diego. He joined the Marines and signed for 4 years.
I am glad he decided to enlist. He realized his mistake about getting
married, and"--would you read the rest of it?

Mr. PIC. "And probably having to go just the same."

Mr. JENNER. "And then probably having to go just the same." Is that the
incident in which your mother opposed your brother Robert's marriage to
the little crippled girl?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Turn to Exhibit No. 24. There is a reference there to a
lady, Ethel somebody at Holmes. Would you read that?

Mr. PIC. "Ethel Nunncy at Holmes asks about you."

Mr. JENNER. And that is--Holmes is a department store?

Mr. PIC. In New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. Who was Ethel Nunncy?

Mr. PIC. She was a friend of my mother's, sir, that I had known of
since I was a small--I was a baby.

Mr. JENNER. Sir, this Exchange Alley--did they have to live under these
conditions?

Mr. PIC. All I know is that they lived there. She thought they did.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 31-B which is a letter from your mother to you
postmarked at Fort Worth, June 3, 1950, reading "Dear John, your sense
of responsibility seems nil" or null.

Mr. PIC. Nil, null.

Mr. JENNER. N-u-l-l. "Remember it was you insisted I buy the car as you
planned to work at Consolidated. Well I have been in a jam financially
ever since you left." What is the next word?

Mr. PIC. "Kept waiting and robbing Peter to pay Paul."

Mr. JENNER. "Until you were"----

Mr. PIC. Kept waiting and robbing Peter to pay Paul until you were
finished with your boot training as your letters indicated you would
send a hundred fifty dollars and about fifty dollars a month."

Mr. JENNER. Had you so indicated?

Mr. PIC. I don't believe so, sir. I don't see how, I wasn't making but
$80 per month.

Mr. JENNER. What truth was there in her statement that it was you who
insisted that she buy the car?

Mr. PIC. Well, that old jalopy I have a picture of was falling apart
and before I went in the service she had a ride home from work and the
generator wouldn't generate, and the battery wouldn't battery and it
just kept cutting out, so we needed a new car.

Mr. JENNER. Was that particular car about which you have just
described--about which you were having trouble--was that the family
car or a car owned by you?

Mr. PIC. A family car, I never owned a car, sir, when I lived at home.

Mr. JENNER. I take it you had urged her to buy a new car to replace
that one?

Mr. PIC. We all wanted a new car, sir, because the other one wouldn't
run. She had to get it pushed every morning to get to work. She would
have us out in the street waving down people to help her get the car
pushed.

Further on, sir, "I wrote you and told you about a girl loaning me $50
on my ring. I lost the ring and wasn't able to pay it." Sir, I wouldn't
believe that. I am sure at that time I didn't. And the way she goes on
the next page, "Cox found out about me borrowing" and let her go. I
don't believe this.

Mr. JENNER. The next letter, Exhibit No. 32-B, and in an envelope
marked in 1950, it says "Dear John, Well, I have the house in Benbrook
up for sale." Could you read the name?

Mr. PIC. It appears to me to be J. Piner Powell Real Estate is handling
it. Do you want me to read on?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. PIC. "The problem is to find someone with enough cash as a loan
company won't make a new loan and I have about $2,600 in it. Nothing
but bad news. Up to date I am still not working." Read on, sir?

Mr. JENNER. That is about enough. Did your mother write you a letter
that had good news in it?

Mr. PIC. I never recall one, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Around your home was the atmosphere that, "We are poor
but we will get along?" as your mother sought to lead you boys to
accommodate yourselves to the circumstances that everything would turn
out all right eventually?

Mr. PIC. None of us really paid much attention to this, sir. I didn't,
and I am sure Robert didn't. I don't think Lee did because Robert and I
would probably talk and we didn't pay much attention to it.

Mr. JENNER. You heard it so often you just became inured to it,
hardened to it; is that it?

Mr. PIC. Well, we didn't believe it after the problems she put on.
Just like when my wife and I got married she sent a package containing
Revere Ware which I haven't received yet and she swears up and down she
sent it, and she has never gotten it in the return mail either. And I
know she never sent anything. When we would be home alone, before she
would return from work, we have a rather friendly atmosphere, but as
soon as she came home we all got into that depression rut again.

Mr. JENNER. Was your----

Mr. PIC. This is prior to my going in the service, sir.

Mr. JENNER. There were times that the atmosphere around your home was
depressing?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And was that due largely to your mother?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The things she said and the attitudes she assumed?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And while you and your brother got along well you boys were
not getting along well with your mother in that sense?

Mr. PIC. Robert and I and Lee, we had our fights among us, like all
brothers do. But we could handle ourselves and our own problems, but
the atmosphere just changed when she was around.

Mr. JENNER. Did your mother ever say anything about whether people
liked her or disliked her?

Mr. PIC. She didn't have to. She didn't have many friends and usually
the new friends she made she didn't keep very long.

Mr. JENNER. That was her history?

Mr. PIC. I remember every time we moved she always had fights with the
neighbors or something or another.

Mr. JENNER. Was she a person who was resentful of the status of others?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you boys were aware of that, were you?

Mr. PIC. I was aware of it. She always--I remember once when we lived
on Eighth Avenue, I believe was the place, the people named McLean
living next to us, of course he was an attorney and everything, and
they had some money, and my mother----

Mr. JENNER. What town was this?

Mr. PIC. This was Fort Worth, sir. My mother remarked to me once that
Mrs. McLean had said she went and played the slot machines and lost
$100 in it, and she raved and ranted about this for half an hour or an
hour about how this woman could go and waste $100 and what she could do
with it and everything. She resented the fact this woman lost her own
money.

Mr. JENNER. I haven't found a single letter yet, Sergeant, in which
your mother fails to mention the subject of money.

Mr. PIC. You may find a Christmas card, "Love, Mother," sir.

Mr. JENNER. A letter?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; I don't think you will. These are only part of
them. I threw out a whole bunch a couple of years ago. They were all
basically the same.

Mr. JENNER. Was your mother loving and affectionate toward you boys?

Mr. PIC. I would say for myself, sir, I wasn't to her.

Mr. JENNER. What is that?

Mr. PIC. I was not toward her.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mr. PIC. I had no motherly love feeling toward her. Like I say, I think
I first became resentful to her when she informed me I would not return
to the military school and from then my hostilities toward her grew.

Mr. JENNER. Well, up to that point, what had been your feeling toward
your mother?

Mr. PIC. We had never been in a very affectionate family, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is affectionate with respect to the boys toward your
mother?

Mr. PIC. That is right, sir; kissing her, and things like this. It
is my own opinion that she is out right now to make as much money as
she can on her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. That is the only
thing--I don't really believe she really believes he is innocent. I
think she is out to make money than if she has to say he is guilty. I
think she is a phony in the whole deal.

Also, I think you will find with myself, Robert and Lee, also, that we
didn't have these or don't have these feelings towards money that she
does. I mean I live on my base pay and I have for years, and Robert
makes the best what he can, and whenever we get together, we never
discuss money. The only time I seen Lee as an adult he didn't discuss
it, not to the extent that we were used to, we never felt this way.

Mr. JENNER. It is your information, is it, that your mother's first
marriage was to your father?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Her second, then, to Robert Lee Edward Oswald?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And her third to E. A. Ekdahl?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. So far as you know she has not been married otherwise than
those three occasions?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; Has she?

Mr. JENNER. We don't know, if she has we don't know anything about it.

Did your brother Lee on the occasion on Thanksgiving Day 1962 say
anything about whether he had had a hard time in Russia?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is a hard time in the sense of earning a living?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Or some other sense?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; earning a living.

Mr. JENNER. What do you recall he said in that connection?

Mr. PIC. That he made about $80 a month, and it wasn't the money so
much. It was the products were not available to him and also his wife
to get even with the money, and they consistently ate cabbage and he
was tired of cabbage, and he struck me he was not complaining about
the money but the availability of food.

Mr. JENNER. Is it your impression that he had become disenchanted with
Russia?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I got this impression.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear him say anything while you were boys
in which he expressed dissatisfaction with the United States or its
Government?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He made no comment on that subject when you saw him on
Thanksgiving Day 1962?

Mr. PIC. I think his only bitter feelings that I recollect was his
dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps. This was the only bitter
feelings he reported to me in anyway.

Mr. JENNER. I would like to have you tell us what he said as--did he
return to that subject repeatedly? What leads you now to conclude or
state by way of conclusion that he was bitter about that?

Mr. PIC. I think the idea of driving came up, the talk about
automobiles. I also think that he made the statement----

Mr. JENNER. When you say that is your present recollection?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. PIC. I also think that he made the statement that he----

Mr. JENNER. Here, again, you mean to the best of your recollection?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge, that he made the
statement he wasn't driving because of this dishonorable discharge he
received. He was unable to obtain a driver's license. Then he told
me he was attempting to get this changed, and he had written several
letters to the Secretary of the Navy about getting it changed.

Mr. JENNER. Did he mention the then Governor Connally in that
connection?

Mr. PIC. I believe he did, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Governor Connally was not then Secretary of the Navy. Did
he express any resentment toward Governor Connally?

Mr. PIC. I think when he explained it to me----

Mr. JENNER. Please, you have said again "I think."

Mr. PIC. To the best of my recollection, sir, when he mentioned to
me that he had written to get it changed, Governor Connally was the
Secretary of the Navy. He did mention the name Connally.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any feeling or get the impression that he
was bitter toward Governor Connally as a person? He was not, then, of
course----

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. PIC. No, sir; just the fact that the man had the job and he was the
man he had written it to.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said about Fair Play for Cuba Committee on
this occasion?

Mr. PIC. There was no discussion about Cuba. I think this was right
after the Cuban crisis, and I think we may have talked about the
mobilization a little bit.

Mr. JENNER. Did he express any views on that subject?

Mr. PIC. No, sir; he didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Was President Kennedy discussed at anytime?

Mr. PIC. I don't recollect, sir.

He struck me on that meeting as really only having two purposes: One,
to straighten out the dishonorable discharge and the other one to pay
back the Government the money it had lent him to come back to the
United States.

Mr. JENNER. You were interested--Charlie Murret was a dentist and
a graduate of Louisiana State University. Joyce Murret married an
athletic coach and lives in Beaumont, Tex.?

Mr. PIC. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Gene Murret you have mentioned. He is a seminarian at
Mobile, Ala. Boogie Murret works for Squibb & Co. He is a graduate of
Loyola of New Orleans.

Mr. PIC. Someone mentioned, I don't know if it was Vada or my brother,
Robert----

Mr. JENNER. On this Thanksgiving Day occasion?

Mr. PIC. Yes; after they had left, that Marina's uncle, brother, some
relation, was an officer in the Russian Army. She had stated she had a
relative in the Soviet armed forces.

Mr. JENNER. It was your impression that either Vada had or Robert had?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Some of the witnesses have testified that Lee was quick
to anger as a boy. Do you remember anything about that? What is your
impression about that?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a considerate young man?

Mr. PIC. I think towards Robert and myself he was, sir. Towards other
people, no.

Mr. JENNER. Was his attitude towards other people different from that
which he had toward you and Robert?

Mr. PIC. Yes; I believe so.

Mr. JENNER. In what respect--what did you notice about him in that
regard?

Mr. PIC. He would rather play with us than play with other children,
and he always wanted to go with us wherever we went. Whenever we had
a birthday or Christmas he would never forget us. I think he was very
considerate towards Robert and myself.

Mr. JENNER. From time to time we have been off the record and had some
discussions in discussing documents and other things. Do you recall
anything we discussed off the record that you think is pertinent here
that I have failed to place on the record?

Mr. PIC. I don't remember what has been off the record, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I will put it this way then: Is there anything you would
like to add at the moment now that I am about to finish questioning you
that you think you would like to have on the record?

Mr. PIC. If you are interested in my opinions----

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir; anything that you want to add.

Mr. PIC. I think, I believe that Lee Oswald did the crime that he is
accused of. I think that anything he may have done was aided with a
little extra push from his mother in the living conditions that she
presented to him. I also think that his reason for leaving the Marine
Corps is not true and accurate. I mean I don't think he cared to get
out of the Marine Corps to help his mother. He probably used this as an
excuse to get out and go to his defection.

I know myself I wouldn't have gotten out of the service because of her,
and I am sure Robert wouldn't either, and this makes me believe that
Lee wouldn't have.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of a student was your brother, do you know, do
you recall, rather?

Mr. PIC. I think in elementary school he was fairly good, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But then in the later grades, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th?

Mr. PIC. I have no idea, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Well, that is about all. I sure appreciate your coming, and
the Commission likewise, at some inconvenience to yourself. You will be
able to catch that 9:50 plane in the morning and get yourself back to
your son's birthday party.

Mr. PIC. I hope what I have told you has been something new and not
repetitious.

Mr. JENNER. Much of what you have told us has been new. Much of
what you have told us has been very helpful to us in the way of
corroborating matters about which we were not fully informed or in
doubt, and opinions have been expressed particularly with respect to
your brother have been helpful.

That leads me to ask you this further question: Give me your overall
impression of your brother Lee Oswald as a personality, as he developed.

Mr. PIC. Sir; I remember Lee Oswald as a child, up until about the age
of 11 or 12. To me, he appeared a normal healthy robust boy who would
get in fights and still have his serious moments.

Mr. JENNER. You got in fights, too, didn't you?

Mr. PIC. Sure.

Mr. JENNER. And your brother Robert?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. These are not fights that you would regard as other than
boys getting into?

Mr. PIC. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is, it wasn't because he was unduly belligerent?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. PIC. He got in his usual trouble around the neighborhood as far as
getting in people's yards, probably, and letting the dog go astray,
normal healthy boy.

I think as he became older, prior to me entering the service, he became
slightly cocky and belligerent toward his mother. He never showed any
of this toward Robert or myself. I am afraid it probably rubbed off of
Robert and myself and it affected Lee, because we didn't really take
much stock into what she was saying. I don't think we were as cocky, as
belligerent as he was. There was----

Mr. JENNER. Do you think that was a defensive mechanism, on his part?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. JENNER. Did your mother ever say anything around your home about
that employers were overreaching her, and employers overreached poor
working people or anything along those lines?

Mr. PIC. No; she always reminded us she worked like a slave to provide
for us three boys. She couldn't wait for a day we would grow up and
support her.

When Lee visited us in New York he came there a friendly, nice
easy-to-like kid.

Mr. JENNER. This is 1952 in the summer?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; he had the interest of boys at that age, the Museum
of Natural History, sightseeing excursions and so forth. Until the
incident where I talked to him we never had a bad word between us other
than maybe joking or playing around. I tried to interest him in a hobby
of building boats or collecting stamps again while he was----

Mr. JENNER. Had he been interested in those two hobbies?

Mr. PIC. Yes; he and I, all three of us collected stamps. I played
chess with Lee quite a bit and Robert, too. We all did this. Played
monopoly together, the three of us.

When I approached him on this knife-pulling incident he became very
hostile towards me. And he was never the same again with me.

Mr. JENNER. That was the first time he had ever been hostile in that
sense towards you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that rupture was never repaired thereafter?

Mr. PIC. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the impression when you saw him on
Thanksgiving of 1962 that in the meantime he had become embittered,
resentful of his station?

Mr. PIC. Well, sir; the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November of 1962
was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known 10 years previous. This
person struck me as someone with a chip on his shoulder, who had these
purposes I mentioned, to do something about.

Mr. JENNER. What purposes?

Mr. PIC. To repay the Government and get his discharge changed.

It appeared to me that he was a good father towards his child, and not
knowing the conversation between he and his wife I couldn't form much
of an opinion there.

Mr. JENNER. All right, sir; that is about it.

Mr. PIC. OK, sir; thank you very much.

Mr. JENNER. This transcript will be prepared by the reporters and it
will be sent to your commanding officer, and would you please get it
immediately and read it and sign it.

If you make any corrections in it, put your initials beside the
correction, or over, above, your initial somewhere around the
correction so we know it is you who did it, and return it to us as
promptly as possible.

It may be that the Secret Service will bring it out, but it will be
delivered to you next week.

All right.




AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD JOHN PIC, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by Edward John Pic, Jr., on June
16, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

Edward John Pic, Jr., 6 Jay Street, New Orleans, La., being duly sworn
says:

1. I am the same Edward John Pic, Jr., who was deposed by Albert E.
Jenner, Jr., member of the legal staff of the President's Commission
on the Assassination of President Kennedy, on April 7, 1964. When
Marguerite Claverie Pic and I separated after we had lived together a
year, we resided in a house on Genois Street, south of Canal Street,
in New Orleans. This was a rented house. The rent was either $28 or
$30 per month. At no time prior to our separation did Marguerite work.
During all of that period she was a housewife.

2. I neither refused nor failed to support her either during or after
our marriage. There were personality and incompatibility difficulties
between us commencing at an early stage of our marriage. We just
couldn't get along, things kept getting worse and worse. Marguerite
was aware of my earning capacity at the time we married. There were
difficulties between us respecting money and household financial
management, but this was only one of the sources of the difficulties.
My financial situation did not worsen after our marriage.

3. Marguerite's pregnancy with my son John Edward Pic was not the cause
of our separation. I had no objection to children. It was a coincidence
that about that time we had reached the point that we could not make
a go with each other any more. Our separation which was amicable
and which was arranged through an attorney would have taken place
irrespective of Marguerite's pregnancy with my son John Edward Pic.

4. As I testified in my deposition, Marguerite was a nice girl. I
haven't anything whatsoever adverse to say against her, it is just that
we couldn't get along. Our dispositions would not jell. I do not mean
to imply that the fault, if any, lay with either of us. We just didn't
get along.

5. My distinct recollection is that I had no difficulty maintaining the
household and supporting my family though there was some difference
between Marguerite and me as to the manner, style and the level on
which our household should be maintained.

Signed the 16th day of June 1964.

    (S) Edward John Pic, Jr.,
        EDWARD JOHN PIC, Jr.




TESTIMONY OF KERRY WENDELL THORNLEY

The testimony of Kerry Wendell Thornley was taken at 9:40 a.m., on May
18, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. John
Ely and Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.


Mr. JENNER. Mr. Thornley, in the deposition you are about to give, do
you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. THORNLEY. I do.

Mr. JENNER. You are Kerry Wendell Thornley, spelled K-e-r-r-y
W-e-n-d-e-l-l T-h-o-r-n-l-e-y?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Thornley, where do you reside now?

Mr. THORNLEY. At 4201 South 31st Street in Arlington, Va.

Mr. JENNER. Did you at one time reside at 1824 Dauphine Street in New
Orleans?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your present occupation?

Mr. THORNLEY. I am a doorman at the building where I reside,
Shirlington House.

Mr. JENNER. Doorman.

Mr. THORNLEY. At the building where I reside.

Mr. JENNER. What is the name of that building?

Mr. THORNLEY. Shirlington House. I also work on the switchboard there
three nights a week.

Mr. JENNER. I see. By the way, Mr. Thornley, you received, did you not,
a letter from Mr. Rankin, the general counsel of the Commission in
which he enclosed----

Mr. THORNLEY. Confirming this appointment----

Mr. JENNER. Copies of the legislation, Senate Joint Resolution No. 137,
authorizing the creation of the Commission and President Johnson's
Order 11130, bringing the Commission into existence and fixing its
powers and duties and responsibilities?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And also a copy of the rules and regulations of the
Commission for the taking of depositions?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I take it you understand the basic obligation placed
upon the Commission is to investigate the facts and circumstances
surrounding and bearing upon the assassination of President Kennedy,
and events collateral thereto.

In the course of doing that the Commission and its staff, and I, Albert
E. Jenner, Jr., a member of the Commission legal staff, have been
interviewing and taking the testimony of various persons who, among
other things, came in contact with a man named Lee Harvey Oswald. We
understand that you had some contact with him, fortuitous or otherwise
as it might be. Are we correct in that?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us the--may I ask you this first. Were you
born and reared in this country?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are you married or unmarried?

Mr. THORNLEY. Unmarried.

Mr. JENNER. Unmarried you said?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your age?

Mr. THORNLEY. I am 26.

Mr. JENNER. When was your birthday?

Mr. THORNLEY. April 17, this last month.

Mr. JENNER. April 17 of this last month? I am poor in mathematics, what
year was your birth?

Mr. THORNLEY. 1938.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first become acquainted with him?

Mr. THORNLEY. I was--it was around Easter of 1959, either shortly
before or shortly after.

Mr. JENNER. Let's see. He was in the Marines at that time?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I take it you also were?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How long had you been in the Marines?

Mr. THORNLEY. At that time I had been in the Marines over half a year.
I had been in the Reserve for many years. I had been on active duty for
over half a year.

Mr. JENNER. You were then 21 years of age?

Mr. THORNLEY. About; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about what your occupation and activity had been up
to the time you enlisted in the Marines.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, the year before I was a student at the University
of Southern California, and before that I was a student at California
High School in Whittier, Calif.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then that you are a native Californian?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive your degree?

Mr. THORNLEY. No. I was--I completed my freshman year and then I went
on active duty to serve my 2-year obligation in the Marine Reserve.

Mr. JENNER. You did not return to college after you were mustered out
of the Marines?

Mr. THORNLEY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was your discharge honorable?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you based when you first met Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. THORNLEY. At a subsidiary of El Toro Marine Base, referred to as
LTA, Santa Ana, Calif., or just outside of Santa Ana.

Mr. JENNER. What was your rank at that time?

Mr. THORNLEY. At that time I was acting corporal.

Mr. JENNER. What was your assignment then?

Mr. THORNLEY. I was an aviation electronics operator. I was working in
an aircraft control center reading radarscopes and keeping track of
ingoing and outgoing flights.

Mr. JENNER. What was Lee Harvey Oswald's assignment and activity
service-wise at that period?

Mr. THORNLEY. At that time his assignments and activities were primary
janitorial. He was--he had lost his clearance previously, and if I
remember, he was assigned to make the coffee, mow the lawn, swab down
decks, and things of this nature.

Mr. JENNER. What were the circumstances as you learned of them, or knew
of them at the time, as to how or why he lost his clearance as you put
it.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I asked somebody, and I was told, and I don't
remember who told me, it was a general rumor, general scuttlebutt
at the time, that he had poured beer over a staff NCO's head in an
enlisted club in Japan, and had been put in the brig for that, and
having been put in the brig would automatically lose his clearance to
work in the electronics control center.

Mr. JENNER. I was going to ask you what losing clearance meant. You
have indicated that--or would you state it more specifically.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, that meant in a practical sense, that meant that he
was not permitted to enter certain areas wherein the equipment, in this
case equipment, was kept; that we would not want other unauthorized
persons to have knowledge of. And on occasion information, I imagine,
would also come to the man who was cleared, in the process of his work,
that he would be expected to keep to himself.

Mr. JENNER. I assume you had clearance?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir; I was, I think, cleared for confidential at the
time.

Mr. JENNER. Cleared for confidential. I was about to ask you what level
of clearance was involved.

Mr. THORNLEY. I believe it was just confidential to work there at El
Toro on that particular equipment.

Mr. JENNER. That is the clearance about which you speak when you talk
about Oswald having lost it?

Mr. THORNLEY. Oswald, I believe, had a higher clearance. This is also
just based upon rumor. I believe he at one time worked in the security
files, it is the S & C files, somewhere either at LTA or at El Toro.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever work in the security files?

Mr. THORNLEY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that was a level of clearance----

Mr. THORNLEY. Probably a secret clearance would be required.

Mr. JENNER. It was at least higher than the clearance about which you
first spoke?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The clearance that you had in mind of which you first spoke
was the clearance to operate radar detection devices?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And your knowledge of his loss of clearance was by hearsay
or rumor. As I understand it the circumstances took place off base one
day?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; this was on base as I understand it. It was in an
enlisted club or staff sergeant's club, something of that nature.

Mr. JENNER. He had gotten into difficulty with a staff sergeant and had
poured beer on the person of a staff sergeant and gotten into some kind
of an altercation?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. As a result of that he was court-martialed and had been
subjected to the loss of clearance?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Was that clearance of his restored?

Mr. THORNLEY. I doubt it very much, because 3 months afterwards, after
I had left the outfit--I know it wasn't restored while I was in the
outfit.

Mr. JENNER. When did you leave the outfit?

Mr. THORNLEY. I left in June and went overseas.

Mr. JENNER. Up to that time his clearance had not been restored?

Mr. THORNLEY. Definitely not. And shortly thereafter he got out of the
service.

Mr. JENNER. So that as far as you have any personal knowledge Oswald
never operated any radar equipment while he was at El Toro, did you say?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; El Toro, LTA. As far as my personal knowledge goes,
he didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Would you state the circumstances under which you became
acquainted--let me put it this way first. What was the extent of your
acquaintance with Lee Harvey Oswald, and here at the moment I am
directing myself only to whether you were friends, were you merely
on the base together? Indicate the level of friendship first or
acquaintanceship.

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say we were close acquaintances in the sense that
we weren't friends in that we didn't pull liberty together or seek
each other out, yet when we were thrown together in an assignment or
something, moving equipment, something of that nature, we spoke and
when we were on the base and happened to be in the same area and were
not required to be working, we would sometimes sit down and discuss
things. That would be my statement there.

Mr. JENNER. So there was a degree of affinity in the sense that you
were friendly in performing your military tasks together whenever you
were thrown together in that respect. You felt friendly toward each
other. You were never off base with him on liberty?

Mr. THORNLEY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. There were times when you were at liberty on the base, I
assume, and you and he fraternized?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, did you live in the same quarters?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, not actually. We lived in quonset huts there, and
he lived in a different hut than I did. We did live in the same general
area, however.

Mr. JENNER. This acquaintance arose in the spring of 1959, is that
correct?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Can you fix the time a little more definitely than merely
the spring?

Mr. THORNLEY. I really can't, sir. I have been racking my brain on
that one since November, and I can't fix the time. I do remember
having taken some time off that year around Easter and going on a trip
with some civilian friends of mine, who were out of school for Easter
vacation, and I know I was in the outfit that Oswald was in at that
time, and I know that either shortly before that trip or shortly
afterwards. I can remember from the books I was reading at the time and
things like that, that I met him.

Mr. JENNER. Do you associate the books you were reading at that time
with anything Oswald may have been reading?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes. Oswald was not reading but did advise me to read
George Orwell's "1984" which I read at that time.

Mr. JENNER. Was he on the base when you came there?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I was on the base in a different outfit before I
came into MACS 9, the outfit I was in.

Mr. JENNER. Marine Air Control Squadron.

Mr. THORNLEY. I was in MACS 4 which was right next door to MACS 9 or
was at that time, on the base.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware of his presence when you were in the other
MACS?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; not until I came into his outfit. And only sometime
after I came into that outfit did I become aware of his presence.

Mr. JENNER. Were you--I will withdraw that. Was Oswald as far as you
knew on the base before you came over to his unit?

Mr. THORNLEY. I would assume so, but I wouldn't know for sure. I know
he was recently back from Japan as were most of the men in Marine
Control Squadron 9 when I came into it. How long he had been back I
don't know. I certainly didn't know at that time. And thinking on what
knowledge of him I have gained since then, I still couldn't say.

Mr. JENNER. Well, in any event you first became acquainted with or
aware of his presence around Easter time in 1959?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were transferred from that base when?

Mr. THORNLEY. June.

Mr. JENNER. In June. So likely it was that you knew him in April, May,
and in June until you were transferred out?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right.

Mr. JENNER. When in June were you transferred out?

Mr. THORNLEY. Once again the exact date would be available in my
military record, but offhand----

Mr. JENNER. Give it to me as best you recall it, forepart, latter part,
middle?

Mr. THORNLEY. Let's see, it was toward the latter part. In fact, I can
give you pretty close to the exact date. It was around June 25, because
we arrived in Japan on July 4 and it took 11 days to get over there. It
took us some time to get debarked or to get embarked, rather.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I take it from the remark you have made in your
reflecting on this matter that you were--you devoted yourself to some
fairly considerable extent to reading?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And in what fields?

Mr. THORNLEY. Completely omniverous. Anything that I would happen
to get a hold of I would read. At that time I was reading, well, at
Oswald's advice I read "1984." At someone else's advice I was reading
a book called "Humanism," by Corliss Lamont, as I remember, and I was
reading either "The Brothers Karamazov" or the "Idiot" by Dostoievsky,
I forget which, at that time.

Mr. JENNER. But your reading had some reasonable amount of organization
or direction?

Mr. THORNLEY. None whatsoever; no, sir. It never has.

Mr. JENNER. I see. You weren't engaged in any organized reading at that
time, were you?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. But there were areas which did draw your attention by and
large?

Mr. THORNLEY. Definitely; yes.

Mr. JENNER. What were those areas?

Mr. THORNLEY. Philosophy, politics, religion.

Mr. JENNER. Did you find that Oswald had reasonably similar interests?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I would say.

Mr. JENNER. In his reading?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I would say particularly in politics and philosophy.

Mr. JENNER. Was it those mutual interests that brought about your
acquaintance with him or some other fashion?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir; it was those interests. My first memory of him
is that one afternoon he was sitting on a bucket out in front of a
hut, an inverted bucket, with some other Marines. They were discussing
religion. I entered the discussion. It was known already in the outfit
that I was an atheist. Immediately somebody pointed out to me that
Oswald was also an atheist.

Mr. JENNER. Did they point that out to you in his presence?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What reaction did he have to that?

Mr. THORNLEY. He said, "What do you think of communism?" and I said----

Mr. JENNER. He didn't say anything about having been pointed out as
being an atheist?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; he wasn't offended at this at all. He was--it was
done in a friendly manner, anyway, and he just said to me--the first
thing he said to me was with his little grin; he looked at me and he
said, "What do you think of communism?" And I replied I didn't think
too much of communism, in a favorable sense, and he said, "Well, I
think the best religion is communism." And I got the impression at
the time that he said this in order to shock. He was playing to the
galleries, I felt.

Mr. JENNER. The boys who were sitting around?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Engaged in scuttlebutt?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right. He was smirking as he said this and he said it
very gently. He didn't seem to be a glass-eyed fanatic by any means.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion to discuss the same subject
thereafter?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. From time to time?

Mr. THORNLEY. From time to time.

Mr. JENNER. Was it reasonably frequent?

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say about a half dozen times in that time period.

Mr. JENNER. In those subsequent discussions were some of them private
in the sense you were not gathered around with others?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I don't recall us ever having a private serious
discussion. A couple of times we were working together. There would be
others around, not on a constant basis anyway, but coming and going,
and as I recall a couple of times we were thrown together. Working
together, we weren't having a serious discussion; we were joking.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion in those additional half dozen
instances of discussions with him, the viewpoint you have just
expressed, that is, that his initial raising of the issue was more by
way of provoking or shocking those about him rather than any utterances
on his part of sincerity in a belief that communism was itself a
religion?

Mr. THORNLEY. It became obvious to me after a while, in talking to
him, that definitely he thought that communism was the best--that the
Marxist morality was the most rational morality to follow that he knew
of. And that communism was the best system in the world.

I still certainly wouldn't--wouldn't have predicted, for example, his
defection to the Soviet Union, because once again he seemed idle in his
admiration for communism. He didn't seem to be an activist.

Mr. JENNER. Would you explain what you mean by idle in his admiration
of the communistic system?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, it seemed to be theoretical. It seemed strictly a
dispassionate appraisal--I did know at the time that he was learning
the Russian language. I knew he was subscribing to Pravda or a Russian
newspaper of some kind from Moscow. All of this I took as a sign of his
interest in the subject, and not as a sign of any active commitment to
the Communist ends.

Mr. JENNER. You felt there was no devotion there. That it was somewhat
of an intellectual interest, a curiosity. But I don't want to put words
in your mouth, so tell me.

Mr. THORNLEY. I wouldn't put it quite that weakly. While I didn't feel
there was any rabid devotion there, I wouldn't call it a complete idle
curiosity either. I would call it a definite interest.

Mr. JENNER. A definite interest.

Mr. THORNLEY. But not a fanatical devotion.

Mr. JENNER. You said you knew at that time that he was studying
Russian. How did you become aware of that?

Mr. THORNLEY. Probably by hearsay once again. I do remember one time
hearing the comment made by one man in the outfit that there was some
other man in the outfit who was taking a Russian newspaper and who was
a Communist and when I said, "Well, who is that?" he said, "Oswald,"
and I said, "Oh, well." That is probably where I learned it.

Mr. JENNER. How did you learn that he was a subscriber to Pravda and
the other Russian publications you have mentioned?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I don't think--it was either Pravda or some other
Russian publication.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. THORNLEY. The way I learned that was a story that I believe Bud
Simco, a friend of mine in the same outfit, in the outfit at the same
time, told me that one time a lieutenant, and I forget which lieutenant
it was (I do remember at the time I did know who he was talking about)
found out that Oswald, by--he happened to be in the mailroom or
something, and saw a paper with Oswald's address on it.

Mr. JENNER. That is the officer happened to be in the mailroom?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; and that it was written--he noticed this paper was
written in Russian and at the time got very excited, attempted to
draw this to the attention of Oswald's section chief, the commanding
officer, and, of course, there was nothing these people could do
about it, and at the time the story was related to me. I remember
I thought it was rather humorous that this young, either second or
first lieutenant should get so excited because Oswald happened to be
subscribing to a Russian newspaper.

Mr. JENNER. Was this lieutenant's name Delprado?

Mr. THORNLEY. I will bet it was. That is very familiar. I think so.

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever subscribed to a Russian language newspaper or
other publications?

Mr. THORNLEY. Other Russian publications?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. THORNLEY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever subscribed to a publication that was printed
in the Russian language?

Mr. THORNLEY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever been a subscriber to any literature by way of
news media or otherwise, published by any organization reputed to be
communistic or pink or that sort of thing? I don't want to get it too
broad.

Mr. THORNLEY. Only I. F. Stone's newsletter and that certainly----

Mr. JENNER. Whose?

Mr. THORNLEY. I. F. Stone's newsletter and I wouldn't say----

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about that.

Mr. THORNLEY. He is a Washington reporter who is a rather extreme
leftist, but certainly within the bounds of what is accepted in this
country as non-subversive.

Mr. JENNER. Describe yourself in that respect. Where are you, a
middle-of-the-roader?

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say I am an extreme rightist. I call myself a
libertarian, which is that I believe in the complete sovereignty of
the individual, or at least as much individual liberty as is practical
under any given system.

Mr. JENNER. You don't have to be an extreme rightist to believe in the
sovereignty of the individual.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, it is getting that way in this country today. At
least most people who listen to me talk call me a rightist. I wouldn't
say so either. I think the political spectrum was fine for France at
the time of the revolution. I don't think it applies to the United
States of America today in any respect whatsoever. I don't think you
can call a man an extreme leftist, rightist, or middle-of-the-roader
and have him classified that simply.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any brothers and sisters?

Mr. THORNLEY. I have two brothers.

Mr. JENNER. What do they do?

Mr. THORNLEY. They go to, one of them goes to junior college, I
believe, and the other one goes to high school. They are in Whittier,
Calif.

Mr. JENNER. Are your folks alive?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What does your father do?

Mr. THORNLEY. He is a photoengraver.

Mr. JENNER. Let's get back to Oswald. Describe this individual to me.
First describe him physically.

Mr. THORNLEY. Physically, I would say he was slightly below average
height. Had, as I recall, gray or blue eyes. Always had, or almost
always had a petulant expression on his face. Pursed-up lip expression,
either a frown or a smile, depending on the circumstances. Was of
average build, and his hair was brown, and tending to, like mine,
tending to bald a little on each side.

Mr. JENNER. Above the temple. What would you say he weighed?

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say he weighed about 140 pounds, maybe 130.

Mr. JENNER. How tall was he?

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say he was about five-five maybe. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. How tall are you?

Mr. THORNLEY. I am five-ten.

Mr. JENNER. Was he shorter than you?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What habits did he have with respect to his person--was he
neat, clean?

Mr. THORNLEY. Extremely sloppy.

Mr. JENNER. Extremely sloppy?

Mr. THORNLEY. He was. This I think might not have been true of him in
civilian life.

Mr. JENNER. You don't know one way or the other?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; but I do have reason to believe that it wasn't true
of him in civilian life because it fitted into a general personality
pattern of his: to do whatever was not wanted of him, a recalcitrant
trend in his personality.

Mr. JENNER. You think it was deliberate?

Mr. THORNLEY. I think it tended to be deliberate; yes. It was a gesture
of rebellion on his part.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever discuss that matter with him, as dress.

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. The attitude of rebellion?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; because this attitude of rebellion was a fairly
common thing in the service.

Mr. JENNER. On the part of others as well as Oswald?

Mr. THORNLEY. As well as Oswald. Oswald did carry it to--was the most
extreme example I can think of stateside. However, overseas, in the
outfit he had been in before, as I discovered later, this was quite
common.

Mr. JENNER. How much later?

Mr. THORNLEY. Three months--well, immediately, as soon as I left, as
soon as I got overseas. I walked in to the barracks on the Fourth
of July over there and saw beer bottles spread all over, and some
character sitting in the back of the barracks with a broken beer bottle
cutting his arm, for what reason I don't remember. They found beer cans
in a trash can in MACS 9 and there was a drastic investigation; so
there is an indication of a difference between stateside and overseas.
Oswald was typical, very typical of the outfit he had just left
overseas.

Mr. JENNER. So that it is your impression, you would say. I gather,
that as of that particular time when you first knew him that he was
still carrying some of his experience personal attentionwise from what
he had experienced overseas?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And he was still following the habits he had acquired
overseas?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you think it went beyond that, this unkemptness or this
sloppiness?

Mr. THORNLEY. It did go beyond that, because he seemed to be a person
who would go out of his way to get into trouble, get some officer or
staff sergeant mad at him. He would make wise remarks. He had a general
bitter attitude toward the Corps. He used to pull his hat down over his
eyes so he wouldn't have to look at anything around him and go walking
around very Beetle Bailey style.

Mr. JENNER. What is Beetle Bailey?

Mr. THORNLEY. Beetle Bailey is a comic strip character who walks around
with his hat over his eyes very much as Oswald did.

Mr. JENNER. You want to keep in mind, Mr. Thornley, I am an old man and
there are things I don't pick up or get hep to.

Mr. THORNLEY. This is nothing recent. This is a comic strip that has
been around quite a few years now.

Mr. JENNER. You go on and tell us about his personality.

Mr. THORNLEY. All right.

Mr. JENNER. Including any physical characteristics or habits.

Mr. THORNLEY. I think I have covered all physical characteristics. His
shoes were always unshined. As I mentioned, he walked around with the
bill of his cap down over his eyes and you got the impression that he
was doing this so he wouldn't have to look at anything around him.

Mr. JENNER. And he was doing that so that he would not be assigned
additional work or----

Mr. THORNLEY. No; he was just doing that--this was just an attempt, I
think, on his part, to blot out the military so he wouldn't have to
look at it; he wouldn't have to think about it. In fact, I think he
made a comment to that effect at one time; that when he had his bill of
his cap over his eyes so he would see as little as possible, because he
didn't like what he had to look at.

He had, as I remember, he had a sense of humor, and I can only think of
a couple of examples of it. I have only been able to think of a couple
of examples of it over the past few months, but I have a strong general
impression in my mind that there were more examples that I just don't
remember.

Mr. JENNER. Well, you draw on your recollection as best you can and
you just keep telling us now in your own words and I will try to not
interrupt you too much.

Mr. THORNLEY. All right. One example was, that I remember--of course,
it was well known in the outfit that, or popularly believed that Oswald
had Communist sympathies----

Mr. JENNER. You didn't share that view?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not as much as some did, and while this was popularly
believed, I mention this as kind of a framework for the significance of
Oswald's comment: Master Sergeant Spar, our section chief, jumped up
on the fender one day and said, "All right, everybody gather around,"
and Oswald said in a very thick Russian accent, "Ah ha, collective farm
lecture," in a very delighted tone.

This brought him laughs at the time, and he had gotten me to read
"1984," as I mentioned earlier, and this was one of his favorites----

Mr. JENNER. Tell me what "1984" was.

Mr. THORNLEY. This was a book about--it is a projection into the
future, supposed to take place in 1984 in England under a complete
police state. It is, I would say, an anti-utopian novel, by George
Orwell, a criticism of English socialism and what it might lead
to, based upon Orwell's experiences with communism and nazism, his
observations about a society in which a mythical leader called Big
Brother dominates everybody's life. Where there are television cameras
on every individual at all times watching his every act, where sex is
practically outlawed, where the world is perpetually at war, three big
police states constantly at war with one another, and where thought
police keep every, all of the citizens in line. Oswald would often
compare the Marine Corps with the system of government outlined in
"1984."

I remember one day we were loading equipment----

Mr. JENNER. By way of protest against the Marine Corps?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; humorously, satirically. One day we were unloading,
moving a radarscope off the truck and it slipped, and he said, "Be
careful with Big Brother's equipment."

It was things like this. He did a lot of that.

I remember one day he--I was walking along with my hands in my pocket,
which is something you don't do in the service if you are--certainly
if you are in an infantry outfit you don't dare. Things were a little
lax in our outfit, so we could get away with it once in a while, so I
happened to be walking along with my hands in my pockets and suddenly I
heard a voice: "Hey, Smith, Winston," and rattle off a serial number,
"get your hands out of your pockets," which was a direct quote from the
book "1984."

These are the only examples of Oswald's, that particular aspect of
Oswald's character that I recall.

Mr. JENNER. I am stimulated to ask you this question by something you
just said. Did he have a good memory?

Mr. THORNLEY. I think he must have had a good memory; yes. If he wanted
to remember something, he could. I think he also had good ability to
blot out unpleasant thoughts in his mind.

Mr. JENNER. What about his powers of assimilation of what he read, and
his powers of critique?

Mr. THORNLEY. I certainly think he understood much more than many
people in the press have seemed to feel. I don't think he was a man who
was grasping onto his particular beliefs because he didn't understand
them. I don't think he was just trying to know something over his head,
by any means. I think he understood what he was talking about.

Sometimes I think there were gaps in his knowledge. I think there were
many things he didn't know, and this came from a haphazard education.

Mr. JENNER. You became acquainted with the fact that he had had a
somewhat haphazard education?

Mr. THORNLEY. It was obvious. I didn't become acquainted with it
specifically until recently in the news. But----

Mr. JENNER. You had that impression at the time?

Mr. THORNLEY. I had that impression; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How did that impression arise? Because of the lack of
analysis or real critique on his part of that which he was reading?
Inability to assimilate the thrust of a work?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I wouldn't say that. I would say he could analyze
what he read very well, but it was a very subjective impression, and
the idea I got was that there were a lot of things he didn't know, and
just a lot of facts that he wasn't familiar with. I guess sometimes,
probably in discussions, I would run into something. I would mention
something and he would say, "What is that?"

I know we did have a couple of very hot arguments and I am sure we were
throwing facts at one another, and he was certainly able to belt them
out when he wanted to, facts that suited his purpose in arguing.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of his--the extent of his formal
education and the extent of any private education of his; that is,
reading--self-education.

Mr. THORNLEY. Self-education. I was certainly surprised that--when I
read in the papers that he had not graduated, I think they said he had
not graduated from high school.

Mr. JENNER. That is correct.

Mr. THORNLEY. I thought he had graduated from high school. I assumed
that. I would say that his self-education certainly must have
been--perhaps, in fact, he took USAFI courses, U.S. Armed Forces
Institute courses, or something along that line, because he was one who
gave the impression of having some education, certainly.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have an impression of his intellect?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I think he was----

Mr. JENNER. I am speaking in the abstract.

Mr. THORNLEY. I think he was extremely intelligent, with what
information he had at hand he could always do very well and in an
argument he was quick. He was quick to answer, and it was not a matter
of just grabbing at something. It was a matter of coming back with a
fairly precise answer to your question or to your objection to his
argument.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then it was your impression--I will change my
question because I don't want to ask a leading question here.

What was your impression as to whether his learning, in the sense we
are talking about now, was superficial or was he able to master that
which he read, and engage in personal self-critique of that which he
read, discover its weaknesses, and apprehend its major thrust?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I would say as I have said before, he certainly
understood what he read. How much he had read, I don't know, but I
do know that when he got on a subject in which he was interested, he
showed a grasp of it. This is true with the book "1984," for example.
It is true with Marxism.

Mr. JENNER. Now that interests me also. You mentioned that before;
that is, his espousal of or interest in Marxism as such. What was his
ability, if he had any, and I am talking now idealistically only, to
compare Marxism, communism, democracy?

Mr. THORNLEY. I understand. I think----

Mr. JENNER. And did he understand the distinctions?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I think he understood the distinctions as well as
most reasonably educated people do. I think he certainly had a Marxist
bias in how--where he drew the lines.

For example, he could look upon the Soviet system today as a democracy
by, of course, giving a completely different definition to the word
"democracy" than I, for example. He would give----

Mr. JENNER. Can you remember some discussions or incidents that explain
that? Would he use objectivism?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I remember one in particular that always reminded
me of his general outlook.

One day we got into an argument and I thought I was really going to pin
him to the wall, I thought I was going to win this argument.

Mr. JENNER. On what subject?

Mr. THORNLEY. On Marxism. On the theory of history.

Mr. JENNER. Reconstruct the argument for me.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, all right. Let me add this.

When I was in my freshman year in college, in my English class, I
believe it was, perhaps it was a history class we had been required
to read, it was a history workshop, we had been required to read
the Communist manifesto which presents an outline of the theory of
the Marx-Engels outlook on past and future history. The dialectical
outlook. Oswald was also familiar with this outlook. As to what it
constituted we both agreed. Oswald had argued previously that communism
was a rational approach to life, a scientific approach to life, Marxism.

Mr. JENNER. This was in argumentation with you?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. THORNLEY. With me. I challenged him to show me any shred of
evidence to support the idea that history took place in the manner
described by Engels and Marx (this was not just an arbitrary system
looted as many suspect, from Hegel) and he, after some attempt to give
me a satisfactory answer, which he was unable to do, became aware of
that and he admitted that there was no justification, logically, for
the Communist theory of history or the Marxist theory of history, but
that Marxism was still, in his opinion, the best system for other
reasons that there was----

Mr. JENNER. Best as against what?

Mr. THORNLEY. As against, well primarily as against religions. He
did--that first comment of his always sticks in my mind, about
communism being the best religion. He did think of communism as, not as
a religion in the strict sense but as an overwhelming cultural outlook
that, once applied to a country, would make it much better off than,
say the Roman Catholic Church cultural outlook or the Hindu cultural
outlook or the Islamic cultural outlook, and he felt that, as I say, to
get back to this argument, he felt that there were enough other things
about communism that justified it that one could accept the theory of
history on faith.

Mr. JENNER. What other things?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, for one thing: the idea that he felt--as did
Marx--that under capitalism workers are exploited, that in some way
they are robbed of their full reward for their work by means of
entrepreneurs' profits, and he felt that Marxism took his money but
instead of taking it away from the worker spent it on the worker.

He felt that under a Soviet--under the present Soviet system, for
example, that the money was spent for the benefit of the people rather
than going to the individual who happened to be running the enterprise,
and he thought this was a juster situation.

Mr. JENNER. Did you raise with him the price the individual had to pay
for the material accommodation accorded the worker under the Communist
system; for the substance or money, of which you speak, being returned
to the worker? The price paid in terms of individual liberty as against
the capitalistic or democratic system?

Mr. THORNLEY. You couldn't say this to him. Because he would say: "How
do you know? How do you know what is going on there."

Mr. JENNER. First; did you raise it with him?

Mr. THORNLEY. I raised it with him.

Mr. JENNER. You being a libertarian as you say?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, at that time I was--my ideas have changed since
that time. At that time I was much to the left in my political thinking
once again; well, I would say about in the same position that Mr. Stone
who I spoke of earlier is now. I was on the "left-hand" side of the
acceptable political spectrum in this country, and so, therefore, these
issues, the issues I would now raise with him had I again the chance to
speak to him, would be much different than the issues I raised with him
at that time. I did not raise that issue particularly, I did not push
it.

Mr. JENNER. Was there much, if any, discussion at the time on the issue
of individual liberty?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; very little, because I wasn't too concerned about it
at the time and neither was he. We were both concerned about what was
the best for the greatest number of people. I don't think that concept
was clear to either one of us.

Mr. JENNER. But, even having in mind the status of your political
thinking at that moment, your political thinking did not square with
his?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I was opposed to the great trust that he put in, much
greater than I suspected at that time, of course, trust that he put in
the Soviet Government in the world today I felt they were misguided
idealists. He felt they weren't misguided.

Mr. JENNER. Give us as best you can recall his comments and views with
respect to capitalism of the variety then existing, or as he understood
existed in this Nation.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I wouldn't say that we--I can't recall us having
gone into any detail about anything so relevant to anything as
capitalism in this Nation at the time.

Mr. JENNER. These discussions were broader. They were more abstract?

Mr. THORNLEY. Usually, yes. Whenever we got specific we usually
discussed the Marine Corps.

Mr. JENNER. I see. You did not discuss the United States of America as
such?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. And the Soviet Union as such, and compared the two
countries?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, as I say, you couldn't do this with Oswald because
whenever you tried to make any statement about the Soviet Union he
would challenge it on the grounds that we were probably propagandized
in this country and we had no knowledge of what was going on over there.

Mr. JENNER. Did he purport to know what was going on over there?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did he show any interest in what was going on over there?

Mr. THORNLEY. He definitely showed interest.

Mr. JENNER. Give us some examples and tell us.

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say he took an agnostical approach to this. It
seemed that he didn't know whether to believe what he read in his
Russian newspaper, not that he used those exact words, or what he heard
in this country. He took the attitude that "Well, they may be right and
we may be right but I suspect they are right." This, of course, once
again, I always got the impression in any of these discussions that
part of his slight bias toward the Communist way of life was an act of
rebellion against the present circumstances.

Mr. JENNER. Do you think that bias, if any, was a mild bias?

Mr. THORNLEY. I thought so at the time.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impression at anytime that he was
interested from an objective standpoint; that he might like to
experience by way of personal investigation what was going on in Russia?

Mr. THORNLEY. It never dawned on me. It was the farthest thing from
my mind. Although I certainly will say this: When he did go to Russia
it seemed to me as a much more likely alternative for Oswald than say
joining the Communist Party in the United States.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me.

Mr. THORNLEY. It seemed to fit his personality.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read that? I lost the thought of it.

(The reporter read the answer.)

Mr. JENNER. Would you elaborate, please?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, Oswald was not militant. At the time it didn't seem
to me he was at all militant. That he was at all a fighter, the kind
of person who would glory in thinking of himself as marching along in
a great crusade of some kind. He would be the kind of person who would
take a quiet, as quiet as possible, for him personally, approach to
something. For example, going to the Soviet Union would be a way he
could experience what he thought were the benefits of communism without
committing himself to storming the Bastille, so to speak.

Mr. JENNER. Is it a fair statement that, in seeking to interpret or
enlarge upon what you say, that you did not have the impression of
him as being a person who thought in terms of seeking to implant in
this country, for example, by force or violence or other leadership,
communism or Marxism so as materially to affect or change the
government here?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I don't think he felt he had to do that. I think he
felt that that would inevitably happen some day and he was just getting
into the swing of things by doing things his way. I don't think he felt
that he could do much to promote the Communist cause or hinder it.

Mr. JENNER. Did he ever lead you to believe or did you have the
impression that he had any thought or desire or inclination to implant
communism here or elsewhere.

Mr. THORNLEY. No; not any more than merely to with the argument. He
certainly would have liked to have converted me or any other person
who was willing to discuss it with him. He would have liked to have
persuaded them that his ideas were correct. If he had done so, I have
no idea what he would have done then. I don't think he did either.

Mr. JENNER. What about his relationships, camaraderie with others on
base?

Mr. THORNLEY. Almost nil.

Mr. JENNER. Almost nil.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, he got along----

Mr. JENNER. Enlarge on that please.

Mr. THORNLEY. He got along with very few people.

Mr. JENNER. Why was that, in your opinion?

Mr. THORNLEY. He was extremely unpredictable. He and I stopped speaking
before I finally left the outfit. This will give you an example of----

Mr. JENNER. How did that arise?

Mr. THORNLEY. It was a Saturday morning. We had been called out to
march in a parade for a man or some men--I believe they were staff
NCO's--who were retiring from the Marine Corps. This was a common
occurrence. Every now and then we had to give up our Saturday morning
liberty to go march in one of these parades and everybody, of course,
having just gotten up, and having to stand out, to look forward to
a morning of standing out in the hot sun and marching around, was
irritable. So, we were involved at the moment in a "hurry-up and wait
routine" which is common in large organizations like the military. We
were waiting at the moment, in the parking lot by the parade ground,
sitting. Oswald and I happened to be sitting next to each other on a
log that was used to bank cars, in the parking lot. I had just finished
"1984" a couple of days earlier, and I had not yet discussed it with
Oswald, and I was--he said something and I said something; I don't
recall what it was--I was definitely thinking of "1984" at the time and
I was using terms from "1984." Oswald didn't seem to be particularly
amused by what I was saying, and he was--he seemed to be kind of lost
in his own thoughts, and so I stopped making any comments at all to him
for awhile. Then he turned to me and said something about the stupidity
of the parade, of the whole circumstance right at the moment, how angry
it made him, and I said, I believe my words were, "Well, comes the
revolution you will change all that."

At which time he looked at me like a betrayed Caesar and screamed,
screamed definitely, "Not you, too, Thornley." And I remember his voice
cracked as he said this. He was definitely disturbed at what I had said
and I didn't really think I had said that much. He put his hands in his
pockets and pulled his hat down over his eyes and walked away and went
over and sat down someplace else alone, and I thought, well, you know,
forget about it, and I never said anything to him again and he never
said anything to me again.

Mr. JENNER. You mean you never spoke to each other from that time on?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; and shortly thereafter I left the outfit for
overseas. I don't recall that we were ever in a situation where we
would have spoken, but I know we never spoke after that. And this
happened with many people, this reaction of Oswald's, and therefore
he had few friends. He never seemed to have any one friend for a long
length of time, one acquaintance. He seemed to guard against developing
real close friendships.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever--excuse me, you recall being interviewed by an
agent of the FBI?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. This was in New Orleans on Monday the 25th of----

Mr. THORNLEY. This was on an afternoon. Does he have the time down?

Mr. JENNER. 25th of November.

Mr. THORNLEY. That was Secret Service, wasn't it? Let's see, the 22d,
23d, 24th.

Mr. JENNER. This was Special Agent Merwin Alderson and Special Agent
Richard Farrell. It was the Monday following the assassination.

Mr. THORNLEY. What I believe happened is--I believe they arrived in
Arnaud's Restaurant where I was working at the time about midnight
Sunday night so it would actually be Monday, yes, sir, that they talked
to me. I gathered at the time these gentlemen were from the Secret
Service, but those are the gentlemen.

Mr. JENNER. Did you say to them in connection with this sudden
termination of the relationship between yourself and Oswald "that you
had made this comment to Oswald, that he was a Communist and that
things would be different when the revolution came"?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I didn't tell them he was a Communist; no. But
Oswald, certainly that was his reason for his anger. There was an
implied accusation of communism in my saying, "Comes the revolution you
will change all that."

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. THORNLEY. You see, he wasn't understanding the comments I was
making in relation to "1984" at all, our traditional meeting ground
here. He was interpreting them in light of his alleged communism, and
that is why he became angry. But no; I didn't say to him, "You are a
Communist"--ever.

Mr. JENNER. It is your explanation.

Mr. THORNLEY. This was not my opinion.

Mr. JENNER. You are saying that he interpreted your comment to be that
you accused him of being a Communist, and then he made the remark, "Not
you, too."

Mr. THORNLEY. I am sure he interpreted that that way but I certainly
didn't think he was a Communist and I certainly didn't tell him so.

Mr. JENNER. To what did you attribute this inability of his to maintain
reasonably cordial or at least military-service family relations with
his fellow marines?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, at the time I just thought--well, the man is a
nut--at the very moment it happened, I dismissed it without thinking
about it.

Mr. JENNER. See if you can articulate a little more, when you say "a
nut," a lot of people will interpret the expression "a nut" differently.

Mr. THORNLEY. I understand that. I was just trying to give you my
first impression first: that he was some kind of a nut, and I stopped
thinking about it.

Mr. JENNER. You mean a nut in the sense of an extremist, not an
organized thinker?

Mr. THORNLEY. I didn't think about that enough to classify it. I just
thought, "something is wrong with him, maybe something is bugging him
today, maybe he is crazy, I don't know what," but I just wasn't at that
moment--it wasn't that important to me, I didn't feel much better than
he did that morning, I am sure, so I just shrugged it off.

Later, I did reflect on it, and that, combined with his general
habits in relation to his superiors, and to the other men in the
outfit, caused me to decide that he had a definite tendency toward
irrationality at times, an emotional instability. Once again right
away, I didn't know exactly what was the cause of this. A couple of
years later I had good reason to think about it some more, at which
time I noticed----

Mr. JENNER. Now when please? Before the assassination?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, while working on my book, "The Idle Warriors."

Mr. JENNER. About when was this?

Mr. THORNLEY. From the time he went to the Soviet Union until February
of 1962.

Mr. JENNER. You learned that he had gone to the Soviet Union?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I was stationed at his former outfit, Marine Air
Control Squadron 1, at the time he went to the Soviet Union.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you then stationed?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is where I was at the time.

Mr. JENNER. What country?

Mr. THORNLEY. At Atsugi, Japan.

Mr. JENNER. I see. And you learned about it through what source?

Mr. THORNLEY. The Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper in the
Far East. It was on page 3, I believe, a little article about Lee
Harvey Oswald having appeared in the American Embassy in Moscow,
having plopped down his passport and requested Soviet citizenship. My
first reaction was, "Good Lord, what is going on here?" And afterward,
I, of course--it began to occur to me, his interest in communism,
and I started kicking myself, thinking, well, you know, just for so
misjudging a person. I just----

Mr. JENNER. Misjudging? What respect, please?

Mr. THORNLEY. As far as his sincerity went. I did not ever think he was
so interested in communism to go to all the trouble to go to the Soviet
Union and certainly to jeopardize his citizenship, and so forth. This
was a great surprise to me. And right away I began to try to figure out
the mechanism of his thinking.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Keep going and tell me what your rationalization and
thinking was at that time.

Mr. THORNLEY. And what caused him to do this. This gets us back to the
emotional instability and why did it occur. I do believe, to begin
with, Oswald, how long ago he had acquired the idea I don't know, but I
think in his mind it was almost a certainty that the world would end up
under a totalitarian government or under totalitarian governments.

I think he accepted Orwell's premise in this that their was no fighting
it. That sooner or later you were going to have to love Big Brother and
I think this was the central, I think this was the central thing that
disturbed him and caused many of his other reactions.

I think he wanted to be on the winning side for one thing, and,
therefore, the great interest in communism. I think he wanted--I think
he felt he was under a totalitarian system while in the Marine Corps,
and, therefore, the extreme reactions when someone would call him a
Communist. I think he had a persecution complex, and I think he strove
to maintain it. I could not go so far as to say why. Perhaps it was
necessary to his self-esteem in some way. This was and is the general
conclusion I now have as to his general motivations, his overall
motivations, insofar as he has tended to be emotionally unstable.

Mr. JENNER. Do you think he was emotionally unstable?

Mr. THORNLEY. I think so.

Mr. JENNER. That is an opinion you gathered from your association with
him in the Marines.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes. Primarily once again from that last experience, that
short exchange and just the complete unexpectedness of it. And then, of
course, after that was when I learned some of the other things, such as
the pouring the beer over the staff sergeant's head. These things, I
don't know when I learned them, but I do definitely know I learned them
afterwards because I----

Mr. JENNER. You mean you learned of that incident after you left the
base at El Toro?

Mr. THORNLEY. I believe I learned it over in Japan, as a matter of
fact, I believe soon after I got there somebody mentioned it in some
connection or another, and that was because I remember, yes, I am sure
it happened over there because I remember, then I said, "Oh, he was in
this unit? He was in here in MACS 1?" and somebody said, "Yes." And
that was another connection in my mind as far as Oswald was concerned.

And then when the defection occurred, I therefore felt that I--I had
been thinking about writing a book on the Marine Corps. I had not
decided exactly what it was going to concern, what it was going to be
about as far as plot or theme went, the background would be the Marine
Corps in Japan, because that was the first big, at that time to me,
dramatic experience of my life suitable for a book, worth telling about.

So, when the defection occurred on that same day, I thought, "Well,
this is it. I am in a perfect position to tell how this took place, why
this happened." I was not so interested in explaining Lee Harvey Oswald
to myself or anybody else, as I was in explaining that particular
phenomenon of disillusionment with the United States after serving in
the Marine Corps overseas in a peacetime capacity; thus the title: The
Idle Warriors.

Since Oswald inspired the book, I did base a good deal of it as a
matter of convenience on his personality and on his ideas.

Mr. JENNER. You said you had the impression as you sat there in Japan
that here was a man whom you felt wanted to be on the winning side.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you have as to why? Did you, for
example, have the impression that he felt that his life had been such
that he had been deprived of the opportunity to be on a good side?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. That he conceived to be the leading side?

Mr. THORNLEY. No. I had a definite impression of why.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. THORNLEY. I think it is a mistake that many people make, and I
think it is a mistake he shared, and that is: he looked upon, not only
Marxists make this mistake, but he looked upon history as God. He
looked upon the eyes of future people as some kind of tribunal, and he
wanted to be on the winning side so that 10,000 years from now people
would look in the history books and say, "Well, this man was ahead of
his time. This man was"--he wanted to be looked back upon with honor
by future generations. It was, I think, a substitute, in his case, for
traditional religion.

The eyes of the future became what to another man would be the eyes of
God, or perhaps to yet another man the eyes of his own conscience.

Mr. JENNER. So it wasn't in the prosaic sense of merely wanting to be
on the "winning side."

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. When things developed----

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I don't think he expected things to develop within
his lifetime. I am sure that he didn't. He just wanted to be on the
winning side for all eternity.

Mr. JENNER. You had the impression that that was in terms of
selflessness? That he thought also in terms that Lee Harvey Oswald
would be associated with this forward thinking?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right. He was concerned with his image in history and I
do think that is why he chose once again, once again why he chose the
particular method he chose and did it in the way he did. It got him
in the newspapers. It did broadcast his name out. I think he probably
expected the Russians to accept him on a much higher--in a much higher
capacity than they did.

I think he expected them to, in his own dreams, to invite him to take a
position in their government, possibly as a technician, and I think he
then felt that he could go out into the world, into the Communist world
and distinguish himself and work his way up into the party, perhaps. He
was definitely----

Mr. JENNER. Did it have to be the Communist world or could it be any
world that he saw projected into the future?

Mr. THORNLEY. Definitely.

Mr. JENNER. And as you put it this, in your opinion, had become a
religion with him.

Mr. THORNLEY. Much more than he himself realized even though he called
it his religion.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the impression there was a personal
selflessness, that is a--I will put it in terms of disregard or rather
this way--that as far as his physical person was concerned, he wasn't
concerned about life in the sense that he wanted to continue to
maintain life in his body?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I think he wanted physical happiness. I think this
is why he didn't do something like just join the Communist Party.
I believe he felt that was dangerous. I think he wanted to live
comfortably. But I think if it came to a choice between the two, or
to put it this way, more relevant to events that developed later, I
think if it became to his mind impossible for him to have this degree
of physical comfort that he expected or sought, I think he would then
throw himself entirely on the other thing he also wanted, which was the
image in history.

I don't think that--I think he wanted both if he could have them. If he
didn't, he wanted to die with the knowledge that, or with the idea that
he was somebody.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the impression at any time that he, in turn,
embraced a realization that he was lacking in ability to accomplish the
former, that is, personal comfort and status, that is that he felt that
there was a lack of ability, capacity, training, education on his part?

Mr. THORNLEY. When I knew him, I don't think he had the vaguest thought
in that direction. I do definitely, of course, based solely upon what
I have read in the newspapers, think he came to that moment, after
returning to the United States from the Soviet Union. I think he was
getting panicky.

Mr. JENNER. In our discussion you can see it is important to me
to obtain your thinking, uninfluenced to the extent you can do it
by subsequent events. Of course complete lack of influence is not
possible, but I am seeking your views as to your state of mind prior to
November 22.

Mr. THORNLEY. All right. I would say that prior to November 22, I felt
that he had gradually become disillusioned with the United States for
many reasons, at the bottom was also his conviction, well, in fact,
his disillusionment with the United States in the Far East probably
contributed to some extent to his conviction that the Communists would
eventually prevail, the Communist culture would eventually prevail in
the world, and I then had the feeling that he certainly--I thought he
would probably stay in Russia, for example, forever.

I didn't know what he was doing there. I realized from what I read at
that time that he was not--he did not have Russian citizenship. He was
staying there as an immigrant. I expected him probably to adjust to
Russian life and that would be the last that the Western World would
ever hear of Oswald.

Everything Oswald has ever done has surprised me.

Mr. JENNER. Please elaborate on that.

Mr. THORNLEY. When I knew him and since I knew him, when I knew him I
was surprised when he was offended at my statement about the coming
of the revolution that Saturday morning. I was surprised when I read
in the papers overseas that he had gone to the Soviet Union. I was
surprised when he came back. And I was entirely caught unaware when it
turned out that he was involved in the assassination, to such an extent
that for some time afterwards, I thought he was innocent.

Mr. JENNER. Why were you surprised when he came back and tell us before
you do that where were you and how did you find out about it.

Mr. THORNLEY. I was in New Orleans. My parents sent me an article from
the Los Angeles Times about it. The reason I was surprised at his
coming back was as I said before, I just expected that would be the
last I would hear of him. I fully expected him to adjust to Soviet
life. I thought what he--at that time I thought what he probably
lacked in the Marine Corps was any sympathy for the overall purpose of
the Marine Corps. Whereas he certainly had sympathy for the overall
purpose of the Soviet Government, so I don't think he would mind the
restrictions imposed on him, as he resented them in the Marine Corps.

I did not expect him to become disillusioned, certainly, with
the Soviet Union. I am not, of course, sure that he did become
disillusioned with it. It just seemed unlike him to come back to this
country when he said he would never live in either as a capitalist or
as a worker.

Mr. JENNER. When did he say that?

Mr. THORNLEY. He said that at a press conference in Moscow according to
the papers.

Mr. JENNER. This was something you read in the Stars and Stripes?

Mr. THORNLEY. I don't know whether I read this in the Stars and
Stripes or whether I read this--I certainly read it when he came back
from Russia, I remember. It was in the article from the Times my
folks sent me. Said when he had left for the Soviet Union he had said
such-and-such, quote.

Mr. JENNER. You said you did not expect him to become disillusioned
with Soviet Russia. Was it your impression at any time, take the
several stages, that he had a conviction with respect to any form of
political philosophy or government?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, he did definitely always before and after have a
Marxist bias. From anything that has come to me, that has never--I have
never reason--never had reason to doubt that.

Mr. JENNER. That, you think, was a conviction?

Mr. THORNLEY. I think that was an irrevocable conviction, you might say.

Mr. JENNER. You do not think it was not merely a theoretical concept
which he used for argumentation?

Mr. THORNLEY. Let me put it this way. I think you could sit down and
argue with him for a number of years in a great marathon argument
and have piles of facts and I don't think you could have changed his
mind on that unless you knew why he believed it in the first place. I
certainly don't. I don't think with any kind of formal argument you
could have shaken that conviction. And that is why I say irrevocable.
It was just--never getting back to looking at things from any other way
once he had become a Marxist, whenever that was.

Mr. JENNER. Was he able to articulate distinctions between Marxism,
communism, capitalism, democracy?

Mr. THORNLEY. At the time I knew him and argued with him he didn't
bother to articulate distinctions between Marxism and communism. At a
latter time I understand he did.

Mr. JENNER. He attempted to.

Mr. THORNLEY. At the time I knew his communism was the modern, living
vicar of Marxism, period.

Mr. JENNER. Were you in New Orleans when he was arrested for
distributing Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets?

Mr. THORNLEY. I arrived in New Orleans in the early part of September.
If I was in New Orleans----

Mr. JENNER. 1963?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. This occurred in August of 1963.

Mr. THORNLEY. Then I wasn't there; no.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear about it?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I didn't. I didn't hear about it until after the
assassination.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear any of those tapes?

Mr. THORNLEY. I heard part of one of them after the assassination, once
again.

Mr. JENNER. Did that part include his effort to distinguish between
Marxism and democracy in response to a question put to him by either
Mr. Stuckey or one of the other participants?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is exactly what he was talking about at the time. I
happened to be standing in the television station in New Orleans and he
was saying, and I just got a snatch of it, I was passing through the
room or something; and he was saying, "Well, there are many Marxist
countries in the world today."

Mr. JENNER. This was by way of his answering a question as to what was
the distinction between Marxism and communism?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; he was saying there are many non-Communist Marxist
countries in the world today and he was definitely making a distinction
between Marxism and communism.

Mr. JENNER. But all he did was to cite the countries. He didn't attempt
to make the distinction.

Mr. THORNLEY. It was only a snatch of it.

Mr. JENNER. That was a fair representation of his utterances during
those two radio broadcasts and one television broadcast. You mentioned
also that you had a feeling on his part that he was laboring under a
persecution complex?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was not necessarily based alone on the incident
you relate that occurred on that Saturday morning? Were there other
incidents?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; there were many comments on his part about the walls
having ears, about--I think he felt the Marine Corps kept a pretty
close watch on him because of his "subversive" activities and, for that
reason in fact, I think he sought to keep himself convinced that he was
being watched and being pushed a little harder than anyone else.

I don't think he was consciously, perhaps not consciously, aware of the
fact that he went out of his way to get into trouble. I think it was
kind of necessary to him to believe that he was being picked on. It
wasn't anything extreme. I wouldn't go so far as to call it, call him a
paranoid, but a definite tendency there was in that direction, I think.

Mr. JENNER. Would you put it in terms that he had the feeling that he
was being unjustifiably put upon?

Mr. THORNLEY. Oh, always; yes. He was, in fact, you almost got the
feeling that he was--this was happening because of his defense. I mean
he was always speaking of the injustices which had been perpetrated
against him.

Mr. JENNER. Of his injustices as to him personally, different from the
treatment of others about him?

Mr. THORNLEY. To him personally; yes. Well, and it was the fact that he
had lost his clearance, and had gone out of his way to get into some
degree of trouble that went on to support this. For example, we would
stand at muster in the morning, and Sergeant Spar would call the roll
and he would say "Oswald" and Oswald would step out of the ranks and he
would send him off to mow the lawn or something.

Oswald did get special treatment. As I say, he had brought it on
himself but he made the most of it, too, as far as using it as a means
of getting or attempting to get sympathy.

Mr. JENNER. Well, what was the sergeant's name?

Mr. THORNLEY. Sergeant Spar.

Mr. JENNER. Spar. In using his name, I don't wish to, I am not
suggesting anything personal as to Sergeant Spar, but I am going to
use him as a faceless Marine sergeant.

Mr. THORNLEY. And a very good one.

Mr. JENNER. You marines, at least some of you, I assume, as had GI's
and others, you buttered up sergeants, too, didn't you, in order to
avoid being assigned too often to disagreeable tasks?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; you didn't have to. So long as you kept in line
and obeyed orders, you didn't have to--you weren't assigned any
disagreeable task in the kind of outfit I was in because there weren't
that many. When there was a disagreeable task to be done, it was
assigned to somebody who had stepped out of line and there were always
enough people who had stepped out of line and it was no problem to find
them. In fact, the problem was to find enough disagreeable tasks to go
around. The only exception to this would be overseas; a typhoon would
hit sometimes and then everybody would have to go out and we would have
to all, much to our dismay, wade around at 2 o'clock in the morning and
tear down tents and so on and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. That was a thing that was common to all of you.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. It was not a disagreeable task in the sense we are talking
about.

Mr. THORNLEY. Right; and that was never necessary to have to butter
up that I can ever think of to a superior of any kind in order to get
exempted from anything.

Mr. JENNER. Well, do you think Oswald was aware that all he had to be
was more tractable to the customs and practices of the Marine Corps
in which he was then living and he would not be assigned disagreeable
tasks more often than others?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, that is hard to say. I don't know whether he was
aware of that or not. I am not sure whether he permitted himself to be
aware of it. Maybe he was aware of it and maybe he couldn't help. He
had compulsions to do these things. Maybe he thought it was worth it
and maybe he didn't feel that he was being treated unjustly at all.
Maybe he just wanted everybody to think he felt he was being treated
unjustly, if you follow me.

Mr. JENNER. I do.

Mr. THORNLEY. It could have been any of these things. This--I think it
would take a good psychiatrist to find out which.

Mr. JENNER. You also used the expression that he strove to maintain the
status or milieu in which he had brought himself.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I think this was possibly so. I think perhaps the
feeling of being persecuted was necessary to his self-esteem. This is,
I understand, a common thing, and it certainly fits in with everything
else I know about him.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have that impression that you have just expressed
at the time that you were associated with him in the Marines?

Mr. THORNLEY. At the time I was associated with him, I didn't have that
impression because I was too busy wondering just what it was. I used
to--I would see him doing something stupid, maybe a wisecrack to an
officer, for example, and I would say, "Well, doesn't the idiot know
that if he does that he is going to have to do this" and yet he would
resent his punishment.

Mr. JENNER. What would he do afterward?

Mr. THORNLEY. As if it had been thrust upon him for no reason
whatsoever, out of the blue.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have a feeling that he was impulsive in that
respect, in the sense that sometimes he did things?

Mr. THORNLEY. He was definitely impulsive.

Mr. JENNER. That he had no control?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I don't know whether he had no control or whether
he would just do things without thinking. I think maybe he just let,
relaxed his controls once in a while, and why, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the feeling he was impulsive?

Mr. THORNLEY. Oh, definitely.

Mr. JENNER. He acted on the spur of the moment?

Mr. THORNLEY. He was spontaneous, very much so. This was--I had this
impression the whole time I knew him.

Mr. JENNER. You did have the impression and I think you have mentioned
it several times, that he had an exaggerated, either mild or otherwise,
self-esteem.

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I didn't mention that that I recall. I did say that
I think maintaining the persecution complex was necessary for his
self-esteem and he was concerned very much with his image in history
but I don't think in the sense of being secure about his self-esteem; I
don't think he was either conceited, for example, egotistical, or just
plain confident. I don't think--I don't have any reason to believe that
he in his own eyes, had any reason to be proud of himself beyond the
average, at most.

Mr. JENNER. I wasn't thinking of self-esteem in that sense and I didn't
gather from your remark that you were thinking of it in that sense
either, but rather in the sense of self-esteem in his own eyes, not in
the sense of accomplishment or egoism.

Mr. THORNLEY. Now, I don't know. Self-esteem in one's own eyes, it
seems to me, would have to be justified by some means. Some people
justify it by means of their attraction to the opposite sex or by means
of their standing in some country club. I think Oswald justified it by
means of his recalcitrance, kind of a reverse self-esteem.

By means of his unwillingness to do what he was ordered, for example.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the feeling that he sought the esteem of
others, not necessarily his officers, but the esteem of somebody or
some group or some persons about him and in his life----

Mr. THORNLEY. I think he wanted this very much but I don't think he
knew how to go about getting it. He wanted it, and yet he certainly
didn't--I think he would have felt he was cheating himself if he had
offered them anything in exchange for it. He wanted it but he wanted it
to come to him for no reason. He didn't want to have to earn it. I got
that impression. That is a very mild impression.

Mr. JENNER. We are dealing in a very delicate field here and I am
pressing you very severely.

Mr. THORNLEY. These are sometimes very gray, thin lines we have to
distinguish between.

Mr. JENNER. We are probing for motivation. Did you ever discuss with
him the matter of education?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. His own; or education in the abstract; or the need for
education in order to attain accomplishments; or any regard to whether
his status in life, his personal comfort, his personal peace, could be
advanced by further education?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have the feeling of any discomfort on his part
or inferiority because of his limited education?

Mr. THORNLEY. No. First of all, in the Marine Corps there is a
prevalence of this kind of feeling among many of the enlisted men, and
Oswald was exempt from it.

Mr. JENNER. What do you mean "exempt from it"?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, he didn't, for example, have the usual bitterness
toward somebody who read, well, just merely because he did read.

Mr. JENNER. He may have felt superior because he did read, did you have
that feeling?

Mr. THORNLEY. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was a definite feeling?

Mr. THORNLEY. I wouldn't say anything in my experience with him caused
me to particularly notice that he felt superior because he did read.
But except, yes, there is one time a friend of his, I don't know who
it was, I haven't been able to recall the name at present, one morning
looked over at our commanding officer who was walking by, Colonel
Poindexter, an air ace in Korea----

Mr. JENNER. A what?

Mr. THORNLEY. An ace pilot in Korea, and made the comment, "There goes
a mental midgit" which drew glee from Oswald, as I remember. But aside
from that one particular incident--well, in any case, when he was
dealing with military superiors he always felt superior to them. You
got that impression. But dealing with the other marines who maybe did
have an education or did not have an education, I didn't get any, ever
get any impression one way or the other that he had a tendency to react
to this.

Mr. JENNER. As between yourself and him, your association, what was
your feeling? Did he regard himself as compatible with you and you with
him?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; definitely. I didn't get any idea that he was--I
thought his education was about the same as my own which certainly
isn't spectacular by any means. I thought he might have had a year of
college. I knew he had--I figured he had graduated from high school. It
never occurred to me to think any more about it. I did, as I mentioned
before, notice once in a while that he had gaps in his knowledge, but
many people do, in fact all of us do, I am sure, in some fields.

But in Oswald's case they perhaps had an unusual pattern to them or
something that made me notice them, perhaps. Perhaps he was better
read, for example, on Marxist economics than any other school of
economics, things like this. But that was the extent of it.

Mr. JENNER. Was there in your kicking around with him in your
discussions--was there ever any discussion of your past, of his past,
his life?

Mr. THORNLEY. None whatsoever. This I am almost certain of. I had no
idea, for example, that he was from Texas or where he was from. At that
time I don't recall him having a Texas accent, either. I had no idea
that his father had died when he was young. I had no idea about his
family, anything along this line and I don't think I ever discussed my
past with him.

Mr. JENNER. Was any mention ever made of his attendance at or even the
name of the Albert Schweitzer College?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. No discussions about any plans of his or possibility of his
seeking further education of any kind or character when he was mustered
out of the Marines?

Mr. THORNLEY. None whatsoever. For one thing we were not close enough
friends to have any personal interests in each other. I looked upon
him as somebody to argue with, another atheist--therefore, without the
problem of religion between us--and to argue philosophy and politics
about, and I think he looked upon me in about the same light.

Mr. JENNER. What was your dexterity with Marine weapons?

Mr. THORNLEY. Mine?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. THORNLEY. I was a sharpshooter.

Mr. JENNER. What was his?

Mr. THORNLEY. I believe--well, at that time I didn't know.

Mr. JENNER. You didn't know. I want your viewpoint as of that time.
While you were based at El Toro, did the unit engage with any
regularity in rifle practice?

Mr. THORNLEY. None whatsoever. At that time, the whole time I was
there, we did not engage in rifle practice.

Mr. JENNER. As a matter of curiosity on my own part, why was that?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, in the Marine Corps you are required once a year
to go to the rifle range and qualify. I was not there an entire year.
Point No. 2, this was the Marine air wing which has much less of an
emphasis on, in general, on rifle practice because it is not going to
be utilized in battle, and a much stronger emphasis, in the case of the
outfit we were in, on our particular military occupational specialty.

Mr. JENNER. Which was?

Mr. THORNLEY. 6749 Aviation Electronic Operator.

Mr. JENNER. Was this true when you reached Japan?

Mr. THORNLEY. More so. When I reached Japan, however, we did go to the
rifle range one time shortly after I got there, and qualify. I recall
at that time that in Japan we weren't even having rifle inspections.
There you could put your rifle away in your locker and forget about it,
and take it out every couple of months and make sure it hadn't corroded
away, and put it back again.

Mr. JENNER. But you didn't even have rifle inspection?

Mr. THORNLEY. Once in a while we would have one, but not with any
frequency whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Were you forewarned so that you could clean your rifle?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; usually you were caught unawares, which was why you
kept it clean in the locker.

Mr. JENNER. I see. What are the grades of marksmanship?

Mr. THORNLEY. Marksman, sharpshooter, and expert.

Mr. JENNER. Marksman, sharpshooter, and expert. Therefore, I gather
from that that marksman was the basic grade.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. A grade that every marine was expected to, and had to,
attain that grade?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not had to attain, some didn't, and there was no
particular penalty involved, except maybe something a little
extracurricular when you were in boot camp. Otherwise, you didn't
wear a marksman's medal is all. You didn't have any qualification in
the infantry; of course, it would be looked down upon in the case of
promotion or something like that. In the air wing it had much slighter
significance than that. Maybe if you were being considered for a
meritorious promotion and you hadn't qualified you wouldn't get it, but
day to day it had no significance.

Mr. JENNER. Were the standards applied in the air wing with respect
to qualifications for these three classes as severe or as high as the
standards applied, let us say, in the Marine infantry?

Mr. THORNLEY. Exactly the same; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Exactly the same. Would you please state for me your
concept of the degree of marksmanship for (a) marksman, (b)
sharpshooter, (c) expert?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, a marksman is an average shooter. A man, I think,
could pick up a rifle and with a little commonsense and a minimum
knowledge of the basics of marksmanship qualify as a marksman. When a
man doesn't qualify as a marksman it is usually either because he is
nervous on the day of qualification or he is gun shy or some outside
influence confuses him; maybe he gets his windage off, something like
this.

Sharpshooter is just a little above average. It ranges over about--a
pretty wide field. But it is a man who--a sharpshooter would be a man,
the average man, with a good, maybe a week of training on how to use a
rifle, and some practice.

Whereas an expert is the kind of man I would hate to have on the other
side in a war. He is accurate with his rifle up to and including 500
yards in a number of different positions. Hits the bull's-eye or close
to the bull's-eye an overwhelming percentage of the time.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the category in which we would place that to which
we refer generally as the sniper?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes. Well, any man might be assigned as a sniper, I
imagine. But an expert rifleman would perform much better.

Mr. JENNER. Maybe be a superior sniper.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes. Definitely.

Mr. JENNER. And to attain the position of expert marksman must there be
considerable practice and use of the weapon or is it more of natural
ability?

Mr. THORNLEY. Now, you enter in once again to natural ability, just as
not qualifying might be caused by a lack of natural ability of some
kind. An expert rifleman probably would have a much calmer nervous
system or, you might say, a much greater degree of control.

I would imagine training can make up for this. I know a couple of times
I just missed expert by a few points. It seemed that I couldn't make
expert. It seemed to me there was just something I didn't have in order
to make expert. It was very frustrating.

Mr. JENNER. You tried?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; it takes a great degree of control, primarily. Of
course, the other things like good eyesight and so on and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. Oh, yes.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever discuss with Oswald his degree of proficiency
in the use of the rifle?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impressions that you gathered in that
respect while you were with him at El Toro?

Mr. THORNLEY. None whatsoever. Had somebody asked me to guess about
Oswald, I would have said, well, he probably didn't qualify, just
because that was the type of guy he was, but that is all.

Mr. JENNER. You would never have expected him to have been a
sharpshooter, for example?

Mr. THORNLEY. It wouldn't have greatly surprised me if he was and it
wouldn't have greatly surprised me if he wasn't. This is something very
difficult: to look at a man and tell, at least it is very difficult for
me. I have seen some drill instructors who could do it. But to tell
whether he is going to be an expert or a sharpshooter, marksman, I am
not qualified.

Mr. JENNER. While you were stationed with him at El Toro, did you ever
go off base with him?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any discussion of dates?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. His attitude toward women?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Sex?

Mr. THORNLEY. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any scuttlebutt around the camp in that regard
with respect to him?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER. Sex habits, propensities?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; you stand a risk in the Marine Corps, if you are
at all quiet and tend to be introverted, of being suspected of being
homosexual, but to the best of my knowledge there were never any
comments made of this nature.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall some other readings of his in addition to
"1984"?

Mr. THORNLEY. I do recall having mentioned Dostoievsky to him and I
know he had read something and I think it was "Crime and Punishment"
but I am not sure. It was something I had not read by Dostoievsky when
I had read about, I guess at that time, about three or four books.

Mr. JENNER. It is a great book.

Mr. THORNLEY. Someday I am going to get around to it.

Mr. JENNER. Have you not read it yet? It is a really great book.

Mr. THORNLEY. No; and I don't recall him mentioning any other books
offhand. I don't--I can't think of a thing besides "1984" and some book
by Dostoievsky.

Mr. JENNER. While you were based at El Toro did he engage, did you
notice, in any officer baiting on his part with respect, in particular,
to such matters as foreign affairs?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; not on foreign affairs, no, but the same officer,
Lieutenant Donovan, spoke of in a foreign affairs lecture in the
newspapers, I do remember him baiting him on a couple of occasions.

Mr. JENNER. Oswald attempting to bait Lieutenant Donovan?

Mr. THORNLEY. I don't remember what it was. I know, I believe
Lieutenant Donovan was also a lieutenant which I had had a couple of
run-ins with if I remember correctly.

If not, it was Lieutenant Delprado. It was one of the two of them. Mine
were completely accidental and I went to great length to keep away from
one of them because it seemed like any time I was around him I happened
to do something to irritate him. But Oswald, I don't recall exactly
what he said, but he a couple or three times went out of his way to
say something to one of these lieutenants that would cause them to be
irritated and in this you can't really say that he was exceptional. It
happened many times. In Oswald's case though, it was exceptionally----

Mr. JENNER. You mean it happened many times with respect to other
noncoms in the Marines with respect to these officers?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right; but in Oswald's case it seemed a little more
deliberate. Some guys would get mad and they would say something,
or sometimes they would do something by accident, and they would get
themselves involved and then they would decide, "Well, what the hell,"
and push it all away. Oswald it seemed didn't have to have any reason.
He just told an officer to get lost.

Mr. JENNER. He baited an officer for the pleasure of it?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; I might mention that this was one means by which he
won the admiration of others in the outfit in that the junior officers
especially are usually disliked, or were in that outfit, and this made
him on such occasions as he engaged with an officer in some kind of
officer baiting, this won the respect, for at least a few minutes, of
the men--who would kind of laugh about it, and chuckle over it and tell
others about it. Perhaps this is why he did it.

Mr. JENNER. You mentioned some slovenliness on his part; what about his
quarters, his barracks; did you have occasion to observe them?

Mr. THORNLEY. I don't think I was ever in his barracks. I do recall
having been told that he had Russian books and that is all I--that is
the only connection I can make now in my mind with his quarters. I
don't think I ever saw them.

Mr. JENNER. You already have given us something of his view of the
U.S. Marine Corps. Would you give us a summary of that? Give us your
impression of his views with respect to the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, definitely the Marine Corps was not what he had
expected it to be when he joined. Also he felt that the officers and
the staff NCO's at the Marine Corps were incompetent to give him orders.

Mr. JENNER. Incompetent in what sense, they were below him
intellectually?

Mr. THORNLEY. They were below him intellectually--and for various other
reasons in each case, too. Maybe this officer was ignorant, as was
brought out about foreign affairs, in Oswald's mind, knew less than
Oswald did about it. I don't hold with the stand that Oswald would
study up on foreign affairs simply in order to bait the officer. I
think it just happened to be that Oswald would see that the officer
was basing his foreign affairs maybe on Time magazine when Oswald had
done a little more reading and I think he resented this Time magazine
approach to foreign affairs.

Mr. JENNER. How did these discussions arise, Mr. Thornley, the
discussion of foreign affairs by officers?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, the officers, every so many weeks--this is
mentioned somewhere in this pile of papers--every so many weeks a
lieutenant is appointed to give a foreign affairs lecture or a current
affairs lecture, pardon me, to the troops, at which time he explains
the world situation in a half hour. I remember having one second
lieutenant telling us about Dalai Lama or it was a first lieutenant
and I forget what he told us, but it was something completely absurd.
I think at that time the Dalai Lama had just disappeared or something,
and one would get the impression, I think, that he thought the Dalai
Lama was a leader in Pakistan or something.

Mr. JENNER. That is the impression the lieutenant tried to convey?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I think that was the impression the lieutenant had
had when he had been assigned to give this lecture. The last minute,
he got down and started going through the news magazines to get his
information, got it somewhat inaccurately, and didn't particularly care
whether it was accurate or not anyway. Stood up in front of the troops
and reeled off the lecture, and, of course, most of the enlisted men
didn't know enough to criticize him either because they weren't that
interested, and that was it--with a couple of people laughing up their
sleeves, and this happened later, this didn't happen at the time I knew
Oswald.

However, in such a situation Oswald would have been careful I am sure
to raise his hand and correct the lieutenant.

Mr. JENNER. I was going to get to that. During the course of these
lectures did the troops as you called them engage in discussion with
the instructor?

Mr. THORNLEY. They were permitted to ask questions, to raise their
hands to ask questions. And Oswald would have probably asked a question
which would have made light of the lieutenant's ignorance.

Mr. JENNER. Put the lieutenant at a disadvantage?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were you present at any times when you were at El Toro
when the lectures occurred when, at that time Oswald raised his hand
and engaged in dissertation?

Mr. THORNLEY. I might have been but I don't recall it if I was. I
recall being present at several lectures at El Toro, and it just might
have happened. It was the kind of thing Oswald would do and it wouldn't
even have phased me. I probably wouldn't even have bothered to remember
if it had happened. It would have been just part of the daily routine
there so I would have----

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever engage in that sort of thing?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I never had guts enough to stand up and tell an
officer he didn't know what he was talking about. Behind his back I
might tell somebody that such-and-such officer didn't know what he was
talking about, but I was never quite that brash--in that particular
respect, anyway.

Mr. JENNER. What were your impressions on Oswald being interested in
music?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not being interested in music myself particularly----

Mr. JENNER. I take it you had none; that is, any impressions as to his
interests?

Mr. THORNLEY. No, therefore, I had none; correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever play chess with him?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever see him playing chess with anyone else?

Mr. THORNLEY. Just now you mentioned the word "chess" as a definite
association; I think he did play chess. I can't place the person.
This--there were some other people in the outfit who played chess.
There is one name I have been trying to remember for a long time, and I
think it starts with "Win" something. "Winter" something. I'm probably
way off base there. But a tall blond corporal, I believe, played chess
and a couple of other men in the outfit played chess. At that time, I
guess at that, I knew how to play chess. I have never been particularly
interested, though, in the game so I don't--I am pretty sure I didn't
play chess with him.

In fact, come to think of it I had just been cured of playing chess 3
months before that; somebody beat me in about six moves and I stopped
playing for about a year. It wasn't me.

Mr. JENNER. While at El Toro did Oswald become engaged in any physical
altercations with anybody?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; definitely not to my knowledge. Never got into any
fights or even any hot personal argument over anything, that I know of.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression, if you had one then, as to his
disposition in that regard?

Mr. THORNLEY. I had the impression that he avoided violence.

Mr. JENNER. While you were at El Toro do you recall whether Oswald ever
went off the base on liberty?

Mr. THORNLEY. As far as I know he didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any discussions on the base as to what, if
anything, Oswald did?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not in my presence.

Mr. JENNER. What, if anything, Oswald had done off the base on liberty?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not in my presence.

Mr. JENNER. Was there ever any discussion of Cuba and Castro and that
problem?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right; tell us all about that.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, at that time I and Oswald were both, and a couple
of other men in the outfit, were quite sure that Castro was a great
hero.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, he was liberating Cuba from Batista and, of course,
we had heard all about Batista and what an evil man he was, which I am
sure was true, and most of us had read some of the things written by
Castro, some of Castro's promises--such as he would take no part in the
government after the revolution, such things--so we had the definite
impression--I remember there was one Puerto Rican boy, myself, Oswald,
a couple of others who had quite an admiration for Castro, and thought
the pro-Communist statements he was or might be making at the time,
were made simply to guarantee a little more independence for his island
because it was located so close to the United States.

In other words, I felt at the time he was playing both ends against the
middle in order to go his own way, something like Charles de Gaulle
is doing right now by recognizing Red China. I felt it was purely
statesmanship, statecraft, power politics. I didn't feel that Castro
was a dedicated Communist. Whether Oswald did or not I don't know. He
admired Castro because of the social reforms Castro was introducing. So
did I at that time.

Delgado, the Puerto Rican boy, as I recall it, was becoming worried
at that time because he was beginning to think maybe Castro was
communistic. I didn't think so. Oswald, as far as I know, didn't have
anything to say on that matter. And that is about all I can tell you.

Mr. JENNER. Well, you say that you admired Castro and you knew Oswald
admired Castro. Tell us on what you base that comment.

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, once again as I remember, there was one of these
afternoon discussions once again, and somebody was saying something,
worried about Castro, it might have been Delgado, it might have been
somebody else, I don't think it was Delgado that day because I think
he was defending Castro, somebody said something against Castro, and
Oswald said that he didn't think Castro was so bad.

He thought Castro was good for Cuba, and they said why, and I took up
the argument, which was the argument I just gave you, the naive idea
I had at the time that he was playing for independence, and Oswald
remained silent, shaking his head affirmatively a couple of times, and
that was it.

Mr. JENNER. Shaking his head affirmatively with respect to the comments
you were making?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; to my argument, to my justification of Castro.

Mr. JENNER. But you recall no provocative remarks that he made in that
connection?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did Oswald have a nickname?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not that I know of except Oz sometimes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear him referred to as "Ozzie Rabbit"?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, yes; I didn't realize that anybody else referred to
him as such but I always thought of him as such. He reminded me very
much of a cartoon character at that time. It was kind of pathetic.
There was something about this little smile of his, and his expression
on his face and the shape of his head, just the general, his general
appearance established a definite association in my mind with some
Warner Bros. cartoon character, I believe Warner Bros. And I, very
recently, in a discussion with someone, describing Oswald mentioned
that he reminded you of--I said: "I think there is a character called
Oswald Rabbit who appears in movie cartoons." And they shook their head.

Now, I know where I got that particular example so I probably heard him
referred to as "Ozzie Rabbit," though I don't recall specifically.

Mr. JENNER. Did he occasionally have a nickname or a reference made to
him attendant upon his interest in the study of the Russian language or
his interest in communism or in Russia or Soviet----

Mr. THORNLEY. Only he was sometimes called the Communist and he would,
sometimes I know--as far as his study of the Russian language went he
made no attempt to hide this.

In fact, he made--would make attempts to show it off by speaking a
little Russian.

Mr. JENNER. He was proud of that, was he?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; there was someone else in the outfit who spoke
Russian, don't ask me who, they used to exchange a few comments in the
morning at muster and say hello to each other or something, and he also
would make jokes in Russian, not in Russian, but in English, in a thick
Russian accent many times; this was very typical of him.

Mr. JENNER. He resorted to that area and use of satire?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; until I had made the comment that implied he was a
Communist, I had no idea----

Mr. JENNER. That he was sensitive?

Mr. THORNLEY. That he was sensitive about it because he didn't seem to
be.

Mr. JENNER. Did he have any visitors?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not that I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion at anytime about the possibility
of his going to Russia?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. This was a complete surprise to you when you saw it in
Stars and Stripes?

Mr. THORNLEY. Somebody would say to him, "Why don't you go and live in
Russia," in the middle of an argument.

Mr. JENNER. I didn't mean that in that sense but did he volunteer a
statement on his part about his going to Russia?

Mr. THORNLEY. Never anything; no.

Mr. JENNER. I take it it was your opinion he was not a Communist at the
time he was assigned to El Toro?

Mr. THORNLEY. That was my opinion.

Mr. JENNER. I take it you have never seen or talked with Oswald
subsequent to the time he left or you left for Japan, from El Toro?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. That is, my statement is correct.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. It follows, I take it, that you were never aware that he
was in New Orleans when you were there?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; I wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. You were not aware of his comings and goings other than the
newspaper report that your folks sent you?

Mr. THORNLEY. I was aware that he had come back from the Soviet Union
and gone to Dallas, and I know I at that time did think about going
to see him in Dallas for the book, to find out just why he did go to
Russia, to check it with my own theory.

Mr. JENNER. I am going to get to that in due course.

Mr. THORNLEY. But aside from knowing that he came back and went to live
in Dallas with a Russian wife and a child I had no idea of his comings
or goings.

Mr. JENNER. At the time you had some notion of going to Dallas to see
him or Fort Worth, as the case might be, it was with respect to the
book you have talked about you were then in the process of writing or
fulminating about?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; it was practically--well, it was finished by that
time but I was thinking about, I was definitely planning to rewrite it.
I didn't know how soon, and I thought before I did rewrite it I would
go talk to him and see what he could tell me about. There were a lot of
gaps in the book, and in the book I was not able to explain how he got
from the United States to Russia and things like that. A lot of things
I wanted to check out and I thought if I could get him to cooperate
with me, perhaps not even in telling him I was writing the book, I
could get the information I wanted.

Mr. JENNER. And this was the state of mind you had after you had heard
that he returned to the United States?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Which was June of 1962, when he returned?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right, and I had finished the book in February.

Mr. JENNER. Of 1963?

Mr. THORNLEY. 1962.

Mr. JENNER. 1962. You were in Mexico and Mexico City in 1963?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Cover that for us. What was the motivation, the length of
the trip?

Mr. THORNLEY. I will have to begin at the beginning on that. On April
17, my parents sent me a gift of $100 on the condition that I spend it
for a bus ticket to visit them that summer. Which I did, and I left
around--well, I arrived in California on May 5. I remember going along
the border and seeing fireworks on the other side of the border.

Mr. JENNER. What border?

Mr. THORNLEY. From Yuma to San Diego.

Mr. JENNER. Mexican border?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is Cinco De Mayo. I arrived in California on May
5 and I stayed there until late August. Now, I think in one of these
reports that I gave to the FBI the information might be different.
Since then I have checked with notebooks that I kept of my activity,
and I was on my way back to New Orleans in late August. I went by way
of Mexico City because I have taken 5 years of Spanish in school and I
never had the opportunity to live in an environment where I would have
to use it, depend on it solely, and I wanted to see how I would do. I
have always wanted to visit Mexico, to see Mexico City. I checked into
the prices. I had found out I had enough money that I would be able to
go down to Mexico City and stay a short while.

So I went down there for about a week, actually it was 6 days I spent
within Mexico, from Tijuana to Mexico City, on a Mexican bus, and
then when my money began to run out from Mexico City to Matamoros or
Brownsville, Tex., on a Mexican bus.

At this time, on my way up on a bus to Matamoros, it was September 2,
because I had that in my notes, I have some notes about the bus ride
and the date September 2.

And I went from Brownsville to New Orleans by way of either Greyhound
or Continental.

Mr. JENNER. When did you arrive in New Orleans?

Mr. THORNLEY. I went directly to New Orleans, so I imagine I arrived in
New Orleans on September 3, possibly September 4.

Mr. JENNER. So that between approximately May 1, 1963, and September 4
and 5----

Mr. THORNLEY. Say May 3 to September 4.

Mr. JENNER. You were not in New Orleans?

Mr. THORNLEY. Right.

Mr. JENNER. You were returning to your home in California? You stayed
there for approximately a month or so?

Mr. THORNLEY. Longer than that.

Mr. JENNER. Longer than that. You then went to Mexico, Mexico City, and
you then returned directly to New Orleans?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. During none of that period of time did you have any contact
with or hear anything about Oswald?

Mr. THORNLEY. Definitely not.

Mr. JENNER. You at one time at least were acquainted with a lady by the
name of Sylvia Bortin?

Mr. THORNLEY. Sylvia Bortin?

Mr. JENNER. B-o-r-t-i-n.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; this young lady, by the way----

Mr. JENNER. Where did she reside?

Mr. THORNLEY. In Whittier, Calif., or at least last summer she did,
I don't know where she resides now. This young lady, by the way,
was mentioned in--her mention in this whole matter came out of a
misunderstanding on my part of a question asked by the FBI agents.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Would you explain that, please?

Mr. THORNLEY. I don't recall what the question was--oh, yes, he had
asked me something about, I believe it was the First Unitarian Church
in Los Angeles. I had mentioned earlier at the time I was talking
to Oswald, and knew Oswald, I had been going to the First Unitarian
Church in Los Angeles. This is a group of quite far to the left people
politically for the most part, and mentioned in order to explain my
political relationship with Oswald, at that moment, and he began to ask
me questions about the First Unitarian Church and I answered, and then
he realized or understood or asked what Oswald's connection with the
First Unitarian Church was and I explained to him that there was none.
Miss Bortin never knew Oswald and vice versa, and these people were two
different parts of my life. There was this civilian compartment and the
military compartment, and I never intermingled them.

Mr. JENNER. This young lady married and her husband is now in Havana,
Cuba?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is what she told me last summer; yes. He was going
to school in Cuba.

Mr. JENNER. I take it this had nothing to do with yourself and Oswald's
views with respect to Castro that you told us about.

Mr. THORNLEY. No; this happened, I think, later, in fact I am sure it
happened later. At that time Miss Bortin, she was then unmarried, did
not know Robert Uname, I believe. I met him, I believe, September a
year later.

Mr. JENNER. Had you finished that?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it that Oswald had no close personal friends at
least that you observed?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is correct. And the name of his closest friends I do
not know. I do remember he had a close acquaintance that he seemed to
get along with pretty well.

Mr. JENNER. In the unit?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; but I don't recall this man's name. If it was
mentioned to me, I probably could, but----

Mr. JENNER. You were groping for it when you were interviewed. You
suggested it might be Charles----

Mr. THORNLEY. I mentioned a Charles.

Mr. JENNER. Weis.

Mr. THORNLEY. Weir, but that was not the man. This was a friend of a
friend of the friend or a man who could give them that information
perhaps that I couldn't.

At this time perhaps, also, I was thinking of a possibility it might
have been Weir and since then I have remembered definitely who Weir was.

Mr. JENNER. Who was he?

Mr. THORNLEY. I don't remember whether his first name was Charles but I
remember who he was.

Mr. JENNER. He was a noncom?

Mr. THORNLEY. There was a man named Cooley. There was somebody else,
and these are my associations, but who it was who used to talk Russian
in the ranks with Oswald in the morning I don't know, but that is who
it was.

Mr. JENNER. Is this particular man you now mentioned the man who
occasionally talked Russian with Oswald in the ranks, is he the man who
you had in mind?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. As having been a friend of Oswald's?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; in that in the same respect that I was a friend of
Oswald's. Once, again, the exact terminology I would use would be close
acquaintance.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I would say from your description of the relationship
with Oswald that it was more an acquaintanceship than a friendship.

Mr. THORNLEY. I think it was probably the same with this person from
what I recall, to my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER. In other words, when you say friend, he wasn't a buddy of
Oswald?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; Oswald was not the type of person who had, as it
has been emphasized on all parts, I think, and it confirms my own
impression, was not the type of person who made close friends or who
stuck with close friends.

Mr. JENNER. You saw no instance in which Oswald evidenced affection for
anybody, I mean in the nice sense of the word?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; none whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Or anybody evidenced any affection in the nice sense of the
word for him?

Mr. THORNLEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. I take it your trip to Mexico City was purely one of
general interest as you have described and had nothing to do with any
interest on your part in going to Cuba or attempting to go to Cuba?

Mr. THORNLEY. Believe me, no. I have no desire to go to Cuba unless I
am going to take a rifle and be on an invasion force or something.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of anybody in the Marine Corps, whose last
name was Hidell?

Mr. THORNLEY. At the time this name was mentioned to me that was--that
person, whoever it was that Oswald used to speak to in the ranks in the
morning came to my mind. But I can't say that that was the name, and
I am--of course, now, I am very leery that that--very uncertain as to
ever having heard the name Hidell, and I doubt it very much.

Mr. JENNER. Shortly after the unfortunate occurrence of November 22,
1963, you were interviewed by Secret Service agents, were you not?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes. Now, this is what I had mentioned earlier. This was
the Monday interview, of November 25, actually it was midnight Sunday
night as I recall. It seemed to me a couple of days later before I
spoke to the FBI. I believe there was a Mr. Rice--was one of the men.

Mr. JENNER. This was the evening of the 23d of November?

Mr. THORNLEY. Was it the 23d?

Mr. JENNER. It probably ran over.

Mr. THORNLEY. It must have been Saturday evening then. I had thought it
was Sunday evening.

Mr. JENNER. In any event you were then interviewed by some newspaper
reporters?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; that was quite some time afterward.

Mr. JENNER. Well, it was before November 27, 1963, was it not?

Mr. THORNLEY. It was after the 25th, I think. It was after I had
finished talking to the FBI, as I remember.

Mr. JENNER. I will mark as Thornley's Exhibit No. 1 what purports to be
a Xerox reprint of a newspaper article.

(The document referred to was marked Thornley Exhibit No. 1 for
identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Are you acquainted with that?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What newspaper was this from?

Mr. THORNLEY. The States-Item of New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. And that article was a result of the newspaperman's
interview with you?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see it upon its publication?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You are familiar with it?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Does it substantially accurately reflect at least portions
of, in reasonable context, the interview you had with the newspaper
reporter?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; to a surprising degree for a newspaper, on the basis
of my past experience in dealings with them.

Mr. JENNER. Is there anything in that article that you regard as
reasonably seriously erroneous?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not when I read it the last time.

Mr. JENNER. Insofar as it attributes anything to you?

Mr. THORNLEY. May I reread it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. THORNLEY. I would say this is accurate in everything it attributes
to me.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I offer Thornley Exhibit No. 1 in evidence.

Now, it appears from that article and from the testimony you have
given this morning that you were stimulated, or, as you have indicated
you prepared at least a first draft of a book or pamphlet or article
respecting your experiences in the Marine Corps, and one of the central
characters of which, mythical or otherwise, was a friend, Oswald.

Mr. THORNLEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And when I spoke to you by telephone the other day I
inquired of you as to whether that was still in existence and you
responded that it was.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you were kind enough to say you would bring it with you.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Have you done so?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. May I see it, please?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir; here is the draft completed in February of 1962.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I am interested in seeing that in its condition as of
that time.

Mr. THORNLEY. Right. That is it. There is only one addition and there
is some blank paper on top. There is one addition, and that is the
short preface written yesterday to give some idea of how much was fact
and how much was fiction.

Mr. JENNER. All right--the page numbered 2?

Mr. THORNLEY. There was a table of contents once and it took two pages.

Mr. JENNER. Which I might identify in addition thereto as having the
word "Preface," at its top and your name and the date May 17, 1964,
Arlington, Va., at the bottom. That is what you prepared yesterday, is
that correct?

Mr. THORNLEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. All of the balance, therefore, commencing with the pages
numbered 3 and running through, I assume, consecutively?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. To page 250 is the article as it was when you completed it
in February 1962?

Mr. THORNLEY. Precisely.

Mr. JENNER. I would like the opportunity of reading through this and,
of course, 200-odd pages, we don't have the time to do it as of the
moment, and the Commission would like to have it among its records.
May I have the material and I will take it in the back room. We have
a Xerox, and have it duplicated? This, I appreciate, is your personal
property and it is of value. It is not something that the Commission
will place in the hands of others who may make commercial use of it.

Mr. THORNLEY. I am quite sure that it will be perfectly safe.

Mr. JENNER. All right. It is in the same condition now, that is, pages
3 through 250, as those pages were when you completed this manuscript
in February 1962?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; there might have been a couple of spelling errors
corrected since then or typographical errors but that is all.

Mr. JENNER. And that article of which we now speak and which for
purposes of identification I will mark as Thornley Exhibit No. 2, and I
offer Thornley Exhibit No. 2 in evidence.

(The document referred to was marked Thornley Exhibit No. 2 for
identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Subsequently thereto, I understand from my conversation
with you, you prepared a revision of that paper.

Mr. THORNLEY. I have been working on a revision.

Mr. JENNER. And you were kind enough to say you would bring that along
with you as well. Have you done so?

Mr. THORNLEY. I have been between this draft----

Mr. JENNER. When you said "this draft" you are referring to Thornley
Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. THORNLEY. Exhibit No. 2, and the draft I am now giving you--several
illegible drafts were made. This represents not the latest draft, but
the latest typewritten draft. It represents a fragment of it.

The first third, almost the first third, minus a couple of pages of a
novelette based upon this Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. JENNER. For purposes of identification the witness has now handed
me a set of letter-sized pages numbered 1 through 37, consecutively.

Are they consecutive?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And I take it, as against the length of the other paper,
that these pages 1 through 37, represent an incomplete novel.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is it covers only a portion of the areas and times
covered by Thornley Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. THORNLEY. This ones takes a completely different approach in that
this did not take a chronological approach to the development of the
character based on Oswald, but takes a flashback approach.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. THORNLEY. Centering around an investigation of that character after
his defection to the Soviet Union.

Mr. JENNER. For further identification of the document which I will
mark Thornley Exhibit No. 3, page 1 is entitled "Chapter 1, Gung Ho."

Page 4 is entitled "Chapter 2, Fallen Comrade."

Page 7, in the center, is entitled "Chapter 3, Hush Hush."

Page 11 is entitled "Chapter 4, Blue Marines."

Page 14, in the upper portion, is entitled "Chapter 5, Peace Gospel."

Page 21 is entitled, at the head, "Chapter 7, The Killer."

Page 24, near the center, is entitled "Chapter 8, Captain Kidd."

Page 27, at the bottom, "Chapter 9, Mutiny."

Page 31, "Chapter 10, John Henry."

Page 34, "Chapter 11, The Storms."

And page 37, "Chapter 12, The Chicken."

(The document referred to was marked Thornley Exhibit No. 3 for
identification.)

Mr. THORNLEY. Now, this Exhibit No. 3 is a much greater fictionalized
approach toward, well, as far as reference goes to Oswald, the
character upon--the character which is based upon Oswald in Exhibit No.
2, Johnny Shellburn, Exhibit No. 3 is much farther from life.

Mr. JENNER. Is Johnny Shellburn assimilated to Oswald?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; much more so in Exhibit No. 2, though, than in this
one.

Mr. JENNER. That is Exhibit No. 3.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes; since I wrote Exhibit No. 2, I have learned to write
fiction rather than a thinly disguised biography.

Mr. JENNER. In other words, Exhibit No. 2 was primarily a biography?

Mr. THORNLEY. Not in the strict sense that it portrayed a man's life in
detail, but in the sense that any reference, most of the references, as
is explained in this preface toward the end of the book----

Mr. JENNER. When you say this preface, you mean the preface to Exhibit
No. 2?

Mr. THORNLEY. That is, Johnny Shellburn toward the end of the book,
well, from before the middle of the book on, extends more and more to
reflect Oswald's character, and I definitely was thinking about Lee
Harvey Oswald when I wrote this book, Exhibit No. 2, whereas----

Mr. JENNER. In your discussion refer to them by exhibit number.

Mr. THORNLEY. I will keep my hands below the table.

Mr. JENNER. You don't have to do that. Just use the exhibit numbers.

Mr. THORNLEY. Whereas in Exhibit No. 3, I have universalized it
more, tried to get away from giving any impression that I am making
a chronology of the life and times of Lee Harvey Oswald, which is
something I thought would be relevant as far as the Commission would be
concerned in reading the material.

Mr. JENNER. Would you mark Exhibit No. 3 accordingly, Mr. Reporter?

I offer in evidence Thornley Exhibit No. 3. I take it, Mr. Thornley,
that you commenced the preparation of Exhibit No. 3 subsequently to the
assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that Exhibit No. 3 reflects a course of events and
their imprint upon you that occurred on and after November 22, 1963.

Mr. THORNLEY. No, no; Exhibit No. 3 reflects the same course of events
reflected in Exhibit No. 2. As far as the telling of the story goes and
the characters therein it takes place back in 1959. It makes a definite
attempt, however, to get away from Oswald as a specific character and
to discuss the problem of disillusionment in the peacetime military or
disillusionment with values on a much more universalized range than
Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. JENNER. All right. May I make a copy of Exhibit No. 3?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Under the same circumstances and upon the same conditions
as you granted your consent to make a copy of Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir; Exhibit No. 3 also does include some things
on--that I have acquired through the news on Oswald since the
assassination because Oswald tends to reflect the type of person I was
talking about. So to put it, to make it as clear as possible, right now
I realize I am saying Exhibit No. 3 is more like Oswald and less like
Oswald, to put it as clearly as possible.

Mr. JENNER. You are going in two directions at once.

Mr. THORNLEY. Exhibit No. 2 is more like the Oswald I knew in MACS 9,
the Oswald of my experience, whereas Exhibit No. 3 is a universalized
Oswaldian-type character based upon not only my own experience but
the news that has come to me about Oswald, about other people like
Oswald, other defectors, other assassins, and so on and so forth, since
November 22.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, Mr. Thornley, tell me something about Kerry
Thornley. You obviously, to me, are not a doorman.

Mr. THORNLEY. Oh, yes; I am a doorman.

Mr. JENNER. You are at the moment performing that service. But that
isn't your objective in life.

Mr. THORNLEY. My objective is to write books, novels primarily, as
many as I can in the years that are given to me, and possibly upon
publication of one of them to go back to school to further my ability
to write.

Mr. JENNER. Are you taking any training in that respect or have you in
recent years?

Mr. THORNLEY. Well, not formally. I have devoted myself to a lot of
exercises in writing, and I have availed myself of the help of any
experts I could grab onto, including successful novelists and former
newspaper reporters and so on and so forth, to help me solve problems
in my writing and improve it, but there is really, to my mind, my
outlook on writing a novel; for example, there is not much you can
learn from a formal course in writing. I think you can learn much more
from, say, the study of linguistics or semantics; if you are going to
learn anything from a university, for example, on writing, and this I
intend to do in due time.

Mr. JENNER. We occasionally have been off the record, not often, and
I have talked with you on the telephone. Is there anything that was
said between us in the course of our telephone conversations or in
any off-the-record discussions that you think is pertinent to the
Commission's assignment of investigating the assassination of President
Kennedy that I have failed to bring onto the record?

Mr. THORNLEY. No, sir; I think we have very thoroughly covered it.

Mr. JENNER. Is there anything that occurs to you that you would like to
add that you think might be pertinent to our inquiry and of help to the
Commission?

Mr. THORNLEY. No; there is certainly nothing else I can think of.

Mr. JENNER. Your deposition will be written up rather promptly. We
probably will have it tomorrow, and would you be good enough to call
me, say--when do you go on duty?

Mr. THORNLEY. At 5 o'clock.

Mr. JENNER. Call me in the forenoon--I mean right after lunch--and if
it is convenient will you come in and read over your deposition and
sign it?

Mr. THORNLEY. All right. May I just, to make absolutely sure, may I
take down your phone number once more?




AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE B. CHURCH, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by George B. Church, Jr. on June
27, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF FLORIDA,
 _County of Hillsborough, ss_:

I, George B. Church, Jr., 2427 Sunset Drive, Tampa 9, Florida, being
duly sworn say:

1. I am a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army and
am now a Junior High School teacher in Tampa. I am attending the
University of Florida this summer.

2. My wife and I travelled to Europe on the S.S. Marion Lykes which
departed New Orleans, Louisiana for LeHavre, France, on or about
September 20, 1959. This vessel was a freighter with accommodations for
12 passengers assigned two to a room. On this particular trip, there
were but four passengers aboard. One of them was Lee Harvey Oswald, who
shared a state room with an individual named Billy Joe Lord. The trip
from New Orleans, Louisiana, terminated at LeHavre, France. The entire
trip was approximately 16 days.

3. Before this trip, I had never before seen nor heard of Lee Harvey
Oswald.

4. All of the passengers ate at one table; however, Lee Harvey Oswald
missed quite a few meals because he was seasick much of the time.
Furthermore, there was no fixed schedule for meals. When we did have
meals with Oswald, he sat cater-cornered from me. However, Oswald was
rather withdrawn, and thus I did not converse with him a great deal.
Oswald did state during our discussion of our destinations, that he was
going to attend a university in Switzerland. Oswald did not give the
name of the university and did not indicate that he had a clear cut
schedule as to his course of study.

5. I recall having discussed with Oswald the Depression of the 1930's.
Oswald appeared quite bitter as to the hard time his mother had
suffered during this period. I tried to point out to Oswald that I
had lived through and survived the Depression and that millions of
people in the United States also had suffered during those years. This,
however, made no impression on Oswald.

6. Oswald spent much of the time by himself. He did not participate in
any of the social activities, nor in any conversation. He did mention
his service in the Marine Corps, and he stated that he did not like
the military service. Generally Oswald was not friendly, and he did
not make much of an impression on me since I was not particularly
interested in him.

7. The ship had a receiver in the ward room which was off and on during
the voyage. I did listen to it occasionally, and I did understand
German. I do not know if Oswald listened to the receiver or not, and I
have no idea as to his knowledge of any foreign language.

8. Oswald did not indicate that he was going to go to Russia.

9. After the trip I never saw nor heard from Lee Harvey Oswald again.

Signed this 27th day of June 1964.

    (S) George B. Church, Jr.,
        GEORGE B. CHURCH, Jr.




AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. GEORGE B. CHURCH, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. George B. Church, Jr., on
June 27, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF FLORIDA,
 _County of Hillsborough, ss_:

I, Mrs. George B. Church, Jr., being duly sworn say:

1. I live at 2427 Sunset Drive, Tampa 9, Florida. I travelled to Europe
on the S.S. Marion Lykes which departed New Orleans, Louisiana for
LeHavre, France, on or about September 20, 1959.

2. I recall that besides my husband, there were two other passengers:
Lee Harvey Oswald and Bill Lord. My husband and I sat at the same table
with Oswald for meals, but outside of meals, we did not have much
contact with him. While I had endeavored to get acquainted with Lee
Harvey Oswald, he did not enter into friendly conversation. He stayed
to himself, and I considered him peculiar.

3. Oswald indicated that the purpose of the trip was to attend a
university in Switzerland, but he evaded giving the name of the
university and, he did not indicate any clear cut or positive courses
of study other than a statement to the effect that he might study
philosophy or psychology. His attitude seemed to be one of resentment.
His roommate, Bill Lord, was going to attend a university in France and
was studying French during the trip. Lord was quite exuberant about his
course of study and purpose of life, in contrast to the attitude of Lee
Harvey Oswald.

4. I do not recall Oswald doing any reading. However, I gave him a book
which he never returned.

5. Upon completion of the voyage aboard the S.S. Marion Lykes, I
obtained the address of Bill Lord for the purpose of perhaps later
writing him or sending him Christmas cards. I also requested Oswald's
address and he questioned the purpose of my request. He later
reluctantly furnished his home address as, C/O Mrs. M. Oswald, 3124
West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas. I wrote this in my address book.

6. At no time did Lee Harvey Oswald indicate that he was actually
planning or attempting to defect or go to Russia. There was no
indication that Oswald had any Communist leanings.

I did notice that Oswald spoke with the Chief Engineer who was then
aboard the S.S. Marion Lykes. The Chief Engineer indicated to me that
he felt that Oswald was a smart boy.

7. This was the last I ever saw or heard from Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed this 27th day of June 1964.

    (S) Mrs. George B. Church, Jr.,
        Mrs. GEORGE B. CHURCH, Jr.




AFFIDAVIT OF BILLY JOE LORD

The following affidavit was executed by Billy Joe Lord on June 26, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Travis, ss_:

I, Billy Joe Lord, being duly sworn say:

1. I am an Airman Third Class in the United States Air Force, and I am
in the 340th Bomb Wing, Combat Defense Squadron at Bergstrom Air Force
Base, Texas. I am 22 years old and my parents live at Midland, Texas.

2. After graduating from Midland High School in 1959, with the
financial assistance of my parents, I made plans to continue my
education in France. During August, 1959, I made an application for a
passport, and on or about September 15, 1959, I departed Midland, Texas
via train for New Orleans, Louisiana, arriving there about September
17, 1959. I spent the next three days touring the city of New Orleans
and making several trips to the ticket office of the Lykes Lines. The
cost of passage aboard the ship S.S. Marion Lykes amounted to slightly
more than $200. I registered and stayed in the LaSalle Hotel on Canal
Street, which was near the city library. I visited the library several
times during this stay in the city. During this period I did not know
Lee Harvey Oswald.

3. On September 20, 1959, I boarded the freighter S.S. Marion Lykes at
New Orleans. Upon boarding the ship, I was shown to my room, and when I
got there, Lee Harvey Oswald was already there and moving in. We were
to share this room. I had never before seen nor heard of Lee Harvey
Oswald. Lee Harvey Oswald and I shared this cabin for the duration of
the trip to France which was fourteen days.

4. In our first conversation, Oswald said that he was recently
discharged from the Marines and that he had worked in some technical
field while in the Marines. He indicated that he was somewhat bitter
about the fact that his mother had to work in a drugstore in Fort
Worth, Texas, and was having a difficult time. He also said that
he would probably return to the United States to work. He gave no
indication of his ultimate destination, although he said he was going
to travel around in Europe and possibly attend school in Switzerland if
he had sufficient funds. Also in this first conversation, we discussed
religion. I do not know why we discussed religion except that possibly
he noticed that I had a bible. Oswald maintained that he could not
see how I could believe in God in view of the fact that science had
disproved the existence of God, and that there was only matter.

5. After the first day, I hardly conversed with Oswald at all. Oswald
was not outgoing and neither was I. We just were not very friendly.

6. Besides Oswald and myself, there were two other passengers aboard
the ship. They were a retired U.S. Army Colonel and his wife, Colonel
and Mrs. George B. Church, Jr. All four of the passengers generally
ate their meals together in the ships officer's mess. Oswald ate most
of his meals with us. I do not recall Colonel Church and his wife
associating very much with Lee Harvey Oswald.

7. I shared a closet with Oswald, but I did not notice anything out
of the ordinary among Oswald's possessions. He did show me either his
military identification card or his passport.

8. Oswald did not indicate that he might defect to Russia. To the
best of my knowledge, Oswald did not receive any correspondence or
communications while aboard the ship, nor did he associate with any
of the ship's crew. Oswald never mentioned any contacts or friends in
Europe.

9. Lee Harvey Oswald appeared to be a normal, healthy individual,
mentally alert, but extremely cynical in his general attitude.

On October 5, 1959, our ship arrived in France, and I disembarked from
the ship. I never saw or heard from him again. It is my recollection
that he departed from the ship subsequent to my departure. I had
written my mother about all the passengers. When Oswald defected, she
sent me a newspaper clipping about it.

10. Oswald spent a great deal of his time during the trip on the deck.
I do not recall him doing any reading. I do recall, however, that there
was a radio speaker which received programs from Europe and that Oswald
and Colonel Church seemed to understand a little bit of the foreign
language that came over on the speaker. I thought it was German, but I
am not sure.

11. I attended the Institute of French Studies at the City of Tours,
Province of Touraine, France, from October, 1959 to February, 1962
intermittently while auditing courses at the University of Poitires,
Tours, France, and at the Sorbonne, University of Paris, France. I
returned to the United States aboard the French ship, Liberty, in June,
1960. I went to France again in February of 1961 for further education,
and returned to the United States in February of 1962.

Signed this 26th day of June 1964.

    (S) Billy Joe Lord,
        BILLY JOE LORD.




AFFIDAVIT OF ALEXANDER KLEINLERER

The following affidavit was executed by Alexander Kleinlerer on June
16, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Tarrant, ss_:

Alexander Kleinlerer of 3542 Kent Street, Fort Worth, Texas, being duly
sworn, says:

1. My name is Alexander Kleinlerer and I do now reside and for several
years last pass have resided at the above address.

2. I am and have for several years been a foreign representative of
Loma Industries, a plastics production company, located at 3000 West
Pafford Street, Fort Worth, Texas. I am 41 years of age and single.
I was born in Poland of Polish parents both of whom died in German
concentration camps during World War II. During the War I lost all
members of my family, not only my immediate family, but my relatives
as well, other than a sister in Paris, France who is still alive and
a cousin who once resided in Russia but who now lives in Poland. The
area in Poland in which I and my family and relatives resided was
overrun by the German Army. I was confined in Buchenwald concentration
camp until 1945 when I was liberated by General Patton's forces. I
immediately moved to Czechoslovakia and then to France. In May of 1956,
I journeyed from France to the United States and found employment with
Loma Industries. I returned to France as a foreign representative for
that company in November of 1957 and remained there until June of 1961
when I returned to the United States. In due course thereafter I became
a naturalized citizen of the United States in May 1963.

3. I speak a number of European languages well. As a result I have
become acquainted with numerous foreign language speaking individuals
in the Fort Worth-Dallas area. These include, insofar as the Oswald
incident is concerned, Anna Meller, George Bouhe, Mr. and Mrs. George
deMohrenschildt, Mr. and Mrs. Max Clark, Mrs. Elena Hall, Lydia
Dymitruk, Mr. and Mrs. Declan P. Ford and Mr. and Mrs. Igor Vladimir
Voshinin.

4. During 1962, I was enamoured of and was courting Mrs. Elena Hall who
was then divorced from her husband John. I first become acquainted with
Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald on a Sunday morning in the fore part of
September 1962. I was working in Mrs. Hall's garage at 4760 Trail Lake
Drive, Fort Worth, Texas, building wooden baffles for stereo speakers.
George Bouhe, a valued friend of mine, drove up in his automobile
accompanied by Oswald, Marina and their infant child. I was introduced
to Oswald and to Marina. Oswald somewhat stiffly acknowledged the
introduction but was laconic and uncommunicative thereafter. They had
come to inquire of Mrs. Hall about dental problems of Marina's. I have
a fairly distinct recollection that Mrs. Anna Meller also accompanied
the group on this occasion. Mrs. Hall is a dental technician employed
by the Patterson Dental Laboratory in Fort Worth. The group was seeking
Mrs. Hall's help as to where a low cost dentist or clinic could be
found where they might take Marina for dental care, having in mind that
the Oswalds were in straitened financial circumstances. I do not recall
what the result of this conversation was in that connection as I did
not accompany the group when they went into Mrs. Hall's home.

5. Thereafter during September, while the Oswalds still resided on
Mercedes Street near the Montgomery Ward store, I visited there with
Mrs. Hall on two occasions. The reason for the earliest of these
additional occasions was that Mrs. Hall and George Bouhe had asked me
to inquire among the girls in my office for dresses and other wearing
apparel for Marina. I collected some sweaters, skirts and a dress or
two. Mrs. Hall also inquired among her friends and collected some
things. We put these together in one package and Mrs. Hall and I drove
to the Oswald apartment on Mercedes Street to deliver the package. We
were shocked to find that the Oswald child had no baby crib or bed but
was kept on the floor in the bedroom either in a suitcase or between
two suitcases.

6. Within a few days we returned to the Oswalds with a baby bed that
Mrs. Hall had obtained from some friend. We purchased a mattress for
the baby bed and delivered these items to the Oswalds at the Mercedes
Street apartment.

7. There was another occasion when I was at the Mercedes Street
apartment. George Bouhe had called me and asked me to meet him there.
This had nothing to do with the Oswalds. George Bouhe and I are good
friends and he was calling to say that he was going to be in Fort Worth
at the Oswalds and asked me to drop by so we could have a friendly
visit. On this occasion I saw the Oswalds briefly. I recall that Anna
Meller came with George Bouhe and there was an older lady whose name
I do not now recall. I remember that Oswald and Marina were seated
at the dining table eating. We were sitting there talking with Mr.
George Bouhe when suddenly Oswald noticed there was no butter on the
table. He rose red faced and angry and in our presence rudely and in a
domineering and overbearing manner, and as though Marina was a mere
chattel, proceeded to vigourously reprimand her. It was like a sergeant
bullying a new recruit. We were all embarrassed and shocked.

8. Mrs. Hall was injured in an automobile accident in Fort Worth the
evening of October 18, 1962. Marina and the child were residing in Mrs.
Hall's home at this time. They had come to Mrs. Hall's home earlier in
the month because Oswald had, we understood, lost his job and it had
been agreed among Mrs. Hall, George Bouhe and the others that Oswald
would go to Dallas to seek employment and Marina would stay with Mrs.
Hall. Mrs. Hall was released from the hospital in the latter part of
October, I think around October 26th. She spent a few days at home and
on October 30, 1962, a date which I have checked from a receipt that
I have, she left Fort Worth for Garden City, New York, to visit with
friends. While away on this trip she was reunited with and remarried
her former husband John Hall. My recollection is that they returned to
Fort Worth about the 11th or 12th of November 1962, and in any event
by the 15th. While Mrs. Hall was in the hospital and while she was
visiting in New York, I frequently called at the Hall home during my
lunch period (usually about 1:00 p.m.), at the request of Mrs. Hall, to
inquire of Marina's needs and her welfare and to see that matters about
the house were all right. I reported regularly to Mrs. Hall what my
impressions were.

9. During the periods Mrs. Hall was in the hospital and later in New
York, Oswald came to the Hall home on several occasions on Friday night
and stayed until late Sunday afternoon or early Sunday evening when he
returned by bus to Dallas. Mrs. Hall's home is approximately 12 to 14
miles from the business district of Fort Worth, and it is approximately
30 to 32 miles from the Fort Worth business district to the business
district of Dallas. A trip from Mrs. Hall's home to Dallas involves in
travel some 40 or more miles.

10. I distinctly recall the occasion upon which and the circumstances
under which Marina left Mrs. Hall's and was taken by Oswald and George
deMohrenschildt's daughter Alexandra and her husband Gary Taylor to
Dallas to live. It was on a Sunday while Mrs. Hall was in New York.
My recollection is that it was in the fore part of November on the
Sunday preceding the return of Mr. and Mrs. Hall from New York. On the
preceding Friday evening the phone rang in my apartment. It was Marina.
She said that she was going to leave the Halls and go to Dallas to
live with Oswald. At this point Oswald interrupted and spoke on the
telephone saying to me in a commanding way that they were going to
move into Dallas that coming week-end and he directed me to come by
the next day. I came by the Halls the next day, which was Saturday, in
the morning. Marina and Oswald were there. I entered the house. Marina
was in the living room with her child in her arms. We had just begun
to discuss the matter of moving the next day when Oswald observed that
the zipper on Marina's skirt was not completely closed. He called to
her in a very angry and commanding tone of voice just like an officer
commanding a soldier. His exact words were, "Come Here!", in the
Russian Language, and he uttered them the way you would call a dog with
which you were displeased in order to inflict punishment on him. He was
standing in the doorway leading from the living room into another room
of the house. When she reached the doorway he rudely reprimanded her in
a flat imperious voice about being careless in her dress and slapped
her hard in the face twice. Marina still had the baby in her arms. Her
face was red and tears came to her eyes. All this took place in my
presence. I was very much embarrassed and also angry but I had long
been afraid of Oswald and I did not say anything.

11. The arrangements for moving the following day were discussed. I was
to be there to supervise the removal of the Oswald paraphernalia and to
lock up the Hall residence.

12. When I arrived at the Hall's residence on that Sunday morning,
Marina and George deMohrenschildt's daughter, Alexandra Taylor, were
there. Oswald and Gary Taylor, the husband of Alexandra, George
deMohrenschildt's daughter, were off somewhere in Fort Worth seeking
to rent a "U-Haul-It" automobile trailer into which the Oswald
paraphernalia was to be placed. Most of the Oswald goods that had
been stored in Mrs. Hall's garage and which had been in her home were
already packed in preparation for placing in the "U-Haul-It" trailer.
Oswald and Gary Taylor returned in due course, in Taylor's automobile
with the trailer hooked on behind. Taylor among other occupations, was
a taxi driver in Dallas at this time.

13. I had met both Alexandra and Gary Taylor at the Hall's on a prior
occasion. This was a weekday evening after Mrs. Hall returned from
the hospital. They had been eating dinner at Mrs. Hall's home. I came
to visit Mrs. Hall and was surprised to see them all at the table. Of
course I left immediately since I hadn't been invited to the dinner.
The Taylors brought Oswald with them in Taylor's car so that Oswald
could visit Marina.

14. I supervised the placing of the Oswald goods and wearing apparel
in the "U-Haul-It" trailer. There were several instances in which I
had to intervene when Oswald picked up some of Mrs. Hall's things to
place in the trailer. I could not say whether this was deliberate or
inadvertent, except that there were several instances. My recollection
is that Oswald and Taylor had obtained the trailer at a service station
in Fort Worth. It seems to me it was a place somewhere on Barry Street.
In due course the loading was completed. They got into Taylor's
automobile and drove off. I understood from the telephone conversation
on Friday night and my visit with the Oswalds at the Halls on Saturday,
and the conversations that took place on Sunday, that the Oswalds were
moving into an apartment in Dallas which Oswald had very recently
rented. This was the last time I ever saw either of the Oswalds or had
any contact with them. I had arrived at Mrs. Hall's around 1:00 p.m.
and they departed around 3:30 p.m.

15. I recall that while Marina was staying at the Halls, and either
before Mrs. Hall went to the hospital, or during the four or five days
she was at home before departing for New York, that Oswald telephoned
to speak with Marina. This was on a Saturday evening.

16. I recall the time that Oswald reported he had lost his job at
Leslie Welding Company. It was the first week-end in October 1962.
My recollection is that it was agreed that Marina would come to Mrs.
Hall's house to stay while Oswald looked for a job in Dallas. I am
uncertain whether Marina was brought directly to the Halls from the
Mercedes Street apartment. There may have been something about Marina
being taken to the Taylors' apartment in Dallas for a few days so that
she could have some dental care at the Baylor University Clinic in
Dallas. I do recall clearly that Mrs. Hall had a pickup truck which
was owned by the dental laboratory where she was employed. Mrs. Hall
had permission to drive to and from work with the pickup truck. It
was agreed that the Oswald household goods and other paraphernalia
would be moved to the Halls in the pickup truck. It may well be that
Marina went directly to the Taylors; that the Oswald household goods
and paraphernalia was taken to the Halls; and that Marina came to the
Halls when her dental care at Baylor Clinic was completed. I understand
Marina's appointments were on October 8th, 10th and 15th. It is my
recollection, however, that the Oswald goods were packed in the trailer
by John Hall and Mrs. Hall and were taken to the Halls. It may be that
Oswald helped. My impression is that this was done on a Monday, but
since, as I have now been advised, Oswald apparently worked at Leslie
Welding Company on Monday, October 8th, that the transfer of the Oswald
goods did not take place until Monday night after Oswald returned from
his last working day at Leslie Welding Company. It was at Mrs. Hall's
invitation that Marina went to live at Mrs. Hall's house.

17. In any event, I recall that nothing was heard from Oswald for a
number of days after Marina came to Mrs. Halls to live. I assumed he
was in Dallas, and knowing that the distance between Dallas and Mrs.
Hall's home in Fort Worth was great, I thought relatively nothing of
this, except that I thought that he should have telephoned.

18. On a good many of the occasions that I dropped by the Hall
residence during my luncheon hour, I found that Marina had not yet
awakened. I would have to arouse her by ringing the door bell and
banging on the front door. I would find the household unkept, unwashed
dishes in the sink or on the eating table, and her's and the baby's
clothing strewn about the room. Marina would come to the door in a
wrap-around, her hair disheveled and her eyes heavy with the effect of
many hours of sleep. She would make some excuses about sleeping late.

On other occasions I was frequently in the Hall home when Mrs. Hall was
home in the evenings and on weekends. I noticed that Marina did nothing
to help Mrs. Hall in the house. Mrs. Hall often complained to me that
Marina was lazy, that she slept until noon or thereabouts, and would
not do anything around the house to help. I observed on many occasions
that Marina was not neat and that she often dressed rather haphazardly.

19. I was concerned and suspicious about Oswald from the outset. I
could not understand how he had been able to go to Russia and return
with seeming ease, especially since he had attempted to defect and
because I was aware that my cousin had not been able to get his wife
and child out of Russia although he now lives in Poland. Also, I was
alarmed from the outset by Oswald's talk. Other friends told me he
frequently compared conditions here in America with those in Russia to
the detriment of America and he did this in a way that was contemptuous
of America. They said he would repeatedly say that there was no
unemployment in Russia but that there was a lot of it in America; that
capitalists in America lived off the workers. They said he argued that
in Russia medical attention and care was at hand and was free, whereas
in America you either had to pay doctors or hospitals or that even in
clinics you always had to pay something.

20. I saw magazines about Russia in the Oswald apartment on Mercedes
Street. Some were in the Russian language and some were in English.
There were also newspapers in the Russian language.

21. I have always been very grateful to America. Americans have been
very kind to me and I think a good deal of this country. It upset me
when Oswald would say things against the United States. I did not argue
with him because he appeared to me to be dangerous in his mind and I
was frightened. I once said to him that, unlike him, I had come to this
country for freedom and not to look for trouble by criticizing the
United States; that while I did not have much money, I did have freedom
and opportunity and Americans were kind to me.

22. I and Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Meller, George Bouhe, and the others were
disturbed that Oswald flatly declined to make any effort to teach
Marina English. He said he wanted to keep his Russian sharpened up. We
thought this was very selfish of him. He would speak to other members
of our group in Russian. I refused to discuss anything with him in
Russian. I told him that if he wanted to talk with me he would have
to talk to me in English; that he was born and raised in this country
and his national tongue was English and he should be proud to speak
English. I never answered him at any time in Russian. I thought at
times he was bent on making Marina dissatisfied with the United States
and also that he did not want her to have friends.

23. He treated Marina very poorly. He belittled her and was boorish to
her in our presence. He talked to her and ordered her around just as
though she were a mere chattel. He was never polite or tender to her. I
feel very strongly that she was frightened of him. The only occasion I
saw him physically mistreat her was the occasion I have mentioned but I
heard repeatedly from Mrs. Hall, George Bouhe, and others that Oswald
was physically mistreating her.

24. Oswald was not grateful for any of the help that was being accorded
to him and Marina. He never once offered to contribute in even a
small way to Mrs. Hall or any of the others with whom Marina stayed.
This was often a topic of conversation among us. We did not have much
money ourselves and we were knocking ourselves out to help. He did not
express any thanks or evidence the slightest appreciation; in fact, he
evidenced displeasure and contempt.

25. I expressed to Mrs. Hall and to my friend George Bouhe, and to
others that I thought that they were only worsening things because the
Oswalds did not appear appreciative of what was being done for them. He
acted as though the world owed him a living. I had the impression from
time to time that Marina was pretending and acting.

26. Oswald always acted toward her like a soldier commanding one of his
troops. My overall impression of Oswald was that he was angry with the
whole world and with himself to boot; that he really did not know what
he wanted; that he was frustrated because he was not looked up to; and
that he was dissatisfied with everything, including himself.

27. Mrs. Hall told me on several occasions that Marina had said to her
that she was quite afraid of Oswald and that when she got to know a
little more English she intended to leave him. Oswald did not care who
was present as far as his boorish attitude toward Marina was concerned.
It seemed that he did not care what others thought about anything.

28. Anna Meller, Mrs. Hall, George Bouhe and the deMohrenschildts, and
all that group had pity for Marina and her child. None of us cared
for Oswald because of his political philosophy, his criticism of the
United States, his apparent lack of interest in anyone but himself and
because of his treatment of Marina. Although the men were sometimes
skeptical about helping them out, the ladies were quite compassionate
about Marina and felt that she needed help not only because of
their straitened financial circumstances, but because of Oswald's
mistreatment of her.

29. I recall that when I saw the newspaper item in the Fort Worth paper
about Oswald returning from Russia with his Russian wife, I spoke to
Max Clark and his wife. They are good friends and fine people, and he
is a lawyer. We were all apprehensive about coming in contact with the
Oswalds but all the friends of mine later expressed the view that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation knew Oswald and Marina were coming into
this country, and if they did not do anything about it, it was probably
all right to have contact with them. I am afraid I never became
completely reassured.

30. Marina never had any money, not even pennies. Oswald would not give
any money to her. Consequently, when she lived with Mrs. Hall and later
with the others she and her baby were utterly dependent upon their
host. She could not buy even a package of cigarettes, and even had she
wished, she could not tender any token to her hosts.

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

    (S) Alexander Kleinlerer,
        ALEXANDER KLEINLERER.




TESTIMONY OF MRS. DONALD GIBSON

The testimony of Mrs. Donald Gibson was taken at 11 a.m., on May 28,
1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Albert E.
Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel, and Richard M. Mosk, member of the
staff of the President's Commission.


Mr. JENNER. Would you be sworn?

Mrs. Gibson, in the testimony you are about to give on your deposition
do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?

Mrs. GIBSON. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Be seated, please. You are Mrs. Donald Gibson?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You are the former Alexandra De Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you were at one time married to Mr. Gary Taylor, of
Dallas, Tex.?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You now live in Wingdale, N.Y.?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is your address in Wingdale?

Mrs. GIBSON. Harlem Valley State Hospital, Building 28, Wingdale, N.Y.

Mr. JENNER. I take it you are employed at the hospital?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is a State mental institution?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is your husband also employed there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Our information is that you were born on Christmas Day 1943?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; that is right.

Mr. JENNER. That was here in the United States?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. New York, to be exact?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So that you are now 20 years of age and will be 21 next
December?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your father is George Sergei De Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your stepmother is Jeanne Fomenko De Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. F-o-m-e-n-k-o?

Mrs. GIBSON. I didn't know that.

Mr. JENNER. Also at one point in her life, Jeanne Bogoiavlensky; is
that correct?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; Bogoiavlensky.

Mr. JENNER. You were a resident of Dallas, Tex., in 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You were then married to Gary Taylor?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What was your address?

Mrs. GIBSON. 3519 Fairmount.

Mr. JENNER. You married Mr. Taylor at a very early age as I recall?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When was that?

Mrs. GIBSON. November 21, 1959.

Mr. JENNER. I don't care for the details, but after you married Mr.
Taylor, you and he lived in various places in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. What was the nature of his employment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, he did all sorts of things. He went to school at one
time, to college.

Mr. JENNER. In Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; in Arlington. We lived in Arlington, too.

Mr. JENNER. What college was that?

Mrs. GIBSON. Arlington State. I can't recall all the jobs he did. I
mean he did a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

Mr. JENNER. Let's get to 1962. What was he doing then?

Mrs. GIBSON. He was working off and on with a photographer, working
on a movie, and driving a taxi part time. He also, he and this friend
of his, Steve Moore, were trying to found this little company of
landscaping. That didn't work out, so he still kept on his photography
business.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall his first name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, it is----

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall his birthday?

Mrs. GIBSON. December 24, I think 1939.

Mr. JENNER. So he was older, 4 years older than you?

Mrs. GIBSON. He was 4 years older than me; that is right.

Mr. JENNER. I take it you were subsequently divorced?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. You and Mr. Taylor. And when was that?

Mrs. GIBSON. Our divorce became final, I believe, the 15th of April of
last year.

Mr. JENNER. Of 1963?

Mrs. GIBSON. 1963.

Mr. JENNER. I take it there is a waiting period then?

Mrs. GIBSON. Three months.

Mr. JENNER. So the decree was entered the 15th of January?

Mrs. GIBSON. I really don't know. I didn't enter it. I left Dallas and
asked him to please divorce me.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mrs. GIBSON. I didn't want to go through all the rigmarole of getting a
divorce; no. I wanted to get out of Dallas right then.

Mr. JENNER. Were you living together as man and wife during all of the
year 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. Until November, the last part of November of 1962; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Had you been separated prior to that time?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; in 1961, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a child?

Mrs. GIBSON. One child.

Mr. JENNER. Born of that marriage?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And that child's name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Curtis Lee Taylor.

Mr. JENNER. When was that child born?

Mrs. GIBSON. February 10, 1962.

Mr. JENNER. While living at 3519 Fairmount in Dallas during the year
1962, did you become acquainted with a lady by the name of Marina
Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you also become acquainted with a gentleman by the name
of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. With whom did you become acquainted first?

Mrs. GIBSON. Marina Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me when, as closely as you can fix it. Let me put
it this way. Tell me first the circumstances under which you became
acquainted, what led up to it and how it occurred, and then fix as
closely as you can when in 1962 you did become acquainted.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, my stepmother and my father called me up.

Mr. JENNER. Your stepmother is Jeanne De Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. GIBSON. Jeanne; and my father called me up one evening and asked
me----

Mr. JENNER. At your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. At my apartment; and asked me if I would please take care
of Marina Oswald's child while she went to the dentist, and could she
stay overnight with me because she had two appointments in a row, one
on one day and one the next day, and I said all right. And as for the
date, I imagine you know it better than I do.

Mr. JENNER. I don't know anything better than you do.

Mrs. GIBSON. If you give me the date on the pads. I don't remember the
dates at all.

Mr. JENNER. Was it the month of September?

Mrs. GIBSON. No. As I said, I thought it was before September.

Mr. JENNER. Before September?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember anything about the weather?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was very hot, but I don't remember the month. It could
have been----

Mr. JENNER. Could it have been in August?

Mrs. GIBSON. It could have been the latter part of August. It seems to
me that would be about right.

Mr. JENNER. Can you recall anything about what your father and/or your
stepmother said to you in identifying these people? You were naturally
curious as to who they were?

Mrs. GIBSON. They told me that they were recently, Marina and Lee were
recently here from Russia, and hadn't been in Dallas very long, or Fort
Worth, wherever they were staying, and that she had a child the same
age as mine, and that my stepmother thought it would be very nice if
we got acquainted. And she said Marina was around my age, and asked if
I would please help them out since they didn't have any room in their
apartment to keep her while she had these dental appointments.

Mr. JENNER. That is, they didn't have any room in the De
Mohrenschildts' apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. From that conversation you became aware, had the impression
that your father and your stepmother had had some prior acquaintance
with these people?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think they just recently met them.

Mr. JENNER. That was the impression?

Mrs. GIBSON. That was the impression I got.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall what day of the week--that is, not the
particular date as such, but was it a weekday, a Saturday, or a Sunday?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was a weekday. Whether it was in the beginning of the
week or the middle or the end I don't remember, but it was a weekday.

Mr. JENNER. What time of day was it?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, they called me the night before, but it was in the
early morning of the next day.

Mr. JENNER. That you met Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. That I met Marina.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina come alone?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; my stepmother brought her and the child.

Mr. JENNER. That was in the morning?

Mrs. GIBSON. In the morning; that is right.

Mr. JENNER. Describe your apartment, will you please?

Mrs. GIBSON. How do you mean describe it?

Mr. JENNER. How many rooms, living room, bedroom, two bedrooms,
kitchen, dining room?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, there are five rooms, I guess, in all.

Mr. JENNER. And they consisted of?

Mrs. GIBSON. Living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom.
There was a small adjoining room to the bedroom but it wouldn't be
classified as a whole room.

Mr. JENNER. Sort of more of a dressing room?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. For what purpose were you employing that room at that time?

Mrs. GIBSON. My child slept in that room.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you folks, that is yourself and your husband,
normally sleep?

Mrs. GIBSON. We slept in the living room.

Mr. JENNER. That was your normal practice?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. So that the bedroom you mentioned was not occupied?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; it wasn't.

Mr. JENNER. It was not in use, rather, at the time that Marina stayed
with you?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; it was used as a playroom really for my son Curtis.

Mr. JENNER. Your stepmother brought Marina and the baby to your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Was your husband home at that time?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't think so.

Mr. JENNER. That is it was at a time when he would have departed for
work?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I believe he had already gone to work.

Mr. JENNER. You said that Marina was to receive some dental care?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Did she remain in the apartment all day after she arrived?

Mrs. GIBSON. After she came back from the dentist, she stayed there,
I think she had a tooth, one or two pulled, and she stayed there that
afternoon, after she came back from the dentist.

Mr. JENNER. Your stepmother brought her and then your stepmother took
her to the dentist?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. They returned?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. That afternoon.

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina remain and the baby remain with you overnight
and into the next day?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Where did Marina and her child stay that evening?

Mrs. GIBSON. They slept in the bedroom.

Mr. JENNER. You didn't lodge her child, June, in the room in which your
son Curtis was?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first meet Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe it was on the evening of the first day that
Marina stayed with me.

Mr. JENNER. Did someone bring him or did he come alone?

Mrs. GIBSON. As far as I know, he came alone.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression as to the place from which he had
come?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know where he had come from.

Mr. JENNER. But he came alone?

Mrs. GIBSON. As far as I know; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was Marina able to speak English?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not a word.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any problems in that connection?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I got a little dictionary and tried to figure out a
few words, but it was very hard to communicate with her.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then from your remark that you yourself are not
fluent in Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you understand Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. A few words.

Mr. JENNER. Your father speaks Russian fluently, does he not?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he does.

Mr. JENNER. And your stepmother?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Despite their fluency in Russian, you never acquired any
fluency? You just didn't acquire any familiarity with Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Except your understanding of a few words?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER. In any event you are unable to speak it?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. When Oswald came to your house that evening, did he speak
English or Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. He spoke English to us and Russian to Marina.

Mr. JENNER. When he arrived, did he speak with his child?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. In what language did he speak with the child?

Mrs. GIBSON. Russian.

Mr. JENNER. That was not merely small talk? All of his conversation
with his child was in Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. Some was small talk. You could tell that he was just
playing around, and when he really talked to her, it was in Russian. Of
course once in a while he'd lapse into English.

Mr. JENNER. You minded the child June while Marina was at the dentist?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And also the following day while she was at the dentist?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. How did you get along with the child?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not very well.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mrs. GIBSON. Pardon? I didn't understand you.

Mr. JENNER. You say you didn't get along very well with the child.
State it more fully to me factually; what the problems were.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, the minute Marina left, the child would start to
cry. She whimpered all the time. I couldn't feed her. Every time I got
near her she'd scream. She never slept. She's a very difficult child to
get along with. She was not at all affectionate to anybody else but to
her own parents.

Mr. JENNER. Do you think she found it strange to have anyone speak to
her in English as distinguished from Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know if it was the English. I don't believe she
had ever been with anybody but her parents and I think that might have
had a lot to do with it, plus she was very spoiled, very catered to by
her mother and her father.

Mr. JENNER. There were subsequent occasions when you visited the
Oswalds or they visited you or Marina visited you or you visited Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Drawing on the whole span of your acquaintance with the
Oswalds, rather than merely those first 2 days, did you ever hear Lee
Oswald address his child other than in Russian?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, like I said, sometimes he'd lapse into English. I
imagine it was mainly for our benefit, more so than the child's. I
mean normally he probably spoke to the child alone or when he was with
Marina always in Russian. He never spoke English to her ever or even
tried to teach her English, never attempted to.

Mr. JENNER. That is he never spoke to Marina other than in Russian, and
as you say, he never tried to teach her English?

Mrs. GIBSON. He never tried to teach her English, never, not one word.

Mr. JENNER. Did that strike you and your husband Gary as a little out
of the ordinary?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, we told him we thought that it was extremely stupid
and we asked him why, and he said that he didn't want to lose his
Russian. She, of course--in Russia I believe she worked in a pharmacy.
Wasn't she a pharmacist? And therefore we said to be able to get a
license over here she would have to speak English, and it didn't seem
to bother him. I think he didn't like the idea of her having more
education than he did. I think he wanted her to remain solely dependent
on him.

Mr. JENNER. During all the period that you and your husband were
acquainted with the Oswalds, was there ever any discussion about either
of them returning to Russia?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he did not want to go back.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say that?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes. He disliked Russia just like he disliked the United
States.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of him? Was he looking for utopia?

Mrs. GIBSON. I'd say so. He didn't agree with communism and he didn't
agree with capitalism. He had his own ideas completely on government.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please call on your recollection and tell us
what you recall as to what his beliefs, political beliefs, were, as he
expressed them?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I'd say that his beliefs were more socialistic than
anything else. I mean he believed in the perfect government, free of
want and need, and free of taxation, free of discrimination, free of
any police force, the right to be able to do exactly what he pleased,
exactly when he pleased, just total and complete freedom in everything.

Mr. JENNER. Did he talk in terms of any obligation to this so-called
perfect state?

Mrs. GIBSON. No. Actually I think he believed in no government
whatsoever, just a perfect place where people lived happily all
together and no religion, nothing of any sort, no ties and no holds to
anything except himself.

Mr. JENNER. Did he ever discuss in that connection the necessity for
making a contribution to that society; working himself? Or was this a
Utopia in which he was to be free to do what he pleased, work or not as
he saw fit?

Mrs. GIBSON. I really don't know if he planned to work or not. I don't
know what Lee wanted to do in life. I think he wanted to be a very
important person without putting anything into it at all.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impression of resentment on his part?

Mrs. GIBSON. He resented any type of authority. He expected to be the
highest paid immediately, the best liked, the highest skilled. He
resented any people in high places, any people of any authority in
government or, oh, in let's say the police force or anything like
that, or in your Army, Navy, Marines or whatever he was in.

Mr. JENNER. Were there discussions between your husband and him on
these subjects?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; quite frequently. They argued a lot about it.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion--you say he wanted to be the
highest paid, he wanted to be the leader and that sort of thing. Did
your husband raise with him any necessity on his part to qualify
himself for those positions and that high pay?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, my husband told him you can't be something for
nothing. He said you can't expect to get high pay and receive a good
position with no education and no ambition, no particular goal, no
anything. Well, he just expected a lot for nothing.

Mr. JENNER. You have the impression that he was not an ambitious
person, ambitious in the sense of willing to devote himself to an
objective and work toward something?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't think he knew what he wanted.

Mr. JENNER. As distinguished from just being given to him or falling in
his lap?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't think he knew what he wanted, and I don't
think he was too interested in working toward anything. He expected
things to be just given to him on a silver platter. But in his ideas,
he was extremely devoted.

Mr. JENNER. He was devoted to his concepts?

Mrs. GIBSON. To his ideas as to how he thought. You couldn't change his
mind no matter what you said to him.

Mr. JENNER. He was rigid in his views then?

Mrs. GIBSON. Very, very rigid in his ideas.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about Russia during these periods when you
had these discussions?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, he said he was very disappointed in Russia. Russia
was not what he thought it would be. It was not the ideal place, that
Communism was not the ideal government, that he disliked Communism just
as he disliked capitalism, that he disliked Russia very much.

Mr. JENNER. Did he tell you about his life in Russia? You were curious
about it and your husband too, I assume?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he told us bits and pieces about it, and then of
course he gave us a manuscript to read. He told us quite a bit about
Russia, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please state what you recall as to what he said
in that connection?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I can't recall any specific thing. I recall that he
said he was quite sick over there; this didn't hold too well. He said
he was treated with a little more deference than the next ordinary
Russian person because he was American, that he had a terrific time
leaving Russia, and that it scared him very much.

Mr. JENNER. You mean terrific in the sense of difficulty?

Mrs. GIBSON. A very difficult time. I think he said it took him a year
to be able to get out of Russia. He almost didn't make it. It scared
him very much. He was supposed to give over his citizenship and become
a citizen of Russia to be able to work there, but he didn't do this,
and he was still able to work there. He didn't know why exactly, but
they allowed him to work there anyway. But they kept pressuring him
to give up his citizenship to be able to work in Russia, get working
papers.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us more about that. Tell us everything you remember as
to what he said about the fact that they pressured him to give up his
citizenship so he could stay in Russia and work.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I don't know how you consider pressuring him. They
kept suggesting that he should give up his citizenship to be able to
work in Russia; otherwise, why was he there? If he was there obviously
he wanted to become a Russian. To be able to work in Russia you were
supposed to be a Russian citizen. You had to give up your citizenship.
And he kept objecting to this. I guess he was scared. He didn't really
want to go as far as giving up his American citizenship.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about his course of conduct when
he first went to Russia, any attempted surrender by him of his
citizenship at that time voluntarily?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't recall that he did say anything about
voluntarily giving up his citizenship; no. He might have. I don't
recall that.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion as to how he met Marina; and their
courtship and marriage?

Mrs. GIBSON. There was. I don't remember too much of it. I think he
met her in Minsk. I believe he was working there at a factory that
manufactured television chassis, and he met her, I don't know exactly
how. I think he met her when he was sick in the hospital. I don't know
what was wrong with him. And they I guess went out from there, and I
guess, I don't know how long they went out, and they got married.

Mr. JENNER. When you say "went out" you meant began to date?

Mrs. GIBSON. Dating; yes. I don't know exactly what you do in Russia.
And I think she wanted to come to the United States very badly.

Mr. JENNER. Would you elaborate on that, calling of course on your
recollection of what was said which gave you these impressions? That
is, what you learned from her or from conversations with him in her
presence?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I guess this was rather hearsay. I think she told this
to my stepmother in conversation, that she wanted very much to come to
the United States to make a better life for herself, that she wasn't
very much interested in politics, just in a better place to live.
Supposedly this is the reason she married Lee.

Mr. JENNER. That was your impression in any event?

Mrs. GIBSON. This is what I was told, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Nothing occurred during the period of time that you had
this acquaintanceship with the Oswalds that disabused you of that
impression?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; and I wouldn't say there was a tremendous amount of
love lost between them.

Mr. JENNER. Between Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right. They quarreled quite a lot.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us about this lack of rapport between Marina
and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, they fought quite a bit. They fought in Russian,
always verbally when I saw them, but when she was living with Mrs. Hall
in Fort Worth, I was told that he beat her up on numerous occasions,
physically assaulted her, and that Mrs. Hall and her, oh, I don't know
what you would call him, her fiance, Alex----

Mr. JENNER. Is that Alex, Alexander Kleinlerer?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess so. I don't know his name.

Mr. JENNER. Describe him to us.

Mrs. GIBSON. Describe him?

Mr. JENNER. Physically.

Mrs. GIBSON. He was short, very dark, moustache, black moustache,
European dresser, an accent, very much the gangster type in his looks,
very oily looking, very oily in personality, actually a rather creepy
customer. He spoke Russian fluently. I think he spoke quite a few
languages fluently. He, I believe, was born or originated in Paris. I
have no idea what his occupation was. But he did not get along with Lee
at all. He had numerous arguments with him over Marina and how he beat
her.

Mr. JENNER. Did any of this occur in your presence?

Mrs. GIBSON. One afternoon he was telling Lee off very, very----

Mr. JENNER. Tell us where this occurred?

Mrs. GIBSON. This occurred in Mrs. Hall's home in Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. You were present?

Mrs. GIBSON. And my husband; we were both present.

Mr. JENNER. And who else please?

Mrs. GIBSON. Mrs. Hall and Marina were in the other room. Lee and Alex,
and he was telling Lee off in no uncertain terms about how he beat up
Marina, and about his whole outlook on life. He was really giving him a
tongue lashing.

Mr. JENNER. And what response did he obtain from Lee?

Mrs. GIBSON. Very sullen, very sharp answers. In fact I thought there
was going to be a fight there for a minute.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lee deny at that time in your presence, these
accusations being uttered by Alexander Kleinlerer?

Mrs. GIBSON. He said it was none of his business.

Mr. JENNER. But he didn't deny that he had done this?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. He just said it was none of Kleinlerer's business?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Had either you or your husband ever--did either you or your
husband ever talk to Lee Oswald about his treatment of Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; we never talked to him about beating his wife. We just
talked to him about how he should teach her English, how it was very
important for her to know English.

Mr. JENNER. I take it that that phase, that is the teaching of English
to her, that sort of conversation occurred several times during your
acquaintanceship with Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, yes; very often.

Mr. JENNER. And his response always was that he didn't want to lose----

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't want to lose his Russian.

Mr. JENNER. Was there anything said by you or Gary that he could speak
to her in Russian and she could speak with him in Russian but at the
same time she could be taught English?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Neither you nor your husband Gary urged that alternative?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; we just gave up.

Mr. JENNER. What was Lee Oswald's personality? Was he a gracious
person, ungracious, was he rude, or was he not? Was he appreciative?

Mrs. GIBSON. He could be very, very rude. He appreciated absolutely
nothing you did for him. He never thanked you for anything. He seemed
to expect it of you.

Mr. JENNER. We are going to get into all that eventually, but you and
your husband Gary were very helpful to him, reasonably so in any event.
You did a number of things for him; did you not?

Mrs. GIBSON. I'd say we did a number of things for him that we didn't
have to do, and we certainly didn't need to do, and we certainly didn't
owe him anything. But we did try to help.

Mr. JENNER. Now in the face of all that, you say that at no time did he
express any appreciation or thanks.

Mrs. GIBSON. I think the only time he ever said thank you was when we
moved him from Fort Worth to Dallas. I think it was a very brief thank
you, and that was that.

Mr. JENNER. But otherwise, he neither expressed nor did you feel any
evidence of appreciation on his part for what you and your husband did?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I didn't feel anything. I fed his wife quite a few
meals. He never offered me any reimbursement of any type for it. He
never thanked me. He just seemed to act as if we owed it to him, and I
felt that I didn't owe him a thing.

Mr. JENNER. What about Marina, on the other hand, in this connection?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think Marina was appreciative.

Mr. JENNER. Discounting the difficulty of communication?

Mrs. GIBSON. I had the feeling she was appreciative; yes. But she was
exceedingly lazy. She would do nothing to help. The only thing she
would do would be to take care of her child. She would do this, thank
goodness, but otherwise she would do nothing to help. She wouldn't help
with the dishes or clearing the table or preparing the meal, cleaning
the apartment, anything pertaining to the extra work I had to do
because she was there. Mrs. Hall had the same complaint.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Hall expressed this complaint to you?

Mrs. GIBSON. Exactly the same complaint: that Marina slept very late,
which she didn't do in my apartment but she did there, that she did
not help with the house, that she didn't do anything really; just sat
around and took care of the baby.

Mr. JENNER. Over this period--let me fix the period of time. You first
met them, your present recollection is, sometime the latter part of
August 1962. When was the last time you saw either of the Oswalds?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, when I returned a manuscript to Lee Oswald, it could
have been either the end of November or the middle of December. I am
not sure which.

Mr. JENNER. 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. 1962; that is right.

Mr. JENNER. Over this period of approximately, let us say, 3-1/2 months
in 1962, how many times did Marina stay in your home? You have given
one occasion.

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been at least two or three, no more than that.

Mr. JENNER. Over that 3-1/2 month period, the Oswalds were in your home
no more than two or three times that is on visits, one or the other of
them?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he was. She was only there one other time to visit. He
popped in and out frequently. She was in Fort Worth at the time, and I
didn't see her.

Mr. JENNER. Going back to this following or second day of Marina's
visit in August, I take it your stepmother picked her up and took her
to the dentist on the second day as well?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did she return to Fort Worth that day?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she took a bus that afternoon to Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. Did she go to the bus station by herself or was she taken?

Mrs. GIBSON. My stepmother took her.

Mr. JENNER. Did you learn where the Oswalds were living or staying at
that time? That is, is this the first occasion that you met them?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, they must have been staying at that duplex.

Mr. JENNER. On Mercedes Street?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; that is where they must have been staying.

Mr. JENNER. Were you ever in that home or apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I was.

Mr. JENNER. When was the first occasion you were in that duplex?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was Sunday afternoon somewhere, it must have been about
2 weeks or more after I first met them. Gary and I went over to visit
them in Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. Weekday or weekend?

Mrs. GIBSON. Sunday.

Mr. JENNER. On a Sunday. This was then in September of 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been early September or late August.

Mr. JENNER. This was a visit on your part?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Were they aware of the fact that you were going to visit
them?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. When you arrived there, was anyone there?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am not very clear on that point. It is possible that
Lee's mother was just leaving. I am not sure. She was either just
leaving or she had just left before we came. I don't remember. I am not
too clear on if I met her passing as she was going out or if I didn't
meet her.

Mr. JENNER. How did you know where they lived?

Mrs. GIBSON. Lee I believe--Lee gave us their address.

Mr. JENNER. On what occasion did he give you their address?

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been one of the times he stopped by, dropped
in. I don't really know.

Mr. JENNER. I don't know as I asked you this. Did he visit at your home
at anytime during those first 2 days that Marina stayed with you?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he came to visit the first evening.

Mr. JENNER. Had you expected him?

Mrs. GIBSON. I had thought that he might be coming. I believe she had
told my stepmother that Lee was dropping by or my stepmother had told
me. Somebody had said something.

Mr. JENNER. That was the first occasion on which you met Lee Harvey
Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he stay the evening and then leave?

Mrs. GIBSON. He stayed about an hour and then he left.

Mr. JENNER. And what did you notice with respect to the relations
between Lee Oswald and Marina on that first occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. I'd say they got along fairly well.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression as to whether he was employed at
that time?

Mrs. GIBSON. I didn't get any impression one way or the other.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get any impression in that respect when you and
your husband, Gary, visited them on the Sunday afternoon you have
mentioned?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe he talked about his employment, but I am not
sure. He must have. They must have talked about it.

Mr. JENNER. Your impression was he was then working at some kind of
employment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I mean it was just normal to assume. He had an
apartment and a child and a wife. He must have been working.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any others than those you have mentioned who
were at the apartment on that Sunday afternoon; you have mentioned the
possibility of Lee Harvey Oswald's mother and, of course, there was Lee
and the baby and Marina.

Mrs. GIBSON. Later on in the early evening some people came to visit,
some of the Russian colony from Fort Worth and Dallas.

I don't recall the names. I think Mrs. Hall and Alex were there.
Otherwise, there must have been four other people, four or five other
people besides them.

Mr. JENNER. I will mention some names. Mamantov?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't know that name.

Mr. JENNER. Meller?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. You are familiar with the name Meller, aren't you?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER. I think you mentioned Mrs. Hall and Kleinlerer.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. As possibly having been there. Mr. and Mrs. Max Clark?

Mrs. GIBSON. That is a possibility. The more I think about it, it is
possible, but I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. You were acquainted with or aware of the Clarks?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I believe I knew them.

Mr. JENNER. They were friends of your father and stepmother?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I am not positive that I knew them very well, but I
have a feeling, the name rings a bell definitely.

Mr. JENNER. Are you familiar with the name George Bouhe?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was George Bouhe there?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am not sure, but the more I think about it, you asked me
this question earlier, I think he was there. I think he was the extra
man that was there.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you get as to whether it had been
expected that this group was to come by or did they just happen by?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I think they just dropped in.

Mr. JENNER. Did they stay very long?

Mrs. GIBSON. I left before they left. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. What was the nature of the conversation on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. I couldn't really tell. A lot of it was in Russian. You
couldn't tell what was going on.

Mr. JENNER. These were by and large Russian-speaking people?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Describe the apartment to me, will you please?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, my. Well, it was rather nice. It was clean. There was
a living room and a kitchen and a bedroom and a bath, hardwood floors,
good paint. It was a duplex. A large backyard. The furniture was
rundown but it was usable. All in all it was not a bad apartment.

Mr. JENNER. What impressions did you get of Lee Harvey Oswald
throughout the 3-1/2 month period, as to his dress and his self-respect
and care?

Mrs. GIBSON. He was not a very clean person. In fact, I'd say he wasn't
clean at all. He seemed to wear the same shirt for week after week.
Every time we saw him he had the same clothes on. Fairly clean-shaven,
but otherwise he was definitely not a clean person in dress.

Mr. JENNER. And Marina on the other hand?

Mrs. GIBSON. I'd say she was fairly clean.

Mr. JENNER. What was Lee Oswald's attitude and his posture with respect
to other people? Was he reasonably polite and respectful? How did he
conduct himself in the presence of others?

Mrs. GIBSON. It would depend on who the people were. He could be very
polite if he wished. He could be very sarcastic, very blunt if he
wished. He could be a very friendly person if he wished, and he could
be very quiet if he wished. It just depended on who the people were.

Mr. JENNER. Which was predominant?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, I don't know. It was really a mixture. He was easy,
not too hard to get along with as far as we were concerned. We argued
with him but it was always a friendly argument. When I saw him with
other people, he was as friendly, smiling, but with his wife he could
be very quiet, very brooding. That is about all I can tell you.

Mr. JENNER. It has been said of him by some people that he was somewhat
of an introvert, very quiet, not seeking the company of others.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I wouldn't say he would seek out company, but when
they came or when he went to visit them or us, he was always very--he
didn't seem to be introverted; no. He seemed to be quite friendly,
quite extroverted, no trouble expressing himself. He didn't sit in
silence for hours.

Mr. JENNER. What about his regard, his attitude toward others with
respect to--that is did he--let's take your father's folks, did he have
respect for your father? Did he like him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he liked my father very much. He had a great deal of
respect for him.

Mr. JENNER. And your husband Gary?

Mrs. GIBSON. I would imagine he did.

Mr. JENNER. What is your impression?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I'd say Marina probably liked Gary more than Lee,
though.

Mr. JENNER. Lee did visit at your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And he did on occasion seek out your husband?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And your husband occasionally sought out him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lee express any views with respect to others in that
milieux, that company, the Halls, the Mellers, the Clarks, Bouhe, the
Voshinins, the Russian emigree colony?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, he liked Mr. Bouhe very much and he expected a lot
of him. I think he thought that Mr. Bouhe might be his key to getting
a good job. Mrs. Hall now, he liked her, but he said she was a crude,
coarse woman. I think maybe he really deeply didn't like her that well.

Alex--what did you say his name was?

Mr. JENNER. Kleinlerer.

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't like him at all, and the other people you
mention, I imagine he has talked about them, but I can't place them, so
I don't know his opinion on them.

Mr. JENNER. These people were trying to help, were they not?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; especially George Bouhe.

Mr. JENNER. What was Lee's attitude toward that effort?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I don't know why they were trying to help
him. He didn't deserve it. They didn't owe it to him. Yet he seemed
to, I got the feeling he thought they did. Why, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get the feeling at any time that he was
contemptuous of any of them?

Mrs. GIBSON. When they didn't come up with something he wanted; yes.
I'd say George Bouhe was the one that stuck by him the most, more than
my father, more than any of them. Mrs. Hall got disgusted with the
whole thing, and especially, well, with both of them really, a lot with
Marina and a lot with Lee.

She got very disgusted with the whole situation. My father did, too.
George Bouhe seemed to be the only one that sort of stuck by them.

Mr. JENNER. Why did your father become disgusted with them?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, just in general, with Lee's lack of being able to
get a good job or being able to really stick with anything, his
treatment of his wife, his treatment of his fellowmen, just his total
indifference. My father just got very aggravated with the whole thing,
got aggravated with Marina for taking Lee's abuse, and he just got fed
up.

Mr. JENNER. Now, there came an occasion when he either lost or quit his
position in Fort Worth, isn't that so?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess so.

Mr. JENNER. Well, that----

Mrs. GIBSON. I imagine, I don't know if he lost it or if he quit. I
believe he said he quit.

Mr. JENNER. All right, now that you have said that, the fact is that
he did quit. Now, to help orient yourself, that occurred on the 8th of
October 1962, which was, I think, a Tuesday but I will check on that to
make sure. That was a Monday.

Now, between that Sunday afternoon which would be either late in August
or some time in September, and the 8th of October, which was a Monday,
when he left the Leslie Welding Co., had you seen the Oswalds?

Mrs. GIBSON. Between when?

Mr. JENNER. Between the Sunday that you visited them and the 8th of
October.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe we had. We might have. He might have
popped in. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. You have mentioned----

Mrs. GIBSON. Is this before he stayed at the YMCA? This is before,
isn't it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. To help you in that respect, he stayed at the YMCA
October 15 through October 19, 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. He might have popped in. I don't recall whether he did or
not.

Mr. JENNER. Now, during that period of time, from that Sunday to
October 8, had Marina stayed with you?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER. You do recall Lee Oswald being in Fort Worth at the YMCA,
however, do you?

Mrs. GIBSON. In Fort Worth?

Mr. JENNER. I mean in Dallas.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; we took him there.

Mr. JENNER. You did take him to the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, that was the 15th of October?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. 1962. Where was Marina then?

Mrs. GIBSON. She might have been with us at the time.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you went to Fort Worth and picked him
up and took him to the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe we did.

Mr. JENNER. Give me your best recollection of that circumstance.

Mrs. GIBSON. All I can remember is letting him off at the YMCA. I am
almost positive we wouldn't go to Fort Worth, though, to pick him up.
No; I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER. That was a Monday.

Mrs. GIBSON. It was the afternoon when we dropped him at the Y.

Mr. JENNER. And you have no present recollection where you picked him
up, whether----

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Whether he had come to your house or what the circumstances
were?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I sure don't. I think he might have come to our house,
but I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina stay with you during this October period at all?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she stayed with us the time that he was in the
YMCA.

Mr. JENNER. That is?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she stayed with us about 5 days.

Mr. JENNER. That is 5 days?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe she stayed with us the full time, no.

Mr. JENNER. But she did stay with you during a period?

Mrs. GIBSON. A few; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection of how she got there, whether
you went or your husband went and picked her up and brought her to your
home or whether Lee brought her?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe Lee brought her. I think it would
be more--it would be normal to assume, I don't remember this, that
my stepmother or my father must have brought her, because I know we
didn't. I don't recall picking her up at all.

Mr. JENNER. But she stayed with you then, you think, during the period
that he was at the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, did Lee visit at your home while she was there during
this YMCA period?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether your husband Gary went over to the
YMCA and picked him up and brought him to your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't think so. I think he came by bus, or walked.
That was possible, too. It wasn't that far.

Mr. JENNER. Would you locate your apartment at 3519 Fairmont with
respect to the location of the Dallas YMCA. That was downtown?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, it was almost downtown. I believe it was on Maple
Avenue or very near Maple Avenue.

Mr. JENNER. That is, the YMCA was?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and Maple Avenue, we were only one block off of Maple
Avenue. We ran parallel with Maple, Fairmont did, and we were only 1
block off of Maple, and I'd say it was, oh, maybe 12 blocks from the
YMCA.

Mr. JENNER. An easy walk?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; 12 or 14, maybe farther, but it was not a real
long walk. It is possible to walk the distance. Bus service was very
frequent and very easy to get.

Mr. JENNER. Now, did you become aware, you and your husband, of the
fact that Lee obtained a position at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on the 12th
of October? That is while he was at the YMCA, he had already obtained
this position and had begun to work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall?

Mrs. GIBSON. He began to work there while he was at the Y?

Mr. JENNER. He went to work on the 12th of October 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh my goodness. Well, it is possible that we knew this. I
know, I remember that he was employed there because I remember he used
to tell Gary how he liked the job, how that interested him.

Now, when I thought he was employed there I don't know. I remember
when he was at the Y that he was looking for a place to live in the
Dallas-Oak Cliff area.

Mr. JENNER. Did you or your ex-husband Gary or both of you help him to
look?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I believe one evening we went out with them and
looked over the prospective places, places that we knew of, the place
where we used to live--and Worthington, and just in the general
low-rent area which would be accessible to where he was going to be
working.

Mr. JENNER. So that you knew at that time where he was working or going
to work?

Mrs. GIBSON. We knew the location of the place where he was working.

Now, I am not sure if we knew that he was working already or if we
thought he was still unemployed, not unemployed but already employed
but not working yet.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall Mrs. Hall having been involved in an
automobile accident?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was in October, was it not, 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know what the month was, but I imagine it was. It
must have been in the latter part of October.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall Marina residing with Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. She was with Mrs. Hall before the accident and after the
accident and while Mrs. Hall was in the hospital she lived at the house.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall also that Mrs. Hall, after she returned from
the hospital, went to New York City?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And that while she was in New York City, that Marina stayed
at her home also?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; she did.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether during that period Lee Oswald stayed at
the Halls'?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he did. I believe, while Mrs. Hall was in the
hospital; he stayed with Marina while she was alone for 2, 3, or 4
days, something like that. He was there off and on. He spent quite a
few nights there, I know this.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any occasions when you and your husband or
either of you were at the Halls' when Oswald was there?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe we took him to Fort Worth once to visit, and we
stayed for supper, and Mrs. Hall was there and she cooked us supper.
This is before her accident, and Alex was there and Marina and Gary and
myself.

Mr. JENNER. This is the occasion to which you earlier made a reference,
is it, or had you done so?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was the occasion where Alex and Lee got into an
argument; yes. And this was prior to Mrs. Hall's accident. We stayed
until fairly late in the evening. I can't remember if we brought Lee
back with us or if he spent the night. It would seem logical, I think
we brought Lee back with us.

Mr. JENNER. You brought him back to where?

Mrs. GIBSON. To Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. To where in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I can't remember.

Mr. JENNER. This was before he stayed at the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; this was after.

Mr. JENNER. This was after Mrs. Hall returned from the hospital?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; this was before her accident. This is while Marina was
there.

Mr. JENNER. To help orient you, she was in the hospital from the 18th
of October 1962 to the 26th of October 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. This is before her accident. I think only a couple of days
before her accident or a day before, because I remember how shocked I
was when I heard that she had been in an accident. It was only a day or
two before, so where would he have been living, at the Y, wouldn't he,
at that time?

Mr. JENNER. He would be at the Y.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. He was at the Y on the 15th.

Mrs. GIBSON. I imagine that is where we dropped him then.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know of your own personal knowledge the fact that
Lee stayed with Marina at the Halls' from time to time?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; Mrs. Hall told me--he told me and Marina----

Mr. JENNER. Oswald told you?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and Marina told me in a roundabout fashion.

Mr. JENNER. How?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, she'd tell, you know, Mrs. Hall to tell me something
and Mrs. Hall would tell me, that is how, or through Lee, or through
gestures or a dictionary she would be able to tell me a few words.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether or where, I will put it that way, where
Lee stayed between the 19th of October 1962, when he left the Y, and
November 3, 1962, when they moved into the Elsbeth Street apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I know that he stayed part of the time, I'd say a good
portion of the time, at Mrs. Hall's. Now, whether he had another
residence I don't know. I know he spent a few evenings with my father.
If he spent a night there I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. When you say he spent a few evenings with your father, I
infer from that--and if my inference is wrong please tell me--that
there were occasions when he stayed overnight in your father's home.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not occasions. I think possibly one or two times. But
he would be over there evenings and they would talk. Then he would
leave. Now, where he went to I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But your recollection is that there were at least several
occasions in which he stayed overnight in your father's home?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I am trying very hard to think of where he stayed. It
is such a very vague recollection, so vague it is barely there, that he
had a room. But I don't know where.

Mr. JENNER. During this period?

Mrs. GIBSON. During that period; yes.

Mr. JENNER. From the 19th to the 3d?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; it is so vague but it is there, that he had a room
somewhere. Where I don't know. I just can't think.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection that either you or your husband
ever went to visit him at some room?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; Gary possibly, but me, no. Gary might have picked him
up some place, but not me. I don't recall. It is just so vague and
maybe it is just because you think there was one that I say this. But I
feel that there was a room some place.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection that your stepmother gave you
at any time an address?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. At which Lee, a place where Lee was staying during this
period from October 19 to November 3?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't. She might have, but I have no recollection of
it whatsoever. But then we weren't on too tremendously good terms and I
might have just not even thought of what she said.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, it is your recollection that during this
period, October 19 through November 3, that Lee did stay a good portion
of the time at the Halls?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. With Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. It seems to me that he had a place to live somewhere near
where he was working, somewhere easily accessible on foot, to where he
was working.

Mr. JENNER. That is your former husband Gary's recollection, and he
seemed reasonably confident that you would recall the address.

Mrs. GIBSON. No, no; no idea. Did Gary mention something about one
night we were in Oak Cliff and we were looking for some place.

Mr. JENNER. He said you were looking for Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Is that what he said? And we went up and down and up
and down and we never found the place. I recall one evening, I don't
remember what we were looking for, but I recall this.

Mr. JENNER. You were looking for Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Is that who we were looking for?

Mr. JENNER. No; I----

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know, I am not sure, but one evening Gary and I
were looking for some place, and I don't know where it was. But it was
in Oak Cliff. It was right over the river. And we went up and down and
back and forth for a good hour looking for this address. And I can't
think of where it was, and we never found it. I do remember that. We
never found it.

Mr. JENNER. But it had something to do with Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it did. I think it had to do with a room that he
had over there, but where it was, the address, I don't know. I never
knew Oak Cliff very well in the first place.

Mr. JENNER. You say he was now employed and could afford a room?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; but I don't know where. I--we couldn't find it
wherever it was, because we looked.

Mr. JENNER. But you did have an address at that time?

Mrs. GIBSON. I had an address for something I was looking for. What
it was I don't know. If I was looking for him or if I was looking for
somebody else, if Gary was looking for somebody, I don't recall. But
it could possibly be that it was him that we were looking for. I don't
know how Gary thinks I can remember an address, though. I don't.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall an occasion when you assisted Marina and Lee
to move into the Elsbeth Street apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. What day of the week was that?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. Weekend.

Mr. JENNER. Was that a weekend?

Mrs. GIBSON. It seems reasonable that it would have been a weekend,
but then with Gary working as a cabdriver, I don't know if it was or
not, because he sometimes worked weekends. They were good days to work.
Saturday was very good. Was it a Sunday?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. Wait a minute, it was a Saturday, the 3d of November
1962, was a Saturday.

Mrs. GIBSON. Did we move him in on that day or did he start rent from
that day?

Mr. JENNER. The advice of the landlord or manager of the building was
they moved in on the third, but do you recall that it was a weekend
rather than a weekday?

Mrs. GIBSON. I wouldn't know. It could have been. It seems more logical
that it would have been a weekend.

Mr. JENNER. Now, tell us about that from the beginning. What led up to
it, how you participated, the extent you participated with your husband?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, when we were over in Fort Worth visiting Mrs. Hall,
we had taken Lee over there to see Marina, we told them we would help
them move when he found a place, and he came by one evening or----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. This then was after he had obtained a job?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes. He either called or came by one evening.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. Hall home on that occasion when you went over to
see them?

Mrs. GIBSON. When we moved them or before, that other time?

Mr. JENNER. That other time.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; she was.

Mr. JENNER. So this was subsequent to October 26?

Mrs. GIBSON. And also we were over there to visit them also another
time after she had the accident, and I remember she was in bed.

Mr. JENNER. Was it before or after she went to the hospital?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was after, right after, when she came home and she was
still in bed. It was before she went to New York.

Mr. JENNER. She came back on the 26th of October?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and we went over there and she was still in bed.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the occasion? Was he there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the occasion when you told him that you would help
him move?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When he found a place?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I believe he said he was looking. And I believe----

Mr. JENNER. Lee was at the Halls' on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I think we took him there.

Mr. JENNER. All right, he was not at the YMCA.

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. He was not staying at the Halls'?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he came to our apartment.

Mr. JENNER. So he must have been staying somewhere in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he must have been. He came to our apartment. I don't
ever recall taking him back to any place in particular, or picking
him up at any place in particular. See, that is my problem. But I do
remember the visit when she was in bed, and we told them that we would
help them move. And I guess he must have called us or come to visit
us about moving, and we took our car and I think, I don't know if we
rented a trailer, I think they rented a trailer in Fort Worth, I am not
sure, and left it in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Let's get it sequentially. You left your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Lee came to your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In the morning was it?

Mrs. GIBSON. Morning or early afternoon.

Mr. JENNER. And then you left your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You, your husband, and Lee?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And where did you go?

Mrs. GIBSON. To drop the baby off.

Mr. JENNER. Your baby?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. With a sitter?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; to Mrs. Taylor, Gary's mother.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. GIBSON. From there we went to Fort Worth to Mrs. Hall's, and then
Lee and Gary went to rent a trailer, and I stayed with Marina.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. Hall home on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Where was Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I guess she was in New York. So, they came
back with the trailer and we started to load up all the stuff, and
Alex----

Mr. JENNER. Kleinlerer?

Mrs. GIBSON. Kleinlerer came by, I guess to supervise the moving, to
see that nothing was taken of Mrs. Hall's, and he watched us move and
we got all their stuff out, and we took them to their apartment in Oak
Cliff, Elsbeth apartment, to move them in there. By then it was early
evening, and then we left them there. We looked over the apartment and
we left them there.

Mr. JENNER. Your husband rented that trailer?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think Lee did; didn't he? I don't think Gary paid for
it. Did Gary pay for it? I can't imagine Gary paying for it. He might
have, but I don't see it.

Mr. JENNER. Apart from that, did Lee thank you for spending the day?

Mrs. GIBSON. Very briefly, thank you, and that was all. Marina was not
happy with the apartment at all. She said it was filthy dirty, it was a
pigsty and she didn't want to stay there. Lee said it could be fixed up.

Mr. JENNER. What was their attitude toward each other on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. They were arguing.

Mr. JENNER. During the day when you reached the Elsbeth Street
apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not too much during the day but after she saw the
apartment she was very unhappy with it and they were arguing very much
when we left.

Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression she had not seen it?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe she had; no.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of the apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was a hole. It was terrible, very dirty, very badly
kept, really quite a slum. It had possibilities to be fixed up. It was
large, quite large, built very strangely, little rooms here and there,
lots of doors, lots of windows. The floor had big bumps in it, you
know. It was like the building had shifted and you walked up hill, you
know, to get from one side of the room to the other. It was not a nice
place; no.

Mr. JENNER. Was it a brick structure, wooden?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was brick outside, dark red brick. It was a small
apartment building. I think two stories, overrun with weeds and garbage
and people.

Mr. JENNER. Did you visit the Oswald's in that apartment thereafter?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether your husband did?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he told me when I came back to Dallas in December
that he visited them once.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then that sometime after November 3, you left
Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I left Dallas the latter part of November.

Mr. JENNER. And just to orient you, where did you go?

Mrs. GIBSON. I went to Tucson, Ariz.

Mr. JENNER. You were with your aunt?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I was by myself.

Mr. JENNER. Had you lived in Tucson?

Mrs. GIBSON. Before that, no; not really. I had been to boarding school
there a few years, and I lived in Tucson 1 year with my aunt in a house
that we rented, and her husband, but I had not lived in Tucson before
this.

Mr. JENNER. Let's identify her. What was her name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Mrs. Tilton.

Mr. JENNER. What was her full name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Do you want her first name?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. GIBSON. Nancy.

Mr. JENNER. Nancy Tilton?

Mrs. GIBSON. Nancy Sands Tilton.

Mr. JENNER. And her married name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Mrs. Charles Elliott Tilton III.

Mr. JENNER. And in previous years you had as a young girl, even as a
child, lived with her; had you not?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was a good many years?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; 14 years.

Mr. JENNER. Fourteen years. Was that in Arizona or Florida?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was all around. I lived in Vermont in the summer,
Arizona in the winter, Florida sometimes. It depended.

Mr. JENNER. Your aunt was a person of means I gather?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You have already mentioned that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald
when you returned from Arizona?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am not sure if it was then or if it was right before I
left.

Mr. JENNER. Before you left for what?

Mrs. GIBSON. Arizona.

Mr. JENNER. And where did you see him?

Mrs. GIBSON. At the apartment. He came by to pick up a manuscript that
I had of his.

Mr. JENNER. That is at your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I show you a document that is in evidence in this
proceeding as Commission Exhibit No. 95. Would you examine that and
tell me whether that is the manuscript to which you have made reference
several times.

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe it is. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me the circumstances under which you first saw that
document and how it came into your possession?

Mrs. GIBSON. I asked Lee if he had written anything on Russia that I
could read, if he had any material, and he said yes, he did; that he
had a manuscript that he had written on general life in Russia and I
asked him if I could read it and he said yes and he gave it to me. He
brought it over one evening. I have no idea of the date or the time.

Mr. JENNER. Was it reasonably early in the course of your acquaintance
with the Oswalds?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was before they moved to Dallas, to Oak Cliff.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever discuss the manuscript with him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I did. I told him he should publish it and he said
no, that it was not for people to read.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever discuss its contents with him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; a little bit. I asked him questions about it.

Mr. JENNER. Can you recall any of the inquiries you made of the
discussions you had with him regarding the substance of it?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I asked him, I believe on this manuscript that it
was said that you could not move from town to town.

Mr. JENNER. In Russia?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and he was telling me why.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mrs. GIBSON. He said that the housing problem was so difficult there
that once you got an apartment or a room in one city, that you had
to wait in line in another city to get housing, therefore, you were
not allowed to leave from one city to another unless you already
had housing and a job. But for him it was easier because he was an
American, and I guess as he said they were trying to impress him a
little bit.

Mr. JENNER. In that connection did he imply that he was free to move
about the country as he saw fit?

Mrs. GIBSON. Freer than Russians I would imagine. He did imply that he
was freer than they were.

Mr. JENNER. To move around?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say that he had at any time left Minsk to go
anywhere else?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe he had been to Moscow.

Mr. JENNER. Was that in connection with his efforts to return to this
country?

Mrs. GIBSON. I have no idea. I think it was just to see the countryside.

Mr. JENNER. Would you look further through that manuscript and see if
your recollection is refreshed as to any other discussion you had with
him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, we talked a little bit about clothing and food.

Mr. JENNER. That is a generalization. Tell me what you talked about.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, he said that the Russian people were very impressed
with his clothing, that they did not have the quality or the style
that he had. Also the sparseness of fruits, vegetables there. He told
them about the supermarkets we had here and how plentiful fruit and
vegetables were, how expensive butter and everything was in Russia,
like that, your dairy products, aside from milk, butter, and cottage
cheese, and all these things were extremely expensive and, well, like
gold. Education we talked about, how much higher their educational
standards are.

Mr. JENNER. Than ours?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say in that connection?

Mrs. GIBSON. They are much higher, that everybody is trained there to
do something. That they have what would be considered, well, like your
elementary school, and after you finished this required, oh, I don't
know what it is, 8 or 9 years of school, you take this test, and if
you pass this test you are admitted into what is considered college.
If you don't pass it, you are able to choose a vocational school that
you can go to to train you in some vocation, oh, like bricklayers or
electricians or plumbers or something like this. You are allowed to
choose whatever you want. You hear, he said, that women are laying
streets, let's say, in Russia and he said that isn't because they are
made to but this is because what they have chosen to do, what they want
to do. That is about the general gist of what he had to say.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall something about a time when little June was
baptized?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that, please.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, one evening there was a knock at the door and I went
to answer it and Mrs. Hall and Marina and June were outside, and Mrs.
Hall came in and told me that she had just brought Marina and June to
Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina and the baby come in the apartment, too?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And Mrs. Hall said this in the presence of Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was your husband home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No. She said that they brought the baby to Dallas to be
baptized without Lee knowing it because he would object, and that
Marina had been brought up in Russia with religion, although it was
against the law there, and that she wanted her child to be baptized,
and that Lee objected so strongly to it that she did it on the sly,
and she asked me please not to tell him. And she left a box of clothes
of his there for me that she had bought him. It was his birthday, I
believe, the next day.

Mr. JENNER. Lee's birthday?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, he was born on the 18th of October 1939, so
this was the occasion when he was living at the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. His birthday was the next day or something, or a couple of
days.

Mr. JENNER. He was at the YMCA from the 15th through the 19th, 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am getting my days messed up, because I thought she
stayed with us while he was at the YMCA. She must not have. You know,
I can't place when she stayed with us. I can just place the period of
time that she stayed with us, you know, that it was not over 3 or 4
days.

Mr. JENNER. Could it have been right following his leaving the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. It possibly could have been. I really don't know. But like
I said, that is something I forgot. Now that you know his birthday, you
can place when she was baptized and when she brought this box to me.

Mr. JENNER. She was baptized the day before his birthday?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am not sure if it was the day before or 2 days or 3
days, but it was real close to his birthday.

Mr. JENNER. Real close?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. The records indicate the baptism occurred on the 17th of
October, 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. Then it must have been the day before.

Mr. JENNER. Which is the day before his birthday, but the occasion you
remember it was about his birthday time?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. They left a box of clothing or some gift?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, it had a shirt and a pair of sox and general things.

Mr. JENNER. These were new?

Mrs. GIBSON. Brand new.

Mr. JENNER. A gift?

Mrs. GIBSON. A gift; yes. From his wife.

Mr. JENNER. Didn't it seem strange to you at that time with him at the
YMCA they didn't ring him up or go by the YMCA and leave this birthday
gift?

Mrs. GIBSON. She didn't want him to know that she was in Dallas because
she didn't want him to know she had baptized the baby.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lee speak with you on that subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I guess it must have been the next day that he
dropped by and I gave him the box, and I didn't say anything about
this, but I think he had heard it. I think he had talked to Marina or
something on the telephone.

Mr. JENNER. He became aware when he came by the next day, which would
be his birthday, that they had----

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she told him on the telephone that she had
baptized the baby, and he asked me if I knew, and I said yes, and he
said, "Why didn't you tell me?" And I said, that it was not any of my
business.

Mr. JENNER. I am a little bit confused. He came by the next day, that
is the day after Mrs. Hall and Marina were there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And he came by to pick up his birthday gifts?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. At that occasion you didn't say anything to him about the
baptism?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Therefore, at some subsequent occasion----

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. After that----

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. There was a discussion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I think it was probably the day after that that he
dropped by and he asked me about this. He asked me if they had been
there, and I said yes. He says, "Why didn't you tell me?"

Mr. JENNER. Why you didn't tell him what?

Mrs. GIBSON. That they had been there and that the baby had been
baptized, and I said that it was none of my business.

Mr. JENNER. The thing that confuses me a little bit is he came by and
picked up the birthday gift.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Nothing was said about baptism.

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. On that occasion.

Mrs. GIBSON. No, no; I think he----

Mr. JENNER. Therefore, he must have known or inquired as to where you
got the birthday gift, correct?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't recall. I think I had some story fixed up for
that. Mrs. Hall, I think, told me to tell him that she had been by, or
something. I can't remember what it was, but she had some story, you
know, for how come I had that.

Mr. JENNER. That would explain that, then.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I don't, you know, really remember what was said
exactly.

Mr. JENNER. The day following that occasion----

Mrs. GIBSON. I did not tell him that I had seen Marina, though.

Mr. JENNER. Is when he approached you on the subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Of the baptism and why you hadn't told him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say to him?

Mrs. GIBSON. I told him it was none of my business, and he wasn't too
happy about it.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about the fact that June had been baptized?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not too much. He wasn't really that upset about it. He
just said he didn't like the idea, but that was all. He wasn't terribly
upset about it.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Gibson, was he upset because the baby had been
baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church rather than the Lutheran
Church, for example?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he was an atheist. He just didn't want anything to do
with religion.

Mr. JENNER. Did you and your husband have discussions with him on the
subject of religion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And what were his views on the subject of religion?

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't believe in it. He didn't believe in God. He
didn't believe in anything.

Mr. JENNER. And did that discussion occur reasonably often, on more
than one occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, it was mentioned in with politics. You know how that
can get. The two subjects you are not supposed to talk about we talked
about probably the most.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression about any view or hope or desire
or ambition on his part of some future attainment?

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't really talk too much about in the future or what
he wanted to do. I don't know what he wanted to do with himself.

Mr. JENNER. Was President Kennedy ever mentioned in the course of the
discussions between your husband and Lee?

Mrs. GIBSON. Never, never. He wasn't President at the time anyway, was
he?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; he was.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he was. He had just become President, hadn't he? No,
he was never mentioned. Now, the only person ever mentioned pertaining
to that was the Governor of Texas.

Mr. JENNER. He became President in 1960.

Mrs. GIBSON. It was the Governor of Texas who was mentioned mostly.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mrs. GIBSON. First you are going to have to tell me who the Governor
was.

Mr. JENNER. Connally.

Mrs. GIBSON. Connally. Wasn't that the one that----

Mr. JENNER. That had been Secretary of the Navy.

Mrs. GIBSON. That had been Secretary of the Navy, was it? Well, for
some reason Lee just didn't like him. I don't know why, but he didn't
like him.

Mr. JENNER. Would this refresh your recollection, that the subject
of Governor Connally arose in connection with something about Lee's
discharge from the Marines?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't recall. I just know Lee never spoke too much about
why he left the Marines or anything like that. I don't know. Maybe it
was a dishonorable discharge, I don't know. All I know is that it was
something he didn't talk about. And there was a reason why he did not
like Connally.

Mr. JENNER. Whatever the reason was, he didn't articulate the reason
particularly?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he just didn't like him.

Mr. JENNER. But you have the definite impression he had an aversion to
Governor Connally?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; but he never ever said a word about Kennedy.

Mr. JENNER. Did you answer?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I did; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your answer is yes?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That he did have a definite aversion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. To Governor Connally as a person?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And did he speak of that reasonably frequently in these
discussions?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not really, no. He didn't bring it up frequently.

Mr. JENNER. But he was definite and affirmative about it, was he?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he didn't like him.

Mr. JENNER. Was General Walker ever discussed?

Mrs. GIBSON. No, no.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any discussions in these political arguments
between your husband Gary and Lee Oswald about, oh, the American Civil
Liberties Union, the Birch Society, people having, let's say, extreme
right viewpoints or left viewpoints?

Mrs. GIBSON. Gary was quite a Democrat, and he disliked the Birch
Society intensely. So every once in a while they would come into the
conversation, being that Gary felt so personal about them. He didn't
like them at all. And Gary once in a while would make a comment, "Oh,
he is a Bircher," I can't name any particular person, but just somebody
in particular.

I think Dallas is a fairly Republican city. No, there was nothing ever
about any of the different factions, or right or left wing. Just I know
Gary disliked the Birchers. As I recall, I don't think Lee had much
to say about them. I think maybe he liked more radical people than we
did, you know, the normal straight down the middle or conservative or
something.

Mr. JENNER. Were there occasions when you saw either of the Oswalds at
your father's home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Were there occasions when your father and your stepmother
brought either of the Oswalds to your apartment other than those you
have already testified about?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not that I recall, no.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall seeing Oswald on the day before he moved into
the YMCA? He moved into the YMCA on Monday, October 15. Did you see him
the previous day, Sunday?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I really don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But you do recall taking him to the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mrs. JENNER. On Monday, the 15th?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; we might have. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Did you go and pick up Oswald at Mrs. Hall's when you took
him to the YMCA, or did he just come by your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I can't remember where we picked him up, but I know we
didn't go to Fort Worth to pick him up, no. It could have been at the
bus station.

Mr. JENNER. But you went somewhere to pick him up is your recollection?

Mrs. GIBSON. We could have gone somewhere. He could have come to our
apartment. I don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. You were aware of Marina staying with the Halls?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware of her going to attend to Mrs. Hall; to do
that before she actually went to live with Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. I might have heard something about it from my father. I
don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But you did not hear it from Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. I didn't know Mrs. Hall until I met her through Marina.

Mr. JENNER. After Marina----

Mrs. GIBSON. When I went to visit there.

Mr. JENNER. That is when you went to visit Marina while she was staying
at the Hall's?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; when Lee and Gary and I went over there. That is the
first time I ever met her. But she was very friendly because she knew
my father, you know, and so it was a very friendly atmosphere.

Did Mrs. Hall give a fixed time of when Marina stayed with her?

Mr. JENNER. I can't say it was a fixed time, but she testified that it
was before she had her automobile accident.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, what I am trying to fix in my mind is when Marina
stayed with me, you know.

Mr. JENNER. That is the 3 or 4 days?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I can't fix that in my mind at all now. I thought it
was when he was at the YMCA and then it couldn't have been because of
when the baby was baptized and when his birthday was. But it must have
been shortly before that, because it wasn't after that. So it must have
been before.

Mr. JENNER. Well, it wasn't on the 14th of October because you took him
to the YMCA on the 15th. Was Marina living with you then?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not then, no. But she might have been shortly before
that. I believe she was at Mrs. Hall's then, wasn't she. Doesn't she
know where she was?

Mr. JENNER. Well, she has got some impressions; yes.

Mrs. GIBSON. I hope she does.

Mr. JENNER. I am trying to find out what you recall.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, you know, I can't recall when she was there. I know
when she wasn't there now more than I did before, from placing his
birthday and the box and that, I know she wasn't there then.

Mr. JENNER. Wasn't where?

Mrs. GIBSON. At my place. I know she wasn't there then, because she
came to visit me from Fort Worth with Mrs. Hall. But how long she had
been with Mrs. Hall must not have been too long.

Mr. JENNER. The thing that bothers me, also, Mrs. Gibson, Mrs. Hall
entered the hospital on the 18th of October.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is Lee's birthday. She was at your place the preceding
day?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was that night that she got in the accident.
That is why I said it was very shocking when I heard, you know, that
she had been in an accident.

Mr. JENNER. And at the time she had her accident, Marina was living
with the Halls'?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was living at Mrs. Hall's home?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your husband Gary recalls that while Lee was at the YMCA,
that he came to visit at your home.

Mrs. GIBSON. That is possible.

Mr. JENNER. And his recollection was that Marina was with you at that
time.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, she couldn't have been.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Could it be that she stayed with you for a few
days after he left the YMCA and before they moved into the Elsbeth
Street home or apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I don't know how it could be possible, because when
we moved her from Fort Worth, she was at Mrs. Hall's. Now whether she
stayed with me while Mrs. Hall was in New York, she couldn't have
because she was, Mrs. Hall was in New York when we moved Marina, see,
and Marina was there.

Now, I suppose it is possible that she stayed with us, then, but I
remember she stayed with Mrs. Hall after the accident because Mrs. Hall
needed her. She couldn't get around. I know she was there before the
accident because of the baptism and Lee's birthday. So it leads me to
believe she was there the whole time, you know.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall when the Oswalds left the Mercedes Street
apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't know when they left that. They moved, from
there they moved all her stuff to Mrs. Hall's.

Mr. JENNER. Right from the Mercedes apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess they must have. All the stuff was there.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall an occasion when your father moved Marina and
the baby from the Elsbeth Street apartment to Mrs. Meller's?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall the Oswalds living at 214 Neely Street?

Mrs. GIBSON. Where was that?

Mr. JENNER. That is just about a block from the Elsbeth Street
apartment, which they moved into from the Elsbeth Street apartment.

Mrs. GIBSON. That must have been after I left.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; it was.

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. You just don't recall anything about that?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I wasn't there.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you do recall Marina staying 3 or 4 days.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Can you grasp in your recollection why? What led up to that?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was the period before she went to Mrs. Hall's.
It must have been after Lee lost his job, or quit.

Mr. JENNER. In Fort Worth?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and before he got the new one. It must have been
then. And I think it was while they were trying to find her a place to
live, while he was job hunting.

Mr. JENNER. And before he got his job with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall?

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been.

Mr. JENNER. On the 12th of October? You see that is a 4-day period,
Mrs. Gibson.

Mrs. GIBSON. Between when he lost his job and got his job?

Mr. JENNER. That is right.

Mrs. GIBSON. That is probably where she stayed then. I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. The last day he worked at Leslie Welding was the
8th of October 1962. He became employed and went to work for
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on the 12th of October 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. That probably was when she stayed with us, then. I just
don't have any recollection of when it was.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection that she came to stay with
you, the reason why? Was she having difficulty with Oswald? Was that
the reason, or was it because he was out of work?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was because he was out of work. I don't think
they had any money. I think my father lent them money, didn't he? I
don't know. Somebody must have given them money. It was Bouhe, that is
who it was who lent them money.

Mr. JENNER. It was only 4 days, Mrs. Gibson.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; but he had to have money to get started. He had to
have money to stay at the YMCA. He had to have money to get started,
and I know who gave him money. George Bouhe did.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; George Bouhe did, there is no question about that.

Mrs. GIBSON. Because I recall that. He gave him money, and he also had
the debt to pay to the American Embassy.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection as to where Oswald stayed
prior to the time that he went to the YMCA on the 15th of October, that
is between the 8th of October and the 15th of October? That is a week.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; all I know is he never did stay at our place overnight
ever.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall when you were looking for this address, was
it an address on North Beckley?

Mrs. GIBSON. It is possible that it was.

Mr. JENNER. Does that stimulate your recollection at all?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; it doesn't. I just know that Beckley is near the river.

Mr. JENNER. And you were looking in the area.

Mrs. GIBSON. Near the river; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, between the 19th of October and the 3d of November,
which was the day you picked up Oswald and Marina and the baby and took
them to the Elsbeth Street apartment, do you know where Oswald was
staying?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; but it was probably in that area where I was looking,
you know. I am not even sure who I was looking for, but it seems
possible. I don't know anybody else in Oak Cliff, you know. If that
is anywhere near the Jaggars Co., and I think it is, that is probably
where, and who we were looking for.

Mr. JENNER. Was Marina taken to the dentist to your knowledge other
than the first period, the first visit in August of 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she might have had another appointment. That
possibly could have been the other reason why she stayed with me, but I
am not positive. It seems to me you know by the dentist records if she
had. I remember she had teeth pulled. Now, how many--and, as I recall,
those first appointments led to a later appointment after her mouth had
healed. But I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina stay at the Halls' on more than one occasion,
that is periods?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER. Was it just one period?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was one period.

Mr. JENNER. Did it have anything to do with Mrs. Hall's accident?

Mrs. GIBSON. Why Marina stayed there, you mean, or why she left?

Mr. JENNER. Why she went there in the first instance.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; Mrs. Hall had not had her accident when Marina first
moved in.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. Hall aware that Marina had stayed at your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think so. In fact, I could almost say positively she
must have been aware of it.

Mr. JENNER. What leads you to say that?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I mean she never knew that Marina and I knew each
other. She brought her to my place. I had told her that, I believe I
myself, told her that Marina had stayed with me. I mean it is just in
common conversation that she must have known. Didn't she know?

Mr. JENNER. Including this 3- or 4-day period?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; she must have known because that was before Marina
stayed with her. Does she know?

Mr. JENNER. She didn't mention it in her testimony.

Mrs. GIBSON. Am I the last one to testify?

Mr. JENNER. No. Mrs. Gibson, were you aware that Lee Oswald gave your
apartment address and your telephone number--when I say your I mean you
and your husband--when he was seeking employment in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he asked Gary's permission and Gary said all right.

Mr. JENNER. That was in your presence?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was that permission requested before he went to the YMCA on
the 15th of October? He obtained his job at Jaggars, remember, on the
12th of October.

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe it was before. He said he needed to establish a
residence, and a place where people could get in touch with him, where
if there were any jobs coming up that they could get in touch with him
and call him and he would check with us and we would tell him if there
had been any calls for him or messages during the day.

Mr. JENNER. Now, were there any calls or messages?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not that I recall. I don't believe there were.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recall him looking for work during this period?
That would be the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th of October.

Mrs. GIBSON. I really don't know. If he had a job, it doesn't seem that
he would be looking for a job.

Mr. JENNER. He was at the Texas Employment Commission on the 9th, 10th,
and 11th.

Mrs. GIBSON. Then probably he was. And if he gave our address and our
phone number; I am sure he was.

Mr. JENNER. But you don't recall where he was staying during that
period?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. The 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Could he have been staying at Hall's?

Mrs. GIBSON. Gee, it is possible, but I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But you do recall that he did stay at the Hall's a good
deal or portions of the time that Marina was there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he went there weekends, as I recall, when he was
working. He spent the weekends there.

Mr. JENNER. When he was working at Jaggars?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So when he began to work at Jaggars, which was the 12th
of October, up to the 3d of November when you and your husband, Mr.
Taylor, took the Oswalds to the Elsbeth Street apartment, he visited at
the Hall's on weekends?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So there was some place he was staying then himself during
that period?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; there must have been.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mrs. Hall live in Fort Worth?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And Fort Worth is approximately 30 miles?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. From Dallas, isn't it?

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't stay in Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. He stayed in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. But you can't recall still where he stayed in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I have no idea.

Mr. JENNER. But it is now your definite recollection that he did stay
in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I know that----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--after he became employed at Jaggars?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I will tell you why. Because he told us that he goes
by bus Friday night or something to Fort Worth and he'd come back
Sunday evening. So it would be my normal assumption, I would say, that
he was staying in Dallas at the time.

Mr. JENNER. Had you and your father had some difficulty, some spats
between the two of you along about this time?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; we had been spatting all our life.

Mr. JENNER. I mean were you on speaking terms?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I'd say so.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall at least one occasion when you picked up
Oswald in front of the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. That your husband Gary would go over and pick him up?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess so.

Mr. JENNER. Bring him to your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess so, or he'd walk. I don't know. I don't believe
Gary picked him up there. I believe he walked or took the bus.

Mr. JENNER. What do you recall with respect to Lee's habits of
temperance or intemperance, drinking?

Mrs. GIBSON. I never saw him take a drink.

Mr. JENNER. Did he smoke?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't think he did.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina smoke?

Mrs. GIBSON. On the sly.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mrs. GIBSON. Because he objected to smoking, as I recall. He did. He
didn't like to see her smoke, and he didn't like to see her wear any
makeup.

Mr. JENNER. Did any discussions respecting that occur at your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; she told me this. Don't ask me how. We just got it
across to each other, you know.

Mr. JENNER. How did she communicate with you?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, when two people get together, if you try hard enough
you will get your idea across. If you have a dictionary and two hands,
you will get the idea across, and that is how we managed to, you know,
get our ideas fairly well across most of the time. But we didn't make
too great an attempt at speaking because it was so much effort. But I
do know this about makeup and smoking.

Mr. JENNER. Were there arguments between them on the subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, I'd say maybe small ones. He didn't like her to wear
lipstick and she liked to, things like that. She did like to smoke.

Mr. JENNER. What about his reading habits?

Mrs. GIBSON. He read a lot.

Mr. JENNER. How do you know that?

Mrs. GIBSON. My father had given him books to read. He was very much
interested in them.

Mr. JENNER. Did he have them with him at times when he was at your
place?

Mrs. GIBSON. One book I think he gave me that my father had asked him
to give me or I gave him that my father had asked him to give me, one
way or the other, it was called "Animal Farm."

Mr. JENNER. What is that book about?

Mrs. GIBSON. It is a satire, I guess. It is about animals, but it is a
takeoff on people. Orwell--did he write it?

Mr. JENNER. I think so. What is your recollection as to whether you
gave Oswald that book to read or whether your father gave it to him to
read?

Mrs. GIBSON. One way or the other it got to me. Either my father gave
it to me to read and I gave it to Lee or he gave it to Lee to read and
then Lee gave it to me. It was one way or the other.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember any other books?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think my father gave him some literature. I don't know
what it was, though. Oh, "1984" was another book that he read.

Mr. JENNER. Did he indicate that he had read it before?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe that he had. That was by Orwell, too, wasn't it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; it was. Did he indicate that he had read "1984" when
he was a Marine at El Toro, Calif.?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I think he read it again. My father had it and my
father read it, and I think Lee said he wanted to read it again.

Mr. JENNER. Did he ever discuss that book in your presence?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. What else do you recall as to the titles of books he read?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he read the "Rise and the Fall of the Third
Reich." He read Hitler's, what would it be, autobiography?

Mr. JENNER. "Mein Kampf"?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he read the Marx book--what was that, was that the
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? No; what was it, about Marxism?

Mr. JENNER. "Das Kapital"?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know what it was, but anyway, he read a book
that Marx wrote on Marxism, and that is about all I can recall on his
literature.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall some people or a person whose first name was
Natasha or Evalina?

Mrs. GIBSON. I know Natasha.

Mr. JENNER. How did Natasha come into this?

Mrs. GIBSON. First you will have to give me her last name so I am sure
I have got the right one.

Mr. JENNER. I can't give it to you.

Mrs. GIBSON. You don't have it?

Mr. JENNER. I can't because I don't know.

Mrs. GIBSON. You can't because you don't have it? Really?

Mr. JENNER. Really.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, Natasha was a friend of my parents. They got in some
numerous squabbles and sometimes they'd part.

Mr. JENNER. Was she a single lady?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; she has a husband.

Mr. JENNER. They lived in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; they are Russian. I can't think of her last name for
the life of me. Now, I don't know if Natasha knew Lee or not. Natasha
was a friend of my father and Jeanne. They got in numerous squabbles.
Their friendship would break off and then they'd come back together
again after a few months after the squabble had quieted down. Now,
whether she knew Lee or not, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. You mentioned that in one of your interviews, and my query
of you is what led you to mention that, Natasha?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, being that she was one of the Russian colony I
figured probably she would know them. That is all.

Mr. JENNER. You were speculating?

Mrs. GIBSON. Speculating; that is all. Whether she did or not, I have
no idea.

Mr. JENNER. In one of your interviews you stated that after Marina had
stayed with you, she had moved into the Hall's. Does that refresh your
recollection that that 3- or 4-day period was immediately preceding her
moving into the Hall's?

Mrs. GIBSON. No. When all those questions were given to me, I didn't
have much time to think. It was completely by surprise. And when I said
that, I meant the first day, because as you found out, those days that
I am talking about are extremely vague. Why I don't know, but they are
very vague.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether possibly Oswald stayed with his
mother in Fort Worth?

Mrs. GIBSON. Maybe.

Mr. JENNER. In this period, say, from October 19 through November 3?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe he did, because he had to be in
Dallas. He couldn't commute to Dallas every day. Does his mother say
this?

Mr. JENNER. No. Do you have any recollection that Oswald stayed in the
Elsbeth Street apartment before Marina was moved in?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe he did.

Mr. JENNER. Did any discussion occur as to whether Oswald had renounced
or attempted to renounce his American citizenship?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was the subject even discussed?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, it was when he told us about how, you know, the
Russians wanted him to give it up.

Mr. JENNER. And he declined to?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was Marina politically minded?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I wouldn't say so.

Mr. JENNER. But she was religious?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I'd say she was.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of Oswald as to his intellect?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he was very intelligent.

Mr. JENNER. Was he articulate?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And what about his argumentation?

Mrs. GIBSON. Very good. He could make almost anybody believe what he
was saying.

Mr. JENNER. He was strong in his convictions?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Unbending?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any impression of whether he was quick-tempered
or prone to violence?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he was very quick tempered.

Mr. JENNER. He flared up, did he, during these arguments?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And other things, with your husband?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not with my husband. With his wife. He got disgusted,
I think, with our stupidity, as he called it, which used to infuriate
me. I don't particularly like being called stupid, and he used to call
us stupid a lot.

Mr. JENNER. Was that because you differed in your view?

Mrs. GIBSON. Differed with him.

Mr. JENNER. From him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; that was his favorite word, we were stupid, we
weren't using our brains. He'd come up with something like, "How could
you possibly say such a thing?"

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever pick him up at the Jaggars place of business?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Your father and your stepmother now reside in Haiti?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When did they go to Haiti?

Mrs. GIBSON. Last year some time.

Mr. JENNER. June of 1963.

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Have you seen your father or your stepmother since then?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I saw them a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. JENNER. When they were here to testify, they dropped by to see you,
did they?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your husband Donald Gibson is a native-born American?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In an interview on December 3, 1963, you are reported
to have said that Lee Oswald occasionally came to your apartment,
of yourself and your husband, and although Marina stayed at your
apartment, only about 2 weeks, Oswald continued to visit on occasions.
Does that refresh your recollection that this stay of Marina at your
home was longer than 3 to 4 days?

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been misunderstood. If I had said 2 weeks
I must have meant in all, meaning putting all your days together,
because I never would have said 2 weeks meaning a solid period of time
of 2 weeks.

Mr. JENNER. I think that is about all. I neglected to do this, Mrs.
Gibson. You received a letter from Mr. Rankin, did you not?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. General counsel for the Commission, with which he enclosed
a copy of the legislation, Senate Joint Resolution 137, authorizing the
creation of this Commission?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. A copy of President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130
which created the Commission?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And fixed its scope and its powers and its duties and
responsibilities, which in general are to investigate the circumstances
surrounding leading up to, and involving the assassination of President
John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And, also, a copy of the rules and regulations of the
Commission under which depositions are taken?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you understand from all those papers that the
Commission is interviewing people who had, fortunately, or
unfortunately, touched the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and others?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And we had understood and as has now been revealed you did
have a connection with or some connection with the Oswalds?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Which you have now elucidated.

I am Albert E. Jenner, Jr., one of the members of the legal staff of
the Commission, and Mr. Mosk, who was present earlier, likewise is a
member. Now, having in mind the objects and purposes and duties of
the Commission, is there anything that occurs to you that you would
like to add that you think would be helpful to the Commission in its
investigation of this subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. All right, that is all I have, and I appreciate very much
your coming here today. I know it is a considerable inconvenience.




AFFIDAVIT OF RUTH HYDE PAINE

The following affidavit was executed by Ruth Hyde Paine on June 24,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

Ruth Hyde Paine, being affirmed, says:

1. I reside at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. I am the Ruth Hyde
Paine who testified before the Commission on March 18, 19 and 20, 1964,
and gave testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. at the offices of
the Commission on Saturday, March 21, 1964, and gave further testimony
by deposition in my home the evening of Monday, March 23, 1964.

2. On the occasion of Saturday, November 9, 1963, about which I
testified before the Commission, when I took Marina and Lee Oswald in
my station wagon to the Texas Automobile Drivers Bureau Station in
the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, Texas, to enable Lee Oswald to make
application for an automobile driver's learner's permit, each of my two
children and both of the Oswald children, June and Rachel, accompanied
us.

3. Upon our arrival at the Automobile Drivers License Bureau, which
was located in a shopping center area in Oak Cliff, we discovered
that the Automobile Drivers License Bureau was closed. All of us went
down the street to a ten cent store which was located approximately
three doors down the street from the Automobile Drivers License Bureau
Station. We entered the store. I purchased some child panties for my
children and Marina selected and Lee paid for an infant's pacifier.

4. After we made the purchases, all of us returned to my station wagon,
entered it, and I drove directly to my home in Irving, Texas. Upon
arrival there, all of us entered my home where we remained throughout
the balance of that day and evening. Marina and Lee Oswald and their
children were present in my home throughout the two following days and
evenings, November 10 and 11, 1963. Lee Oswald returned to his work at
the Texas School Book Depository Tuesday morning, November 12, 1963. I
was present in my home throughout November 10 and 11, 1963, except as
described in paragraph 13.

5. During the course of my testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C.
on Saturday, March 21, 1964, Mr. Jenner examined me with respect to the
various entries in my calendar diary, Commission Exhibit No. 401, for
the period commencing and following September 24, 1963, including, in
particular, those entries respecting baby and child clinic appointments
for June Oswald and Rachel Oswald, in clinics in Irving, Texas, and
in Dallas, Texas, as well as other appointments for June Oswald. On
all occasions following Marina's return to my home from Parkland
Hospital on October 22, 1963, following the birth of her daughter
Rachel on October 20, 1963, when baby clinic, dental and other medical
and physical attention appointments for either of Marina's children
were made, and about which I have heretofore testified, I drove to
the clinic or doctor's office in my station wagon accompanied by each
of my children and by Marina and both of her children. This was so
irrespective of which of Marina's children was to receive medical or
other attention.

6. There were a number of occasions subsequent to September 24, 1963,
on which Marina and both of her children accompanied me when I drove in
my station wagon to shops, grocery stores, etc., in and about Irving,
Texas, to do limited shopping or purchase food stuffs. On each of these
occasions, we were also accompanied by my children. Understandably,
Marina desired "to get out of the house" and visit with me around
Irving, Texas, when convenient to me. I understood this and often went
out of my way to invite her to come with me. She always brought her
daughter June and after the birth of her daughter Rachel, also brought
her.

7. On none of the above occasions did we shop in or visit or enter
any furniture store. This includes the Furniture Mart, a store that
was located at 149 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas, which I now
understand was owned and operated during its existence by one Edith
Whitworth.

8. There were only two occasions during all the period in the Fall of
1963 that I took Marina and Lee together in my station wagon to Dallas,
Texas, or anywhere in Irving, Texas. One occasion was a trip to Dallas,
Texas, the morning of November 9, 1963, which I have mentioned above.
(The other is described in paragraph 14.) I do not know Mrs. Whitworth.
I never visited her place of business, nor did I ever drive Lee Oswald
or Marina to that place of business; and, to the best of my knowledge
and recollection, Marina was never at or in that place of business with
or without Lee Oswald during the period she resided in my home in the
Fall of 1963.

9. At no time after Marina and I and our children arrived in Irving,
Texas, on September 24, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, did I ever
take Lee Oswald or Marina Oswald to the Irving Sports Shop, which is
located at 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas. I was quite aware
during all of this period of Marina's activities and where she was. I
know of no occasion when either she or Lee Oswald visited either the
Furniture Mart or the Irving Sports Shop.

10. There was no occasion during the period Marina resided with me in
the Fall of 1963, of which I was aware or now recollect, that Marina
rode either in my station wagon or any other automobile or means of
conveyance with Lee Oswald at the wheel. Neither the Irving Sports Shop
nor Mrs. Whitworth nor Dyal Ryder was ever mentioned in my presence by
either of the Oswalds.

11. I never drove Lee Oswald, with or without Marina, to any area or
place in or about either Dallas, Fort Worth, or Irving, Texas, to
enable Lee Oswald to engage in rifle practice. I did not know until the
afternoon of November 22, 1963, that he possessed or owned a firearm
of any kind or character. At no time prior to November 25, 1963, did I
know or had I heard of anybody by the name of Dyal Ryder.

12. Lee Oswald was not in my home and to the best of my knowledge
was not in Irving, Texas, at any time on November 6 or 7, 1963. My
recollection is clear that on each of those days, as well as November
8, 1963, Marina and her two children, June and Rachel, were present
in my home day and night. Lee Oswald arrived at my home from Dallas,
Texas, between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on November 8, 1963, for his
customary week-end visit, which as to this particular week-end was to
extend over through Armistice Day, November 11, 1963. Except for the
trip to Dallas, Texas, on November 9, 1963, which I have described
above, Lee Oswald remained in my home from the time of his arrival,
the late afternoon of November 8, 1963, until he departed for Dallas,
Texas, in the early morning of November 12, 1963.

13. I was not present in my home for part of the day on November 11,
1963. As I testified, I made a trip that day, which was Armistice
Day and a holiday, to Dallas, Texas. I was gone from approximately
9:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Not wishing to burden Lee and Marina with my
children, I had them stay at my neighbors the Craigs. Marina and Lee
Oswald and their children were in my home when I left and were there
when I returned. Based upon my conversation with Marina and Lee Oswald,
and my understanding of their plans for the day, it is my clear opinion
that all of them remained in my home during my trip to and from Dallas.

14. There was one occasion in addition to the occasion of Nov. 9, 1963,
which I have described above, that I drove Marina and Lee in my station
wagon to Dallas, Texas. On Monday, October 14, which was the day before
Lee Oswald obtained a position at the Texas School Book Depository,
I drove him to Dallas, Texas. We were accompanied by Marina and her
child June as well as by my children. I testified about this event. We
left Lee Oswald off in Dallas at Ross Avenue near LaMarr. I then took
my typewriter to a shop in Dallas for repair and Marina and I and our
children returned to Irving, Texas.

Signed this 24th day of June 1964.

    (S) Ruth Hyde Paine,
        RUTH HYDE PAINE.




AFFIDAVIT OF M. WALDO GEORGE

The following affidavit was executed by M. Waldo George on June 12,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

M. Waldo George, 6769 Inverness Street, Dallas, being duly sworn says:

1. I am the office manager of Tucker Manning Insurance Company. I
am the owner of the premises at 214 Neeley Street, Dallas, Texas,
consisting of two apartments, one upper and one lower. In the latter
part of January 1963 the upper apartment became vacant and I posted it
"For Rent" by means of an appropriate sign in the yard in front of the
premises.

2. On March 2, 1963, I was advised by Mrs. George that an individual by
the name of "Oswald" had inquired about renting the apartment. Later
that day I met the individual who identified himself as Lee H. Oswald.
I advised him that the rent for the apartment was $60 per month, and he
rented the apartment on a month-to-month basis, paying me $60 in cash
for one month's rent in advance.

3. On April 1, 1963, I collected $60 in cash from Oswald, covering rent
for the month of April 1963 to and including May 2, 1963.

4. Shortly after this occasion the downstairs tenants, Mr. and Mrs.
George B. Gray, called me and informed me that the man in the upstairs
apartment was beating his wife. I made no inquiry into this subject
matter.

5. Two or three days later, myself and Mrs. George called on the
Oswalds in their apartment and invited them to attend Gaston Avenue
Baptist Church with us. He informed me and Mrs. George that he attended
the Russian Orthodox Church although they were not regular in their
attendance, because they had to depend on their friends to take them.

6. During this visit Oswald stated that he had met his wife while he
was serving in the United States Marines as a guard at the United
States Embassy in Russia, and had married his wife in Russia. I made
direct inquiry of him as to whether he had had any difficulty in
getting out of Russia with his wife and he said that he had had no
difficulty whatsoever.

7. Neither myself or Mrs. George saw Oswald again at any time
thereafter. Oswald did not pay rent for the succeeding rental period
of May 2 through June 2, 1963. Because my attention was diverted by
other matters, I did not go by the apartment to collect the rent for
that period until several days after May 2, 1963. When I arrived at the
apartment I found it vacant.

Signed this 12th day of June 1964 at Dallas Texas.

    (S) M. Waldo George,
        M. WALDO GEORGE.




TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM KIRK STUCKEY

The testimony of William Kirk Stuckey was taken at 9:35 a.m., on June
6, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Albert E.
Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. JENNER. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, in your deposition which you are about to
give?

Mr. STUCKEY. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Be seated. State your full name?

Mr. STUCKEY. William Kirk Stuckey.

Mr. JENNER. I regret, Mr. Stuckey, that we have to inconvenience you
to have you back to have your deposition taken again. But through some
happenstance in New Orleans, the transcript of your deposition never
went beyond the U.S. attorney's office apparently, and we appreciate
your willingness to come up here and be with us today so that I can
depose you again. When I took your deposition before you had received a
letter from Mr. Rankin, had you not?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. I guess I called you when I was down there, didn't I?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And I explained to you at that time, the time before when
I took your deposition, however, the legislation under which the
Commission was authorized and the Executive order of the President
creating the Commission and the rules and regulations of the Commission
on the taking of depositions?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I understand that.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. In effect, we want to inquire of you in
particular with respect to the course of events in which you
interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in New Orleans in 1963 at
some radio broadcasts which you, in your professional capacity, that
is, your professional business, had organized, had put on, and you had
some fairly extended acquaintance with Oswald in a professional sense.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Would you like me to tell you from the very first?

Mr. JENNER. Well, I think for the very first, for the purpose of the
record, identify yourself, who you were then and who you are now, and
your profession and business and associations.

Mr. STUCKEY. Fine. At present I am employed at Tulane University as
a special writer. In this capacity I write a syndicated column on
higher education which Tulane distributes to 85 newspapers throughout
the country. In August 1963 I was a broadcaster with WDSU Radio, New
Orleans. This is the NBC station. I had a weekly 5-minute radio
program on economic and political developments in Latin America. I had
been in this particular specialty for about 2 years previous. Prior to
that I was a columnist with New Orleans States Item, with an interest
in Latin America. As a result I had been looking for a long time for
representatives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in that area.

Mr. JENNER. If you would excuse me a second, would you give me your
formal education because, as I recall in taking your deposition in New
Orleans, you acquired some interest in South American relations which
led you into looking for something on this Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Formal education was a B.S. degree in journalism
from Southern Methodist University in Dallas. After graduation I went
into the Marine Corps and completed 2 years of service, after which I
spent some 8 months in Central America and Mexico traveling around,
essentially hitchhiking, some walking, some third-class bus riding,
in which I acquired a good deal of Spanish and an interest in the
countries.

Mr. JENNER. What is a third-class bus?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is where the goats and chickens aren't on top; they
are in there with you.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. STUCKEY. After I returned I went into the newspaper business.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, how old are you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Thirty-two.

Mr. JENNER. You are married?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; and----

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a family and you live in New Orleans?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is your address?

Mr. STUCKEY. 2317 State Street, and I have two children. I went into
the newspaper business after returning from Latin America, working
largely as a political reporter for a number of years.

Mr. JENNER. Were you giving attention to any particular phase of
politics?

Mr. STUCKEY. Local government?

Mr. JENNER. Thinking of it in the higher sense--local government.

Mr. STUCKEY. You mean in a higher sense, in a subject category?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. I was interested particularly in planning and zoning.

Mr. JENNER. Did you acquire also an interest in South American
relations?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; well, I had this interest, but I had no opportunity
to exercise this interest in my work until the New Orleans States
Item made me a columnist. This was in February 1962 when I started my
column, and this extended on until April, I believe it was, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. What was the title of that column?

Mr. STUCKEY. New Orleans and the Americas. That was really my first
professional involvement in Latin American affairs. After I left the
paper, doing public relations, I acquired this radio program, this
radio broadcast, which was a very short thing. It was largely to keep
my name in front of the public in this capacity. And----

Mr. JENNER. That was a broadcast program?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. It was put on regularly, was it?

Mr. STUCKEY. Once a week.

Mr. JENNER. And it is the NBC station down there?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Radio and television or just radio?

Mr. STUCKEY. Radio.

Mr. JENNER. That program had a title?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; Latin Listening Post.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us in general the character of that program and to
what you were directing your attention.

Mr. STUCKEY. Politics and economics. I inquired a bit about the Cuban
situation. I had a number of programs that I think you would classify
as news features. They didn't particularly have current events value,
but they were interesting topics, and I just went and talked about
them. I talked about social welfare programs in Uruguay, the Mexican
Revolution; Central American common market; the character of the Latin
American university student, this sort of thing.

Occasionally, when I had a live one, when I heard there was somebody
in town who was a Latin bigwig, I would bring him on and we would talk
whatever he wanted to talk about.

Mr. JENNER. How did you organize those programs?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well----

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any preliminary discussions with the people
you were going to have on your programs?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, yes; sometimes I took up to 3 to 4 days to prepare a
5-minute broadcast.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Actually it is 5 minutes which demands about 700 words,
which was just about as long or longer than the column that I used to
write, so these columns, 700 words, which would run about a column and
a half of type in the paper, consumed within a 5-minute period on the
broadcast. Anything else along that line?

Mr. JENNER. I think that covers it generally. Tell us the nature of
your work with Tulane University.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You became associated with Tulane when?

Mr. STUCKEY. In January, January 6.

Mr. JENNER. Of this year?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is the nature of that work?

Mr. STUCKEY. I write a syndicated column on higher education. The
column is called Dimension in Education. We deal with all manner of
events and affairs affecting higher education, and sometimes things
that do not affect higher education. I roam the spectrum of interest in
the things. It is extremely interesting.

I sometimes write about such things as the Common Market, the
humanities versus science, all this sort of thing, all the current
controversies we get into.

Mr. JENNER. Is that in the nature of public relations work?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; very soft shell public relations. Sometimes we don't
even mention Tulane. It is just that I think probably Tulane just wants
to be established as a fount of wisdom in this particular field, and
that is why they print these reports.

Mr. JENNER. During the year 1963, did an event occur, a series of
events occur, in which you became acquainted with a man by the name of
Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In your own words, taking it from the very first instant of
the course of events, perhaps even before you met this man, tell us in
your own words, and it doesn't have to be chronological, but the way
you would put it out, about it.

Mr. STUCKEY. Fine. As I told you before, as a Latin American columnist
and one interested in affairs, I had been looking for some time in New
Orleans for representatives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. There
haven't been any. Most of the organizations that I had contact with in
my work----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--how did you learn about the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee?

Mr. STUCKEY. I was going to get to that.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. Most of the organizations that I had contact with were
refugee organizations, very violently anti-Castro groups, and there
were a number of them in New Orleans. These people were news sources
for me also. I used them quite frequently. One day, I think it was
in August, the latter part of July of 1963, I was in the bank, and I
ran across a refugee friend of mine by the name of Carlos Bringuier.
Bringuier told me----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--identify Mr. Bringuier.

Mr. STUCKEY. Mr. Bringuier at that time was the New Orleans delegate to
the Revolutionary Student Directorate which was an anti-Castro group
with headquarters in Miami. He also ran a clothing store called Casa
Roca. He was an attorney in Havana before the Revolution, the Cuban
Revolution of 1958, and had been very active ever since I had known
him in New Orleans in anti-Castro activity. I had interviewed him on
a number of occasions in connection with Cuban current events. Mr.
Bringuier ran into me in the bank, and I spoke to him and he said that
a representative of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had appeared in
New Orleans and that he had had an encounter with him shortly before.

Mr. JENNER. That interested you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, very much, very much, because I knew something of the
reputation of this group. I regarded them as being about the leading
pro-Castro organization in this country, a propaganda organ for the
Castro forces, and I had done a considerable amount of reading of
congressional testimony, articles, and this sort of thing about their
activities. Mr. Bringuier said he had had an encounter with a young man
who was representing the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--you had known Bringuier and you had had contact
with him; had he ever been on your program up to this moment that you
speak of?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he had never been on my program, but, as a
newspaperman, I had contacted him quite frequently for information.

Mr. JENNER. Proceed.

Mr. STUCKEY. He told me that--this is in the bank--a few days before, I
don't recall exactly----

Mr. JENNER. This was a chance meeting?

Mr. STUCKEY. This was a chance meeting with Mr. Bringuier. I was
cashing my paycheck and Bringuier told me a few days before he had
run into this fellow in his store, this Casa Roca--this young man had
approached him.

Mr. JENNER. A young man had come in?

Mr. STUCKEY. A young man. At the time he had mentioned no name. If he
had, it wouldn't have made any difference to me because the name meant
nothing.

He said a young man came in, introduced himself and said he was a
veteran of the Marine Corps, he had just gotten out, and that he was
very disturbed by this Cuban situation and he wanted to do something
about hurting Castro, or trying to change the regime. He, in some
way----

Mr. JENNER. This was something this up-to-the-moment unnamed young man
had said to Mr. Bringuier?

Mr. STUCKEY. Had said to Mr. Bringuier as Bringuier recounted it to me
later. I am telling you Bringuier's story now.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I wanted to make clear that you were.

Mr. STUCKEY. Right. Now, this young man said somehow he knew Bringuier
was connected with the Revolutionary Student Directorate, how, I don't
know. But, at any rate, as I said, he offered his services.

Then he presented a Marine Corps Handbook to Bringuier. He said, "This
might help you out in your guerrilla activities and such. This is my
own personal Marine Corps Handbook", which Bringuier accepted. That
was the gist of the conversation. Bringuier told me that sometime
after that, I don't recall exactly how long it was, he was walking
on Canal Street, the main street of New Orleans, about a block away
from his store, and he ran into this young man again. This time he was
distributing literature, handbills, and the handbills said, "Hands
Off Cuba", and on the handbill it said, "Join the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee in New Orleans, Charter Member Branch".

It was this same young man. Bringuier, who was a rather excitable
fellow, and he couldn't understand why this fellow was now distributing
pro-Castro literature whereas a short time before he had posed as an
anti-Castro man. So Bringuier got into a shouting match with him on the
street corner, and I think some blows were exchanged, I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. Bringuier is again telling you this?

Mr. STUCKEY. This is what Bringuier is telling me, because I did not
witness this. At any rate, regardless of what happened, I don't know
the exact sequence of events, the police arrived on the scene and took
everybody down to the jail. Oswald was booked for disturbing the peace,
and I think later fined $10, and let go. Well, this is what Bringuier
told me in the bank.

Mr. JENNER. I may assume up to this moment you had not seen anything in
the newspapers on this subject?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I hadn't. There wouldn't have been anything in the
newspaper had it not been in my column, and my column at that time did
not exist.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. STUCKEY. So I mentioned to Bringuier that I was interested in
locating this fellow and talking to him. Bringuier gave me his name.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall that this was the early part of August?

Mr. STUCKEY. Or the latter part of July, I am not really sure. It
wasn't--I would say probably the early part of August. It was a Friday.
I can tell you that.

Mr. JENNER. It was August 9, 1963.

Mr. STUCKEY. That is quite possible. So I inquired as to the name and
the address of this fellow, and telephone, if any, and Bringuier said
his name was Lee Oswald, and he lived on Magazine Street, somewhere in
the 4000 block, I forget the exact address, and he had no telephone.
This was a Friday. My program is on a Saturday.

I decided that early the next morning I would go by this address
and ask Oswald if he would appear on my program. So very early, it
was about 8 o'clock the following--wait a minute, I am losing some
chronology. This was not the next Saturday. Then some time elapsed,
and, at any rate, it was August 17 when I went by his house. I forget
now exactly why this time did elapse, but it did.

Mr. JENNER. Had he again distributed handbills?

Mr. STUCKEY. To my knowledge; no. He may have. He may have. But, of
course, I had no particular interest in it, and the papers were not
carrying stories about it, and I, well, just had no contact with him at
all.

I did not meet him until August 17, at which time I went by his house
on Magazine Street to ask him to appear on my program. This was early
in the morning, about 8 o'clock. I went early because I wanted to get
him before he left.

Mr. JENNER. This was a Saturday?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is a Saturday. I knocked on the door, and this young
fellow came out, without a shirt. He had a pair of Marine Corps fatigue
trousers on. I asked him, "Are you Lee Oswald?" And he said "Yes."

I introduced myself and I told him I would like to have him on my
program that night. So he asked me in on the porch. This was a screened
porch, and I had a very brief chat. He said he would ask me inside for
some coffee but that his wife and his baby were sleeping so we had
better talk on the porch.

Mr. JENNER. Describe this Magazine Street place. Were you able to find
it easily?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; no problem. It was on the side of the house--or the
entrance was on the side.

Mr. JENNER. Was on the side and somewhat back from the front?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; it was facing the street; it wasn't facing the side
of the property, but it was offset, to the rear.

Mr. JENNER. Frame house?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; it was a frame house, as well as I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. So we had a few cursory remarks there about the
organization. He showed me his membership card to the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee, which was interesting, and it identified him as
the secretary of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee, and it was signed by A. Hidell, president.

Mr. JENNER. Was that president or secretary?

Mr. STUCKEY. President, A. Hidell. He was identified on the card, as I
recall, as the secretary.

Mr. JENNER. That is, Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oswald; yes. It was a card on which there was a
handwritten--it said "Mr." and then a blank, and a handwritten name
"Lee Oswald" was in the center of the card. In the lower right-hand
corner it was signed by A. Hidell, president.

Mr. JENNER. Was this name familiar to you?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; as a matter of fact, I would like to explain this,
that the name meant nothing to me at all, and the name never occurred
to me again, I never thought of the name again, until after the
assassination when Mr. Henry Wade of Dallas on television on a Sunday,
I believe, mentioned that Oswald purchased a rifle from a Chicago
mail-order house and had used the name A. Hidell in purchasing the
rifle. When he said "A. Hidell" it hit me like, it was like a light
bulb over my head, I recalled the name. Otherwise I would never have
remembered the name.

Oswald gave me some pieces of literature at this time. There were
several--I will mention them if you would like.

Mr. JENNER. I wish you would.

Mr. STUCKEY. There were two speeches by Fidel Castro. One was "The
Revolution Must Be a School of Unfettered Thought." Another was
"Bureaucracy and Sectarianism." There was a pamphlet by Jean Paul
Sartre, and this pamphlet was called "Ideology and Revolution."

There was a pamphlet called "The Crime Against Cuba," by Corliss
Lamont. I believe that is all the literature that he gave me at that
time. I got some subsequently to that which, incidentally, Mr. Jenner.
I promised you that pamphlet the last time I saw you, and I couldn't
find it, but I have since found it, and I brought it up for you. I will
give it to you now before I forget.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. I will show you what is marked Garner Exhibit No. 1
and ask you if you recognize the person shown on that photograph.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; that is Lee Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Does it look like him as of the time that you interviewed
him on Saturday, August 17?

Mr. STUCKEY. Almost exactly. He was dressed almost in exactly the same
way, with a short-sleeved dress shirt, and a tie, and a black looseleaf
notebook under his arm which apparently he used as a holder for
literature.

Mr. JENNER. I hand you a series of exhibits, Pizzo Exhibits Nos. 453-A,
453-B, and 453-C. Would you examine those and tell me whether your
friend, Mr. Bringuier, is shown on any of those photographs?

Mr. STUCKEY. He is not there.

Mr. JENNER. You were referring to Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A; he is not on
that one?

Mr. STUCKEY. No. Pizzo Exhibit 453-C is of Oswald alone.

Mr. JENNER. Pizzo Exhibit 453-C is a picture of Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Pizzo Exhibit 453-B is also Oswald, but Bringuier is
not in the picture.

Mr. JENNER. All right. We will mark the pamphlet you have brought with
you, which is entitled "The Cuban 'Episode' and the American Press:
April 9-23, 1961" as Stuckey Exhibit No. 1.

(The pamphlet was marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Handing you Stuckey Exhibit No. 1, being a 15-page
pamphlet--I guess it is 16 including the back cover--is that one of the
pamphlets that he handed to you and exhibited to you on August 17 and
Saturday morning when you interviewed him in his home?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; this is not one. I received this pamphlet that night
when he showed up at the radio station.

Mr. JENNER. We will go into it later on, but I think for purposes of
identification, was it a pamphlet that he gave you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he gave it to me.

Mr. JENNER. Prior to the radio broadcast you are about to describe?

Mr. STUCKEY. Immediately prior to that. Incidentally, I requested all
the literature that he had.

Mr. JENNER. You did?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; and he gave me everything he could find that morning
which were the four or five pieces I have already described. Then at
night he says, "Look, I found this also", and he brought this.

Mr. JENNER. Meaning Stuckey Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. STUCKEY. Stuckey Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. JENNER. I offer Stuckey Exhibit No. 1 in evidence. All right, we
had you still on Saturday morning talking with him at his home on
Magazine Street.

Mr. STUCKEY. Right. We discussed literature, his literature, the pieces
of information I have already described. He showed me the Fair Play
for Cuba Committee membership card. I asked him about the membership
of this organization, and he said there were quite a few, quite a few
members. The figure 12 or 13 sticks in my head. I don't really recall
why now. There were that many officers or something like that, 12 or
13 people he mentioned that he was responsible to, or active workers,
something like that, although I guess I shouldn't mention it until I
have a more coherent idea of why he used that.

Mr. JENNER. Just give your best recollection of what he said on that
occasion.

Mr. STUCKEY. Right. Also as I recall, he was very vehement, insisting
he was not the president, but was the secretary, and that was the
occasion in which he pulled out his card showing that he was the
secretary, not the president, and this other gentleman, Hidell, was the
president.

Mr. JENNER. Did that strike you in any special way that he was
apparently careful to point out to you that he was secretary instead of
president?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it made no impression on me, none whatsoever. It
seemed logical. He appeared to be a very logical, intelligent fellow,
and the only strange thing about him was his organization. This was,
seemed, incongruous to me that a group of this type--or he should
associate with a group of this type, because he did not seem the type
at all, or at least what I have in my mind as the type.

I would like to mention this. I was arrested by his cleancutness. I
didn't expect this at all. I expected a folk-singer type, something of
that kind, somebody with a beard and sandals, and he said--I found this
fellow, instead I found this fellow who was neat and clean, watched
himself pretty well.

Mr. JENNER. You mean he watched his----

Mr. STUCKEY. He seemed to be very conscious about all of his words, all
of his movements, sort of very deliberate. He was very deliberate with
his words, and struck me as being rather articulate. He was the type of
person you would say would inspire confidence. This was the incongruity
that struck me, the fact that this type of person should be with this
organization. That is the gist of the first meeting.

I asked him to meet me at the radio station that afternoon about 5
o'clock for the interview, and he agreed.

Mr. JENNER. This was to be an interview preliminary to a broadcast?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, this was to be a recorded interview prior to the
broadcast.

Mr. JENNER. Why would you do that?

Mr. STUCKEY. To avoid the possibility of errors. It is a risky business
going on live. You know, you never know when you are going to slip up
and, particularly, with somebody as controversial as a representative
of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee you want to know what you have in
hand before you put it on.

During that day I thought quite a bit about Oswald before he arrived
at the station for the interview, and I was interested in his
articulateness and in discussing this organization, so I had decided
during the day that instead of just interviewing him for 5 minutes,
which was the length of my program, that I would just let him talk as
long as he wanted to.

Mr. JENNER. In the private interview with you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; but record it.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; of course.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. And then I thought after doing that I could take some
excerpts out for a 5-minute program, and then ask the management at the
station if they would be interested in running the whole thing in toto
as a demonstration of the line of this organization. So this was the
decision I made before the broadcast.

I drew up a lengthy list of questions, and then I met him that
afternoon about 5 o'clock at the studios of WDSU, 520 Royal Street, New
Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. That is in the French Quarter, is it not?

Mr. STUCKEY. In the French Quarter. He was dressed exactly as he is
shown in this picture.

Mr. JENNER. Garner Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. STUCKEY. Which is Exhibit No. 1, short-sleeved dress shirt with
a tie, a black looseleaf notebook under his arm. There were no
preliminary remarks particularly. We just went immediately into the
studio. It was at this point that he gave me this pamphlet.

Mr. JENNER. Stuckey Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct. And we were seated--this conversation
was witnessed or listened to by an engineer in WDSU by the name of Al
Campin.

Mr. JENNER. Was that prearranged?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, you have to have an engineer to record it.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. STUCKEY. He just happened to be there operating the equipment, but
he was, I mean he was, there, as a witness, and was greatly interested
in it, because like me he hadn't run across too many of these birds,
and we were curious to see how they thought and why.

So at that time then we began a long rambling recorded interview which
lasted 37 minutes, covered a wide range of subjects.

Naturally, a lot of the subjects had to do with Cuba. We discussed the
problem of the refugees leaving Cuba, we discussed as to whether or not
Castro was an independent ruler of an independent nation or whether he
was merely the head of a colony which was the line that I took.

Mr. JENNER. Head of a colony?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; a Russian colony, Cuba. This was the line that I took
in this questioning.

We discussed the economic situation in Cuba, as to what had happened
to the economy since Castro took over. We discussed a few abstracts. I
asked him the definition of "democracy," which was interesting to me.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a transcript of that interview?

Mr. STUCKEY. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Have you brought one with you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. May I have it, please?

Mr. STUCKEY. Incidentally, I have a letter here that you may or may
not be interested in. Father Clancy is the chairman of the political
science department at Loyola University in New Orleans. I sent him this
transcript as a Catholic and as a political science man just to see
what his opinion was, and he went much stronger than I ever did after
reading that, but the last paragraph, I thought, was interesting, and I
thought you might be interested in reading the letter.

Mr. JENNER. The witness has furnished me a 13-page document on
light-weight, green-tinted paper. The first page is entitled
"Transcript of Taped Interview Between William K. Stuckey and Lee
Harvey Oswald, August 17, 1963," and the last page of which, the last
three lines of which, read:

"STUCKEY: Tonight we have been talking with Lee H. Oswald, secretary of
The Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans," et cetera. "(Standard
close.)"

I wonder if you would be good enough, Mr. Stuckey, to initial each of
these 13 pages. We will mark this as Stuckey Exhibit No. 2. I suggest
you put your initials at the bottom.

(The document was marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The witness has now placed his initials at the foot of each
of the 13 pages of the transcript.

When and how was this document prepared, Stuckey Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. I typed it.

Mr. JENNER. You typed it as you were listening to your tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You have also brought with you the actual original tape of
this interview?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is the radio tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And this 13-page document is a literal transcription or
translation of that tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; there are some errors, but they are very, very small
errors, largely typographical errors.

Mr. JENNER. Prepared by you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you look at the 13-page document, and if there are
any errors other than obvious typographical errors which you would like
to draw to our attention, I wish you would do it. You were going to
look through it and see if there were----

Mr. STUCKEY. I can tell you in advance there are no errors in fact,
and no deletions, with the exception of this last paragraph which I
abbreviated by saying "standard close." All that was, was I would have
been talking with Lee Harvey Oswald--"This is Bill Stuckey, Latin
Listening Post. Good night"--that is all that was, no facts at all.

Mr. JENNER. The words ("standard close") appearing on the last line of
page 13 is a shorthand way of your designating your customary signoff?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I offer in evidence Stuckey Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. STUCKEY. I was going to refer to this definition of "democracy"
that he gave.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Are you interested in it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. This is interesting to me for a number of reasons, not
just the meaning but how adept this fellow was at taking a question,
any question, and distorting it for his own purposes, saying what
he wanted to say while making you think that he was answering your
question. He was expert in dialectics.

"STUCKEY: What's your definition of democracy?"

Mr. JENNER. You are reading from Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 now?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

"OSWALD: My definition--well, the definition of democracy--that's a
very good one. That's a very controversial viewpoint. You know, it used
to be very clear, but now it is not. You know, when our forefathers
drew up the Constitution they considered that democracy was creating an
atmosphere of freedom of discussion, of argument, of finding the truth;
these rights, well, the classic rights of having life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness. In Latin America they have none of those rights,
none of them at all, and that is my definition of democracy, the right
to be in a minority and not to be suppressed; the right to see for
yourself without government restrictions such countries as Cuba, and we
are restricted from going to Cuba."

The question was, "What is your definition of democracy?", and we
discussed the passport ban as part of the definition.

Mr. JENNER. In other words, he did not respond to your question?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; except obliquely to make the point.

Mr. JENNER. Did you find that he did that--it will appear, of course,
in that transcript----

Mr. STUCKEY. Constantly throughout the interview.

Mr. JENNER. In your discussions with him he parried your questions by
not answering them.

Mr. STUCKEY. He would--his general attack would be "I am glad you
asked that question, it is very good," and then he would proceed to
talk about what he wanted to talk about, and completely ignore your
questions on occasions. So there were at least half a dozen examples of
that.

Mr. JENNER. In the transcript which you have furnished?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you supply a copy of that transcript to anyone else
prior to your bringing Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 today?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. To whom?

Mr. STUCKEY. To the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. JENNER. When you were interviewed by the FBI you supplied the FBI
with a transcript?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; as a matter of fact I gave the tape to the FBI the
Monday following the interview, which would have been August 20, 1963.
I told them I thought it was very interesting, and if they would like
to have a transcript they could copy it, which they did. They made a
copy and then they gave me a copy of their transcript, and returned the
tape to me.

Mr. JENNER. But Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 is the one that you prepared?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. And not one that the FBI prepared.

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

This was on Saturday afternoon. Were you scheduled to go on the air
that evening?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; my broadcast time is 7:30. I met him about 5, about
two and a half hours in advance.

Mr. JENNER. Had you contemplated that the broadcast that evening would
be a discourse only between you and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the way it developed?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is the way it developed.

Mr. JENNER. What was the nature of that broadcast? I should say to you
we have from--what is the radio station?

Mr. STUCKEY. WDSU.

Mr. JENNER. From WDSU we have obtained a copy of that tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. Now, you mean of this tape?

Mr. JENNER. No.

Mr. STUCKEY. Because I don't think they have a copy of that tape.

Mr. JENNER. No; the broadcast that evening I am talking about.

Mr. STUCKEY. Is that right? They located it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Because I tried to find a copy of that mainly to take it
off the market and never did locate it. I couldn't find it. This must
be a recent development.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; but despite that would you tell us about that
broadcast?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

As I said, this was a 37-minute, rambling interview between Oswald and
myself, and following the interview, first we played it back to hear
it. He was satisfied.

Mr. JENNER. That is, you played back the tape of which Exhibit No. 2 is
a transcript?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct; Oswald was satisfied. I think he thought he had
scored quite a coup.

Then I went back over it in his presence and with the engineer's help
excerpted a couple of the remarks by Oswald in this. I forget now
what the excerpts were. It has been so long ago. I think we had his
definition of democracy because that, in particular, struck me, and we
had a couple of his comments in which he said Castro was a free and
independent leader of a free and independent state, and the rest of it,
as I recall, was largely my summarizing of the other principal points
of the 37-minute interview, and it was broadcast on schedule that night.

Mr. JENNER. You had watered it down in length to how many minutes?

Mr. STUCKEY. Five minutes.

Mr. JENNER. Five minutes?

Mr. STUCKEY. Actually 4-1/2.

Mr. JENNER. So you took the portions of your 37-minute interview,
which we now have a transcript of, which is Exhibit No. 2, and boiled
that down to 4-1/2 minutes?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. And that was a radio broadcast?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That evening. All right. Was that your last contact with
Mr. Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it was not.

Mr. JENNER. Following the broadcast did you have any further
conversation with him, that evening?

Mr. STUCKEY. That evening; no. The only thing that did transpire was
I told him that I was going to talk to the news director to see if
the news director was interested in running the entire 37-minute tape
later, and I told him to get in touch with me, Oswald to get in touch
with me Monday, and I would let him know what the news director said,
and that was all the conversation we had that night, and he went his
way.

I did just that the next Monday, I called the news director and
asked him if he had heard the tape, and he said no. I asked him if
he was interested in running it. I told him I thought it was pretty
interesting, and he said, for some reason, he thought that it would be
more spectacular a little bit--there would be more public interest if
we did not run this tape at all, but instead arrange a second program,
a debate panel show, with some local anti-Communists on there to refute
some of his arguments, which I did. Which I did--I arranged a debate
show for a regular radio feature that WDSU has called "Conversation
Carte Blanche." This is a 25-minute public affairs program that runs
daily. It is almost always interviews of people in the news locally or
this sort of thing.

I was in charge of arranging the panel, so I picked Mr. Edward S.
Butler.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us who he is.

Mr. STUCKEY. He is the Executive Director of the Information Council of
the Americas in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. What is that organization?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is an anti-Communist propaganda organization. Their
principal activity is to take tape-recorded interviews with Cuban
refugees or refugees from Iron Curtain countries, and distribute these
tapes which are naturally, it goes without saying, these tapes are
very strongly anti-Communist, and they distribute these tapes to radio
stations throughout Latin America. As I recall, they came to have over
100 stations using these tapes regularly.

Well, Mr. Butler is a friend of mine. I knew him as a columnist, and it
just seemed like----

Mr. JENNER. He was an articulate and knowledgeable man in this area to
which he directs his attention?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; so I asked him to be one of the panelists on the
show, which he accepted, and, incidentally, I let him hear the
37-minute tape in advance; and for the other panelist I asked Mr.
Bringuier, Mr. Carlos Bringuier, that we mentioned earlier, as being
the man who led me to Oswald--I asked him to appear on the show to give
it a little Cuban flavor.

And then Oswald called me after it was arranged, and I told him we were
going to arrange the show and would he be interested, and he said,
yes, indeed, and then he said, "How many of you am I going to have to
fight?" That was his version of saying how many are on the panel.

Mr. JENNER. He said this to you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; in a jocular way.

Mr. JENNER. Where did this take place, on the telephone?

Mr. STUCKEY. On the telephone; yes.

This was Monday or Tuesday, the 19th or the 20th of August, whenever it
was that I had informed him of the show.

Mr. JENNER. Had he called you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I gave him my office number so he called me at a
prearranged time. He was very punctual, very punctual. He was always
there on time, all those calls came on time. So I informed him about
this debate show and he agreed. He said he thought that would be
interesting.

Then the next time I see him is on the afternoon of August 21,
Wednesday. I believe this was about 5:30.

Mr. JENNER. Was this to be a preliminary session also?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes--well, no; this was to be a live program. The
Conversation Carte Blanche panel show is not to be prerecorded as the
other one was.

Mr. JENNER. I appreciate that, but I was just talking about your
meeting with him on Wednesday afternoon, the 21st, at 5:30. The program
went on at what time?

Mr. STUCKEY. At 6:05.

Mr. JENNER. I see. It was not long before the program.

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. It was not a preliminary interview such as you had had,
which is transcribed as Stuckey Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; there were some comments of which I will tell you
later.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like to add this, this is very interesting,
and gave a little bit of spice to this encounter. During that day,
Wednesday, August 21, one of my news sources called me up and said, "I
hear you are going to have Oswald on Carte Blanche." I said, "Yes, that
is right." He said, "We have some information about Mr. Oswald, the
fact that he lived in Russia for 3 years."

He had omitted reference to this in the 37-minute previous interview,
and in all of our conversations.

Mr. JENNER. He had never mentioned that subject prior to that?

Mr. STUCKEY. As a matter of fact, he gives an account of his background
in here.

Mr. JENNER. In Stuckey Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. Right; in which he completely omits this. Would you like
me to read it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; you have turned to a particular page?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I will be reading from this. Here is my question.

"STUCKEY:"----

Mr. JENNER. Maybe we can identify the page.

Mr. STUCKEY. This will be page 11.

Mr. JENNER. Page 11 of Stuckey Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. STUCKEY. My question was:

"Mr. Oswald, I am curious about your personal background. If you could
tell something about where you came from, your education and your
career to date, it would be interesting.

"OSWALD:"--this is his reply--"I would be very happy to. I was born in
New Orleans in 1939. For a short length of time during my childhood
I lived in Texas and New York. During my junior high school days I
attended Beauregard Junior High School. I attended that school for 2
years. Then I went to Warren Eastern High School, and I attended that
school for over a year. Then my family and I moved to Texas where we
have many relatives, and I continued my schooling there. I entered
the United States Marine Corps in 1956. I spent 3 years in the United
States Marine Corps working my way up through the ranks to the position
of buck sergeant, and I served honorably having been discharged. Then
I went back to work in Texas and have recently arrived in New Orleans
with my family, with my wife and my child."

There is his answer. He omits the 3 years in Russia by saying that,
referring to the fact that, after leaving the Marine Corps he says he
went to Texas and then to New Orleans. You will note in there he lied
about his rank he achieved in the Marine Corps. Why, I don't know. As
far as I know he was just a Pfc.

Mr. JENNER. He never rose any higher.

Mr. STUCKEY. And, as I recall, he did not go to Warren Eastern High
School over a year.

Mr. JENNER. You have become aware he attended Beauregard only 1 year
rather than 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That he attended Warren Eastern about 6 weeks or 2 months.

Mr. STUCKEY. That was my impression. I mention this because with this
in mind, this is why it was so interesting to me to find out on that
day, August 21, that he had lied to me, that he had, in fact, lived in
Russia for 3 years, and had just recently returned, and this individual
who called me and gave me this information gave me dates of Washington
newspaper clippings that I could check, which were stories about his
leaving for Russia, or rather his appearance in Moscow in 1959.

Mr. JENNER. Now, this information came to you between the time of your
interview transcribed as Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 and the 21st of August
when you were about to put on your debate program, the discussion
program?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did this come to you sufficiently in advance to enable you
to do some checking vis-a-vis newspaper or articles?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And was he unaware when he came in at 5:30 on the afternoon
of Wednesday that you had done this, had received this information and
had done some research?

Mr. STUCKEY. He was unaware of that fact. During that day Mr. Butler
called, after I had already been tipped off about his Russian
residence, Mr. Butler called and said he too had found out the same
thing, I think later; his source apparently was the House Un-American
Activities Committee or something like that.

At any rate, we thought this was very interesting and we agreed
together to produce this information on the program that night.

Mr. JENNER. You were going to face him on the program with this?

Mr. STUCKEY. Unawareness.

Mr. JENNER. You thought it might be a bombshell and be unaware to him.

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. And we decided it would be me who would do it as the
introducing participant.

So at about 5:30 that afternoon I arrived at the studio alone. Oswald
appeared, and in a very heavy gray flannel suit, and this is August
in New Orleans, it is extremely hot, that he appears in a very heavy
gray flannel suit, very bulky, badly cut suit, and looking very hot
and uncomfortable. He had a blue shirt on and a dark tie, and a black
looseleaf notebook.

Mr. JENNER. The same one he had had before?

Mr. STUCKEY. As far as I know. We shook hands, passed a few
pleasantries, nothing much of importance.

Mr. JENNER. Were the others present?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; they arrived a little bit later. Oswald was there
first, as usual on time, and then Mr. Butler came in with Mr.
Bringuier. Both looked as if they had pounds and pounds of literature
with them, and statistics.

Mr. JENNER. Did Bringuier and Oswald recognize each other?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. And it was apparent to you they were acquainted?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oh, yes; indeed.

Mr. JENNER. And that Oswald was acquainted with Bringuier and vice
versa?

Mr. STUCKEY. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Had Oswald met Mr. Butler before?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't know if he had or not. It was my impression that
he had not, but I think he knew who he was. Oswald asked me something
about the organization, and I told him, I said, "Well, it is just like
your organization; it is a propaganda outfit, just on the other side of
the fence," and that satisfied his curiosity.

I think he immediately kissed it off as a hopeless rightist
organization, "You can't reason with those people," that approach.

So it was a somewhat touchy exchange there between Bringuier and Oswald
in the studio. Bringuier, as well as I recall, started out with a
remark like this, saying, "You know, I thought you were a very nice
boy. You really made a good impression on me when I first met you."
Referring to Oswald's visit to Bringuier in the store when Oswald was
posing as an anti-Castro enthusiast, and Bringuier said, "I cannot
understand how you have let yourself become entangled with this group."

He said, "I don't think you know what you are doing."

Oswald said something to the effect that, "I don't think you know
what you are doing," and back and forth such as this. Bringuier said,
"Anytime you want to get out of your organization and join mine there
is a place for you," and he says, "I hope one day you will see the
light."

And again Oswald says, "I hope you see the light," and that was about
all there was to that.

Butler didn't say anything to him particularly. It was just
pleasantries, "How do you do," and such.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man is Butler?

Mr. STUCKEY. Butler is in his late twenties, he is 29 or 30.

Mr. JENNER. Is he an educated man?

Mr. STUCKEY. College, as far as I know. He is advertising, public
relations man before he went into the propaganda business, and that was
about the extent of the exchanges prior to the broadcast.

Then I left to go back to the newsroom, which was a different room
from the room where we were sitting, to get Bill Slatter, who is the
official moderator of the program, and we came back and picked up our
participants and went into the broadcast room.

As I recall, in opening the show Bill Slatter said that myself and
he would be talking to three other people. In other words, I was not
considered a panelist, but there were two station people and three
panel people. This was the way it was explained, and Slatter turned the
program over to me after a very brief introduction and description of
Oswald and a brief capsule of his background in New Orleans to date,
and then he turned the show over to me, and I gave a several-minute
description of the organization, Mr. Oswald and his activities in New
Orleans up to that time, and then I pulled the Russian thing on him.

I did mention--I think I did it this way, I said:

"Mr. Oswald, in the previous interview, gave me a description of his
background. He told me this and that and this and that, but he omitted
some information, to the best of my knowledge," and I mentioned that
that day some newspaper clippings had come to my attention about his
residence in Russia, and I said, "Is this true, Mr. Oswald?"; and
Oswald said, "Yes."

Mr. JENNER. Would you mark what I hand you, Mr. Reporter, as Stuckey
Exhibit No. 3.

(The item was marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Mr. STUCKEY. You may be interested in knowing that the Information
Council of the Americas, Mr. Butler's organization, has since made a
record out of this debate, and just released it about 2 weeks ago,
called "Self-Portrait in Red."

Mr. JENNER. I am going to hand you, to refresh your recollection, if it
needs refreshing, a 10-page document which I have marked for purposes
of identification only as Stuckey Exhibit No. 3. Each of these pages
bears the figure 236 in red ink at the bottom. It is also known here
as, that is, around here, as Commission Document No. 87B. The pages
are numbered at the top 1 through 10, inclusive. It purports to be a
transcript of a tape recording of your broadcast of the evening about
which you speak, a debate on August 21, 1963.

We have obtained from the radio station, WDSU, a duplicate of the tape
itself. Would you take a look at this transcript and perhaps, if you
will run through it, tell us whether it is, to your recollection, a
transcript of your program that night?

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like to say this about this transcript. I think it
is very unfair. These people have put in all of Oswald's hesitations,
his "er's," and that sort of thing. I notice when the AP ran an account
of this after the assassination they had done all of this on Oswald.
They were apparently trying to make him look stupid. Everybody else was
using the "er's," but they didn't put those in.

Mr. JENNER. I will say it is a transcript--your attention is drawn
to the fact that the hesitations of Oswald are included, but the
hesitations of, let us say, even yourself and the other participants,
are not.

Mr. STUCKEY. Are not.

Mr. JENNER. And in that sense it is in some measure a distortion of the
actual tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. A slight distortion. I think it is an unfair thing.

Mr. JENNER. Well, we have the actual tape so the hesitations will
appear, and what I was using this primarily for is to afford you an
opportunity, if you wish to use it, to refresh your recollection of
this program.

What were some of the things that you now recall that struck you about
this dissertation?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, of course, the principal thing that came out on that
program, aside from the Russian residence, the most striking thing
was his admission that he was a Marxist. We asked him if he was a
Communist--we were always doing this--he was very clever about avoiding
the question. He would usually say, "As I said before, I belong to no
other organization other than the Fair Play for Cuba Committee."

So we asked him this question, of course, and he gave us that answer,
and I asked, "Are you a Marxist?"; and he said, "Yes."

Otherwise, it was--the program was largely speeches by Bringuier and
Butler, and Oswald did not have a chance to ramble much or to talk much
as he had earlier, and most of his answers are rather short.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get into a discussion of democracy and communism
and Marxism and then the distinctions?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, yes.

Mr. JENNER. The distinctions between them?

Mr. STUCKEY. A brief discussion. We asked him, I say "we," I mean Mr.
Butler asked him the difference between being a Marxist and being a
Communist, and this was a typical oblique Oswald answer. He says, "It
is the same difference between Ghana and Guinea, and even in Great
Britain they have socialized medicine," and that is about the extent of
the answer.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you have as to this man's deep or
fundamental appreciation of Marxism, democracy, communism, fascism,
socialism, as the case might be?

Mr. STUCKEY. It was my impression he had done a great deal of reading.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have an impression that his knowledge--that he
was, if I may use this expression, that he had a superficial knowledge
as distinguished from a close study with a critical leader or teacher
pointing out to him the fundamental distinctions between these systems?

Mr. STUCKEY. It would be difficult to say. It was apparent he was
acquainted with a wide body of facts and he knew appropriate words and
such from historical points concerning the development of Marxism.

Mr. JENNER. You see I am seeking your impression at the time and not
one that you have formed since.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; right. Well, I had not run across many Marxists in my
time, and I guess this was about the first professional Marxist I had
run across, and he impressed me as knowing something about the subject.
But again it was difficult to appraise the full measure of his learning
because of his oblique way of answering questions and dodging questions
whenever he did not want to speak about a particular point. I would
hesitate to say whether it was superficial or not. I just don't know
that much about it.

Mr. JENNER. Give me your impression of his demeanor.

Mr. STUCKEY. Confident.

Mr. JENNER. Confident, self-assured?

Mr. STUCKEY. Self-assured, logical.

Mr. JENNER. Able to handle questions?

Mr. STUCKEY. Very well qualified to handle questions, articulate. There
was a little bit of a woodenness in his voice at times, and a little
stiff. This was another impression of mine about Oswald, his academic
manner. If he could use a six-syllable word----

Mr. JENNER. You mean demeanor?

Mr. STUCKEY. Demeanor; yes. If he could use a six-syllable word instead
of a two-syllable word, he would do so. Now that characteristic in
itself would not tend to make it that his learning was superficial.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the impression he searched for the
multisyllable word?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, yes; as I say, he would prefer that. I don't know
why--of course, this is all hindsight, but it occurred to me he would
be the type of man who would not use the word, say, "murder," when
he could use something a little more formal like "act of violence,"
this sort of thing. It was, as a matter of fact, his manner was
sort of quasi-legal. It was almost as if he had--as if he were a
young attorney. He seemed to be very well acquainted with the legal
terminology dealing with constitutional rights.

Mr. JENNER. Did this discussion become heated?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; it did. It got rather heated. Mr. Butler, in
particular, more or less took the offensive, and attempted to trip him
up a few times on questions, questions about the nature of Marxism and
of the nature of the Castro regime and this sort of thing, and Mr.
Oswald handled himself very well, as usual. I think that we finished
him on that program. I think that after that program the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee, if there ever was one in New Orleans, had no future
there, because we had publicly linked the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
with a fellow who had lived in Russia for 3 years and who was an
admitted Marxist.

The interesting thing, or rather the danger involved, was the fact
that Oswald seemed like such a nice, bright boy and was extremely
believable before this. We thought the fellow could probably get quite
a few members if he was really indeed serious about getting members.
We figured after this broadcast of August 21, why, that was no longer
possible.

Mr. JENNER. The broadcast ran approximately how long?

Mr. STUCKEY. Twenty-five minutes.

Mr. JENNER. And after the broadcast broke up was that the last of your
contacts with Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it wasn't. The others left, and Oswald looked a
little dejected, and I said, "Well, let's go out and have a beer," and
he says, "All right." So we left the studio and went to a bar called
Comeaux's Bar. It is about a half-block from the studio and this was
the first time that his manner kind of changed from the quasi-legal
position, and he relaxed a little bit. This was the first time I
ever saw him relaxed and off of his guard. We had about an hour's
conversation, 45 minutes to an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a
little less, and, by the way, I mentioned his suit being rather gawky
cut, and he told me afterward the suit was purchased in Russia, and
they didn't know much about making clothes over there. Would you like
me to tell you about the conversation?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I would.

Mr. STUCKEY. We covered a number of points because I was relaxed,
as far as I was concerned professionally I had no other occasion
to contact Oswald. He was off the spot. So we just had a little
conversation. During that conversation he told me that he was reading
at that time about Indonesian communism, and that he was reading
everything he could get his hands on. He offered an opinion about
Sukarno, that he was not really a Communist, that he was merely an
opportunist who was using the Communists.

We had a discussion about alcohol. I noticed he wasn't doing very good
with his beer, and it was a hot night, and he made a reference to that.
He said, "Well, you see, I am not used to drinking beer. I am a vodka
drinker." And he said, "My father-in-law taught me how to drink vodka,"
and then he proceeded to tell me that his father-in-law, who was the
father of his wife Marina, was a Russian Army colonel, and mentioned
that as an army colonel he earned quite a bit more money than Oswald
was earning in Russia. Oswald told me at that time he was making about
80 rubles a month as a factory worker, whereas his father-in-law, the
Colonel, was making something like 300 rubles a month, so he could
afford all the vodka he wanted, and he says that is who taught him to
drink vodka. May I refresh my memory----

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. With some notes?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. You have mentioned Marina for the first time when you
cited her a moment ago. Had he mentioned her prior to that time?

Mr. STUCKEY. Not by name. He only referred to her as "my wife."

Mr. JENNER. Had he identified her as to her origin here or in Russia?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; this was afterward. Naturally when we brought up this
business about the Russian residence, he mentioned she was a Russian
girl and spoke no English. He said that was the way he wanted it
because it gave him an opportunity to keep up his Russian. He wanted to
keep his Russian up, and so they spoke nothing but Russian in the home.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about having any family?

Mr. STUCKEY. He mentioned a wife and child. Now on the first broadcast
on Saturday the 17th he mentioned, you will recall, in that brief
digest of his background, he said he had been in the Marine Corps and
then had left and gone to Texas and had recently arrived in New Orleans
with his wife and his child. So in that case he mentioned that he did
have a daughter and a wife. I see something I have omitted about the
first meeting I had with him on the morning of August 17th.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. At his home.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mr. STUCKEY. He told me at that time he was working as an assistant to
a commercial photographer in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. You made no check on that?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I didn't check him out.

Mr. JENNER. You were not then aware of the fact that, the fact was that
he was not an assistant to a commercial photographer.

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I was not aware of that.

Mr. JENNER. Did he tell you where he was working?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. You were not aware, therefore, at that time he was at that
time an oiler or a greaser at the Reily Coffee Co.

Mr. STUCKEY. Is that correct?

Mr. JENNER. He was out of work at that time, but he had been.

Mr. STUCKEY. I never could figure out why he referred to the trade of
photography. Had he been involved in photography?

Mr. JENNER. When he was in Dallas prior to his coming to New Orleans
in the spring of 1963, he had been an apprentice with a company,
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, a commercial advertising photographing company
that produced advertising materials, mats, and photographs, and
that sort of thing. He worked in the darkroom. He had very limited
experience.

Mr. STUCKEY. That apparently is what he was referring to.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Here is some additional information if you would like me
to bring this out.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; go ahead.

Mr. STUCKEY. I am going to the conversation after the broadcast of the
21st, this is with Oswald and me at Comeaux's Bar. I asked him at that
time how he became interested in Marxism and he said that there are
many books on the subject in any public library. I asked him if he,
if his family was an influence on him in any way. He says, "No," and
he kind of looked a little amused. He said, "No," he says, "They are
pretty much typical New Orleans types," and that was about all he said.

Mr. JENNER. Did he mention his mother?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he didn't. As a matter of fact, when we referred
to his family, all his references were in the plural, and it was my
impression that he had a mother and a father, sisters, aunts, uncles
and everybody, because the general impression was that there were a
number of people in the family. I was surprised to find out that it
wasn't true, later.

Mr. JENNER. Well, he had relatives in New Orleans, the Murret family.

Mr. STUCKEY. I see.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Murret is--Marguerite Oswald, that is his mother--that
was her sister.

Mr. STUCKEY. He told me that he had begun to read Marx and Engels at
the age of 15, but he said the conclusive thing that made him decide
that Marxism was the answer was his service in Japan. He said living
conditions over there convinced him something was wrong with the
system, and that possibly Marxism was the answer. He said it was in
Japan that he made up his mind to go to Russia and see for himself how
a revolutionary society operates, a Marxist society.

Mr. JENNER. He thought that Russia was a Marxist society?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you question or discuss with him whether he found that
the system in Russia was a Marxist society or whether it was----

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he wasn't very pleased apparently with some of the
aspects of Russian political life. Particularly in the factories he
said that a lot of the attitudes and this sort of thing was the same
sort of attitude that you would find in an American factory. There was
a lot of dead-heading, as we say in Louisiana. I don't know what your
expression is.

Mr. JENNER. Goldbricking.

Mr. STUCKEY. Goldbricking. The boss' relatives on the payrolls at nice
salaries.

Mr. JENNER. Nepotism.

Mr. STUCKEY. Nepotism, this sort of thing. Anybody with any authority
at all would just use it to death to get everybody extra privileges
that they could, and a lot of dishonesty, padding of production figures
and this sort of thing. He said he wasn't very impressed.

Mr. JENNER. Were you curious as to why he had come back to the United
States and did you, if you were curious, discuss that subject with him?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't believe I did. As a matter of fact, I wasn't
curious at the time. We just accepted the fact that he had. In
hindsight we should have asked a lot of questions about him.

Mr. JENNER. The newspaper material that you had read, there was, was
there not, something about his dishonorable discharge from the Marines?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I don't recall any reference to that in the
newspapers. Incidentally, Oswald had told me and had produced a
discharge card that he was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps.
He produced a card showing this.

Mr. JENNER. When had he done that?

Mr. STUCKEY. This was the night of the 17th at the radio station. Why
he did this I don't know. I forget what the circumstances were. I
recognized the card because, after all, I was a marine myself and I had
one exactly like it.

Mr. JENNER. Did you, in the tete-a-tete in Comeaux's Bar discuss with
him his attempt, when in Russia, to renounce his American citizenship?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; we didn't, because that was alluded to in the
broadcast and, as far as I was concerned, it was satisfactorily
answered.

Mr. JENNER. He does respond--you say, and I am now turning to the
document identified as Stuckey Exhibit No. 3, a transcript of that
radio debate--in your preliminary remarks you advert to the fact
that you had sought an independent source, Washington newspaper
clippings--you advert to the fact that Mr. Oswald, and I am reading,
"Mr. Oswald had attempted to renounce his American citizenship in 1959
and become a Soviet citizen.

"There was another clipping dated 1952 saying Mr. Oswald had returned
from the Soviet Union with his wife and child after having lived there
3 years. Mr. Oswald, are these correct?" And he responds, "That is
correct." I might say for the record that the date 1952 is the date
that appears in this transcript, but the fact is that it was 1962. That
was either a slip of the tongue or it is a typographical error, is that
correct?

Mr. STUCKEY. I think so.

Mr. JENNER. But in this informal conversation following the broadcast
you did not pursue these subjects?

Mr. STUCKEY. Not those. We discussed other subjects. He made another
observation about life in Russia. He said things were extremely bland,
homogenized.

Mr. JENNER. Did he elaborate on that?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I thought it was interesting.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that, please.

Mr. STUCKEY. He said that nobody--everybody seems to be almost alike in
Russia because, after all, they had eliminated a lot of the dissenting
elements in Russian society and had achieved fairly homogenous blend of
population as a result.

Mr. JENNER. That was an observation on his part, was it, of an aspect
of Russian society that disappointed him?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't know. I don't recall him expressing an opinion
as to whether he was disappointed by that. It was a comment. His tone
was slightly acid as if he did not like it, but again this is my
impression. He did say this which was interesting, he said that they
wouldn't allow any Fair Play for Cuba Committees in Russia.

Mr. JENNER. He did?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he said they just would not because it is the type of
organization that Russian society would just suppress.

Mr. JENNER. Russian society?

Mr. STUCKEY. The Russian authorities would suppress.

Mr. JENNER. Russian authorities suppress any militant organization of
this character.

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. Whether it was Fair Play for Cuba or anything else that is
militant in the sense of being openly critical of the Russian society
and Russian politics?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did he observe on that subject, did he observe in the sense
of his feeling that in America you are permitted within the bounds of
the Constitution to enjoy free speech and criticize your Government as
distinguished from not being able to do so in Russia?

Mr. STUCKEY. He didn't add anything other than what I have already
said, but the implication was that we can do that here. "After all, you
know here I have this organization and I am doing this. They probably
would not let me do a similar thing in Russia," and this was his tone.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any impression as to his regard or judgment
with respect to the government in which he was, whose privileges he was
then exercising?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he had given lip service a time or two to the fact
that he considered himself a loyal American. He was constantly
referring to rights, constitutional rights, and he made some historical
references. He illustrated the development of these rights in America.

Mr. JENNER. Did this informal conversation at Comeaux's Bar go on, you
said, for about an hour?

Mr. STUCKEY. Approximately an hour.

Mr. JENNER. Was he comfortable in the sense--was he eager, was he
pleased----

Mr. STUCKEY. He was relaxed, he was friendly. He seemed to be relieved
it was all over. My impression was he was relieved that he did not have
to hide the bit about the Russian residence any more, and that it had
been a strain doing so, because his manner was completely different.
There wasn't the stiffness or the guarded words and guarded replies. He
seemed fairly open, and I have no reason to believe that everything he
told me that night was not true. I think it was true.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any difference in his attitude or demeanor with
respect to personal self-confidence, for example, in that Saturday
interview at his home and your interview with him prior to the Monday
night broadcast, taking that as a base, and comparing it with his
attitude in Comeaux's Bar after you had revealed the fact that he had
been in Russia and had attempted to defect?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, there wasn't any change. He was pretty consistent in
his behavior from the very first time I met him until Comeaux's Bar,
so this was the only notable change I observed. The manner was always
guarded, even from the very first when he came out on his porch on
August 17 in his dungarees, his manner was guarded.

Mr. JENNER. Was it guarded in Comeaux's?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it was not.

Mr. JENNER. This was much more relaxed?

Mr. STUCKEY. Considerably.

Mr. JENNER. Following that tete-a-tete in Comeaux's Bar for about an
hour, did you ever see Oswald after that?

Mr. STUCKEY. That was the last time I ever saw him.

Mr. JENNER. When was the next time you heard of Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. On November 22, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. What was that occasion?

Mr. STUCKEY. The assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. JENNER. How was it raised, what brought it to your attention?

Mr. STUCKEY. I was watching a TV news broadcast at the time, and they
had a bulletin in which they said a suspect had been arrested in the
assassination, and they mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald, and I fell to the
ground practically; I was surprised.

Mr. JENNER. Was there a video tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Following the debate show of August 21, Bill Slatter,
the radio announcer, decided that some news had been made that night
on the show, so he took Oswald back to the studio to repeat some of
the statements he had made on the radio show for video tape. And they
interviewed Oswald for quite a while, I would say for 5 minutes. But I
understand that that night they only ran a brief excerpt of that tape,
and the rest of it they threw away.

Mr. JENNER. The station has supplied us with what tape they did not
throw away, the video tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. They are not throwing away anything at that station any
more, by the way, now.

Mr. JENNER. I suppose not. Without speculation on your part, if you
have a recollection, do you recall whether he was right handed or left
handed?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't recall. I don't believe that he ever had the
opportunity to use his hand in such a way you could identify it. I
never saw him writing.

Mr. JENNER. At least you never noticed it one way or the other?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did he smoke?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he did not smoke. Again, this was part of my--of
the impression of him that struck me. He seemed like somebody that
took very good care of himself, very prudent, temperate, that sort of
person. It was my impression Oswald regarded himself as living in a
world of intellectual inferiors.

Mr. JENNER. Please elaborate on that. And on what do you base that,
please?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, I base a lot of this on the conversation that we
had in Comeaux's Bar. After all, I had paid some attention to Oswald,
nobody else had particularly, and he seemed to enjoy talking with
somebody he didn't regard as a stupid person, and it was my impression
he thought that everybody else he had come in contact with was rather
cloddish, and got the impression that he thought that he had--his
philosophy, the way he felt about things, all this sort of thing, most
people just could not understand this, and only an intelligent or
educated person could. I don't mean to say that there was any arrogance
in his manner. There was just--well, you can spot intelligence, or
at least I can, I think, and this was a man who was intelligent, who
was aware that he was intelligent, and who would like to have an
opportunity to express his intelligence--that was my impression.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you obtain of this man with respect to
his volatility, that is, did you get any impression that he was quick
to anger?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; very well-disciplined, as a matter of fact. After all,
he had been provoked on several occasions that afternoon by Bringuier
and Butler on the show.

Mr. JENNER. Or that evening.

Mr. STUCKEY. That evening; yes. And, of course, Bringuier's attempt
to convert him to the cause of Revolutionary Students Directorate was
presented in a rather biting way, and Oswald just took it, and just
more or less told him that he wasn't interested, whereas other people
might have gotten a little mad. After all, you have to recognize that
Oswald--they were ganging up on him. There were a bunch of us around
there. There were three people who disagreed with him, and he was only
one man, and the fact that he kept his composure with this type of
environment indicates discipline.

Mr. JENNER. That is right. Now, I show you a Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A.
Do you see Mr. Oswald shown on that exhibit?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is there a mark or something over his head?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; there is a green cross of some sort.

Mr. JENNER. All right. There is a man to his left, there is an arrow, a
vertical arrow, over that man's head. Do you recognize that person?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Far to the left, the most extreme left, of the picture is
another man with dark glasses on. He has a green vertical stripe over
his head. Do you recognize him?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Now, to the left of the man with the vertical arrow above
his head is a tall rather husky young fellow whose back is turned. Do
you, by any chance, recognize him?

Mr. STUCKEY. This one?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. I will ask you the general question do you recognize
anybody depicted on Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A other than Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oswald is the only person I recognize in that picture.

Mr. JENNER. I show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B. Do you recognize Oswald
on that picture?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he has the green mark above his head.

Mr. JENNER. That is the vertical mark and it is the only mark on that
photograph, is it not?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Directing your attention to the group of men on that
photograph in which Oswald is a part although his back is to the group,
do you recognize any of those men shown on that photograph?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I recognize nobody.

Mr. JENNER. And to the right side of the girl there are some ladies. Do
you recognize any of them?

Mr. STUCKEY. I was just looking over that. One of them looks vaguely
familiar, but--no; I would have to say. No; I don't know the women.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the vicinity or place shown?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; that is the front of the International Trade Mart
Building on Common and Camp Streets in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. If I may have that tape so I can put an exhibit number on
it----

Mr. STUCKEY. Do you want to take it now rather than go through all the
letter-writing proceedings?

Mr. JENNER. I am not going to take it, but I am going to mark it and
give it back to you. I don't want to have possession of it. I just want
to look to see----

Mr. STUCKEY. Would it be easier for the Commission if it were made into
a record rather than a tape? I have a record that I have made, my own
personal record.

Mr. JENNER. I will inquire about that. It possibly might be better. You
mean a platter, a disc?

Mr. STUCKEY. A platter, a disc.

Mr. JENNER. I suppose a tape is easier to preserve. A hundred years
from now this tape would be just as true as it is today, that is
assuming it is kept under good conditions, whereas a platter might
deteriorate.

Mr. STUCKEY. That is true.

Mr. JENNER. So I think we had better have the tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. The disc would start decomposing after about the 25th time
you played them, and also they get scratched and such. But one thing
is you can't erase a record and you can erase a tape. That is the kind
of nightmares you have with a tape. I was afraid to have a copy made
of that thing for a long time just out of fear somebody might make a
mistake and it would be erased.

Mr. JENNER. You have insured against that by your disk, a platter?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Stuckey, was a recording made on audio tape of the
37-minute interview that you had with Mr. Oswald on Monday, the 17th of
August?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I have made one record which is strictly for my own
use.

Mr. JENNER. You say you made it?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it it was made for you by somebody?

Mr. STUCKEY. It was made for me by Cosimo's Recording Studio in New
Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. From what source was the tape made by the commercial
company you have named?

Mr. STUCKEY. From----

Mr. JENNER. What was used to make the tape? Did you have a tape and you
made a copy of the tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; they took my original tape and from that they made the
disc.

Mr. JENNER. I see. We are a little confused here. You have an audio
tape of the 37-minute interview, do you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And you also have a wax disk?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. It is the wax disk which is the disk recording from the
original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And it is the wax disk that was made by the commercial
people you have named?

Mr. STUCKEY. True.

Mr. JENNER. What I am getting at, Mr. Stuckey, was an audio tape
transcript made of your interview with him on the 17th of August 1963?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Who made the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. The original tape was made by WDSU radio in the studios of
WDSU, and the engineer doing the taping was Mr. Al Campin.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know what happened to that original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I have it; it is in my possession.

Mr. JENNER. Did you bring it with you today?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; this is a copy which you have in your hand.

Mr. JENNER. Did you bring a copy of that tape, which is Stuckey Exhibit
No. 4?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct?

Mr. JENNER. From what source did you obtain the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. From WDSU. When the management of WDSU decided not to run
that tape but instead to have the debate, the second show, then they
gave me the tape.

Mr. JENNER. What is now marked as Stuckey Exhibit No. 4 is a
reproduction on tape of the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Who made the reproduction which is Stuckey Exhibit No. 4?

Mr. STUCKEY. Cosimo's Recording Studio.

Mr. JENNER. Where are they located? Do you happen offhand to recall the
address?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is on Governor Nichol's Street in the 500 block.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us the full name of that company?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; Cosimo's Recording Studio, I believe it is.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have more than one tape reproduction made of that?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I have had--how many do I have? I have two copies and
the record in addition to the original tape, so there are four pieces
of, four items involved.

Mr. JENNER. You will recall, Mr. Stuckey, that you were good enough
when I was in New Orleans to take me over to the radio station, what is
the name of it again?

Mr. STUCKEY. WDSU.

Mr. JENNER. WDSU, and there was played in my presence and in my hearing
a tape transcript of your 37-minute interview with Oswald on the 17th
of August 1963. Is the tape which I have in my hand, marked Stuckey
Exhibit No. 4, the tape that was played that evening in my presence?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is.

Mr. JENNER. And it is in the same condition now as it was at the time I
heard it?

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. It is in the same condition now as it was when it was
prepared by Cosimo's?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. Subject to my understanding with you that you will receive
a communication from Mr. Rankin respecting the preservation of this
tape against commercial use, I offer Stuckey Exhibit No. 4 in evidence.
I am going to return the tape to you so that there will be no question
in your mind but what, in the meantime, until you do receive Mr.
Rankin's letter, that the tape has been in your possession, and no one
has made, surreptitiously or otherwise by accident or any fashion, a
copy of it.

Mr. STUCKEY. Very good.

Mr. JENNER. I think I will state for the record, Mr. Reporter, that in
an off-the-record discussion with Mr. Stuckey respecting the audio tape
of the interview of August 17, 1963, Stuckey Exhibit No. 4, Mr. Stuckey
has agreed that he will supply or return, let us say, Exhibit No. 4 to
us upon his receipt of a communication from Mr. Rankin, as counsel for
the Commission, that the tape when redelivered to us and becomes part
of the record of the Commission, will not be subjected to use for any
commercial purpose and reproduction.

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like to ask for one qualification.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like my attorney to read over the letter before----

Mr. JENNER. Of course.

Mr. STUCKEY. Before sending you the tape, and in case we suggest
possibly some changes----

Mr. JENNER. I think that is wise. Since I am returning the tape to you,
why, I am sure you won't send it back unless your counsel is satisfied
that you are reasonably protected, because we appreciate the fact that
this is personal property and that it has some commercial value to
you and, frankly, we would be a little bit surprised if you were not
concerned about preserving that.

I think that is all. Is there anything that you would like to add, that
you think might be helpful to the Commission in its investigation of
the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Mr. STUCKEY. I think we have covered just about everything.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. Certainly all the hard facts.

Mr. JENNER. What is that?

Mr. STUCKEY. I say certainly all the hard facts. The rest is just a lot
of speculation and such.

Mr. JENNER. One other thing. Give Bringuier's physical description,
describe Bringuier physically to me, please.

Mr. STUCKEY. Describe Oswald?

Mr. JENNER. No; Bringuier.

Mr. STUCKEY. He is about 5 feet 10 inches. He is not particularly
dark-skinned, although his hair is black, his eyes are brown. He has
the beginnings of a paunch, although his build is generally rather
slender; he wears glasses, smokes cigars. I can't think of a thing else.

Mr. JENNER. OK. I guess that is about it.




AFFIDAVIT OF HORACE ELROY TWIFORD

The following affidavit was executed by Horace Elroy Twiford on July
11, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Harris, ss_:

I, Horace Elroy Twiford, 7018 Schley Street, Houston, Texas, being duly
sworn say:

1. I have been a resident of Houston since May, 1956, and I am a
merchant seaman. I am a member of the Socialist Labor Party.

2. The first time I ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald was in July 1963,
when The Headquarters of the Socialist Labor Party in New York wrote me
that Oswald had requested literature. The New York Headquarters usually
furnishes me with the names of any persons in the Texas area who make
inquiries about the Socialist Labor Party. I then routinely mailed
Oswald literature concerning the Socialist Labor Party to a box number
in Dallas appearing on Twiford Exhibit No. 1. I had my return address
on the envelope containing the material I sent to Oswald.

3. Twiford Exhibit No. 1 is the envelope which Oswald sent to the
Socialist Labor Party in New York, and which they in turn sent to me.

4. The handwritten note across the front of this envelope, containing
the words "Labor Day issue WP, 9/11/63" is in my handwriting and
indicates that I mailed to Oswald on September 11, 1963, the Labor Day
issue of the "Weekly People." I do not recall if this was the first
time I sent him material.

5. I recollect having flown home to visit my wife on September 27,
1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, where the S.S. Del Monte, the ship
upon which I was working, was docked. Either at this time or on October
1, when the S.S. Del Monte reached Houston, my wife told me that a L.
H. Oswald had called and asked for me during the week. My wife had
written his name and the words "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" on a
piece of paper in order to mention the telephone call.

6. I recollect that my wife told me that this telephone call had taken
place during the week preceding my visit home. I had been home on the
previous weekend, and neither at that time nor prior thereto had my
wife said anything about a telephone call from Oswald.

7. I have never seen nor heard from Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed this 11th day of July 1964.

    (S) Horace Elroy Twiford,
        HORACE ELROY TWIFORD.




AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ESTELLE TWIFORD

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. Estelle Twiford on July 2,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Harris, ss_:

I, Mrs. Estelle Twiford, 7018 Schley Street, Houston, Texas, being duly
sworn say:

1. I am the wife of Horace Elroy Twiford.

2. In late September of 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald telephoned my house and
asked to speak to my husband. I told him that my husband was at sea.
Oswald inquired as to how my husband had his address. He also said that
he had hoped to discuss ideas with my husband for a few hours before
he flew down to Mexico. He said he only had a few hours. I assume he
was calling from the Houston area since he did not, to my knowledge,
place a long distance call. However, he did not specifically say that
he was in Houston. I have no information concerning his whereabouts
when this call was placed. I told him if he desired to correspond with
my husband, he could direct a letter to 7018 Schley Street, Houston,
Texas, and I would see that my husband received it.

3. I cannot recall the date of the call, but I think it occurred during
the week prior to the weekend my husband flew home to visit me from New
Orleans where his ship was docked. I recall, my husband had shipped out
the weekend prior to the call.

4. I cannot recall the exact time he called, but I think that it was in
the evening, sometime between 7:00 and 10:00 o'clock. I was not working
during this period.

5. I wrote down on a slip of paper that Oswald had called and that he
mentioned he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I did
this in order to remember to tell my husband about the call. I told my
husband about the call on the weekend he visited me. I have initialed
and released note made of telephone call. (To Secret Service.)

6. Oswald did not state what he was going to Mexico for, nor did he
state how long he would be there.

7. Other than the above mentioned telephone call, I have never had any
contact with Lee Harvey Oswald.

8. I am not a member of the Socialist Labor Party.

Signed this 2d day of July 1964.

    (S) Mrs. Estelle Twiford,
        MRS. ESTELLE TWIFORD.




TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA H. JAMES

The testimony of Virginia H. James was taken at 2:15 p.m., on June
17, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs.
William T. Coleman, Jr., and W. David Slawson, assistant counsel of the
President's Commission. Thomas Ehrlich, Special Assistant to the Legal
Adviser, Department of State, was present.


Mr. COLEMAN. Miss James, would you state your name for the record?

Miss JAMES. Virginia H. James.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you mind raising your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Miss JAMES. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Miss James, as you know, you are the International
Relations Officer, Office of Soviet Affairs, in the Department of
State. You will be asked to testify about your actions with respect to
Oswald concerning his attempt to return to the United States commencing
in 1961, and his attempt to secure a visa for his wife, Marina.

You will also be questioned concerning your actions in connection with
obtaining a waiver of Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act for Marina, and what part, if any, you had in getting the Bureau
of Immigration and Naturalization to reverse its initial decision to
refuse such waiver. And I will also ask you a few questions on whether
you have any knowledge concerning actions taken by the Department in
1959 when Oswald first attempted to renounce his American citizenship.
Would you state for the record your present address?

Miss JAMES. 2501 Q Street NW.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you presently employed by the Federal Government?

Miss JAMES. I am employed by the Department of State in the Office of
Soviet Union Affairs.

Mr. COLEMAN. What is your official title?

Miss JAMES. International Relations Officer.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you occupy that position from 1959 through to date?

Miss JAMES. I did; and do still.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have shown you, and I take it you are generally familiar
with, the resolution of Congress which was adopted by Congress in
connection with this Commission.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. To the best of your present knowledge, Miss James, could
you tell me the first time you heard the name Oswald?

Miss JAMES. When I read a copy of the telegram from the American
Embassy at Moscow, dated, as I recall, October 30, 1959, saying that
Oswald had called at the Embassy and had attempted to renounce his
American citizenship.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you accept my suggestion if I told you that that
telegram was dated October 31 rather than the 30th?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why did you receive, obtain or see a copy of the telegram?

Miss JAMES. To begin with, it is my function in the Department of State
in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, to handle matters relating to
visas, issuance of visas and passport matters from the political angle
only.

Mr. COLEMAN. For what area?

Miss JAMES. For the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, and it is part of
our responsibility to know what goes on in the American Embassy in
Moscow, and to see how it is handled in order that we can continue
our function of advising, helping and assisting so it is routine for
our office to get a copy of all these telegrams. Practically every
telegram that goes back and forth between the Embassy in Moscow and the
Department, both ways, comes through our office.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you do after you received the telegram, or saw a
copy of the telegram?

Miss JAMES. I think we took no action at that time. We read it with
a great deal of interest, as we do all of this type of case of a
potential defector, and a person who is an American citizen who is
renouncing American citizenship is very unusual. I don't recall any
action except that I know it was a source, I mean the subject of
unhappy conversation in the office, to see this man carrying on this
type of action.

Mr. COLEMAN. You knew, didn't you, that within 2 or 3 days after the
telegram was received, that the State Department sent a reply to the
Embassy?

Miss JAMES. I must have seen it. I notice from the file copy I cleared
it, but I don't remember that exact telegram.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 916, which is a copy of
the telegram.

Miss JAMES. I recall this.

Mr. COLEMAN. You do recall it?

Miss JAMES. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall clearing the text of it?

Miss JAMES. I can't recall clearing the text of it, but I am perfectly
sure that it was a natural thing for me to clear the text.

Mr. COLEMAN. They normally would clear it with your office?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. And so, therefore, when it is recorded in the lower
left-hand corner that it had been cleared with you, you have no doubt
of the accuracy of that statement?

Miss JAMES. I have no reason to doubt.

Mr. COLEMAN. The accuracy of that statement?

Miss JAMES. Because we, the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, try to get
all offices in the Department to clear everything that is going to
Moscow.

Mr. COLEMAN. After clearing the telegram, what was the next time that
you had anything to do with the name Oswald, to the best of your
knowledge?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, we had a copy of the report that came in from
the Embassy telling more in detail about his appearance at the Embassy,
and I also read it in the Washington papers.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as James Exhibit No. 1, and I show you--a
reference sheet from Bernice Waterman to EE:SOV, Virginia James, under
date of November 25, 1959, and I ask you do you remember seeing that
reference sheet?

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 1 for
identification.)

Miss JAMES. Yes; I remember seeing it in this form [pointing to
document in the file].

Mr. COLEMAN. That [James Exhibit No. 1] is a photostatic copy?

Miss JAMES. Yes; I mean the yellow [copy in the file] I recall.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know why you asked them to send you a copy of the
telegram of November 2?

Miss JAMES. Again, it is in accordance with my continuing
responsibility to follow these cases of visa and passport matters,
and the only way we can be informed is to have all the incoming and
outgoing correspondence.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you received that document which has been marked as
James Exhibit No. 1, did you receive other material from Miss Waterman
in connection with Oswald during the period November 2, 1959, to July
1961?

Miss JAMES. I don't recall having received anything from Miss Waterman,
but I am sure that we would have had copies of anything coming back and
forth, back from the Embassy on the case which we would have read.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, you would say that you or someone in your
office should have received in the normal course every Embassy Despatch
dealing with Oswald that went to the Department of State?

Miss JAMES. Routine. In fact, it would have been out of order if we
hadn't gotten it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you early in December 1959 draft a letter for Mr.
Davis' signature to Mr. Snyder dealing with the general question of how
he should handle people who want to renounce their citizenship in the
Soviet Union?

Miss JAMES. May I ask is that the letter in which we tried to give him
helpful advice in handling cases of people who tried to renounce?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. Yes; and, as I recall--if it is the letter I think--it
included several paragraphs that had been contributed by Mr. Hickey in
the Passport Office. I am not sure that is the one. I would like to see
it, please.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you a photostatic copy of a letter which has
already been marked Commission Exhibit No. 915. It is from Nathaniel
Davis to Richard E. Snyder, and it is under date of December 10, 1959,
and it is State Department File Document No. XIII-40. I ask you whether
you drafted that letter.

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I did. I am sure I did, in fact.

Mr. COLEMAN. You were replying to Mr. Snyder's letter to Mr. Boster,
under date of October 28, 1959, which has already been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 914, is that correct?

Miss JAMES. As I read this letter, it didn't refer specifically to the
Oswald case.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is because the Oswald case hadn't yet occurred.

Miss JAMES. Yes; I mean the effect of renouncing. I mean it had no
relation; yes. He had called that in. Yes; I remember that. This isn't
the one, though. You just handed me one by Mr. Snyder to Mr. Davis.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. Now, you asked me if I drafted it. I did draft it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Miss James, I take it that after you drafted the letter of
December 10, Commission Exhibit No. 915, that from that time until some
time in July 1961 that you had no knowledge of any actions with respect
to Oswald.

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I did not, unless, as I say, there had been
something in from Moscow in the ordinary routine way it would have gone
across my desk.

Mr. COLEMAN. On July 11, 1961, or shortly thereafter, perhaps on July
12, the State Department received a Foreign Service Despatch dated July
11, 1961, from the American Embassy in Moscow, which has already been
marked as Commission Exhibit No. 935. I show you a photostatic copy
of Commission Exhibit No. 935 and ask you whether you have seen the
original or a copy of that document?

Miss JAMES. Yes; I recall this.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after you saw that, what did you do?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, at that time, in 1961, through that period
there were several persons in the Soviet Union who attempted or could
be placed in the category of defectors. Webster was one, these various
people that Mr. Snyder mentioned, and this was a very serious question.
We discussed these matters in our office, and so when we saw this,
we immediately were interested in it, and the most important thing
to our mind was what answer is going to be made to it. So I think I
called Miss Waterman and wanted to know what the Passport Office, what
action they were going to take on the letter, and told her that SOV was
interested and we wanted to clear it, as I recall.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you speak first to Mr. Boster about it?

Miss JAMES. Yes; I would have talked to Mr. Boster about this. He was
interested in it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who is he?

Miss JAMES. He was officer in charge of our office at that time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was he your superior?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you tell Miss Waterman?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I would not have made any policy, any effort
to judge what they would do, but I would only say we want to know what
action you are going to take. That is the way I recall that I would
handle it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you say that the Passport Office was the only office
of the State Department whose communications to Moscow are not cleared
in the SOV?

Miss JAMES. Miss Waterman says I did, and I wouldn't be surprised if I
had said it. I know we all felt many times that we would like to have
had more of the communications cleared with us, and I have no doubt
that I must have said it if she said I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall her replying that she had never heard
that----

Miss JAMES. Yes; I do remember at one time she said she didn't recall
that this was a necessity, that they had to clear everything with us.

Mr. COLEMAN. But she did tell you that she would put a memorandum in
the file to show that there was a special interest of the SOV in the
reply to the Embassy Despatch of July 11?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was the special interest of the SOV?

Miss JAMES. Again, it is the same interest I outlined before, which
is our responsibility of advising and knowing what is going on in the
Embassy in Moscow. We are the political office. We are responsible for
the Embassy, and we work together very closely, and we want to be sure
that what they send in is answered, how it is answered, and it is our
routine way of working to be sure that any despatch is answered, and
especially one of this type where we are interested in the case because
of the nature of the case.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you an operations memorandum from the Department of
State to the American Embassy in Moscow, dated August 18, 1961, which
has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 939, and I ask you
if you saw a copy of that memorandum at or around the time when it was
sent, namely in August 1961?

Miss JAMES. My reply is we should have seen it, but whether we did or
not I don't think we did according to this file.

Mr. COLEMAN. You are saying there is nothing on the file which
indicates that you got a copy.

Miss JAMES. Nothing on the file that indicates we had it.

Mr. COLEMAN. You said that----

Miss JAMES. But I think we must have known that they made this decision.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with the making of the
decision?

Miss JAMES. No; I don't think I can say we had anything to do with the
making of the decision. Those matters are legal decisions, and the
Passport Office would make it on the basis of their information.

Mr. COLEMAN. You or your office never called, to the best of your
knowledge----

Miss JAMES. To needle them on to make it? No.

Mr. COLEMAN. To make it one way or the other?

Miss JAMES. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me from your file the next document that
you looked at after receiving a copy of the Embassy despatch of July
11, 1961?

Miss JAMES. I have some notes I think will help me better than the file
which isn't in chronological order. I think it would have been the
Embassy report asking for a security advisory opinion on Mrs. Oswald's
visa application, which would be August 28, 1961, Commission No.
X-26----

Mr. COLEMAN. You mean State Department number.

Miss JAMES. I say, State Department No. X-26(2).

Mr. COLEMAN. Can the record show that the Commission exhibit number on
that document is Commission Exhibit No. 944.

Now, you say you received a copy of the August 28, 1961----

Miss JAMES. Yes, sir; I received that.

Mr. COLEMAN. Operations memorandum----

Miss JAMES. Twenty-five.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after you received a copy, what did you do?

Miss JAMES. I have no exact remembrance of that, but I can tell you
what my practice is. In receiving a document like this, and we have
many cases similar, I keep it some place handy, and I will check with
the Visa Office and see what they are going to do about it, and are
they going to--are they handling it. Then we follow through to see if
she is passed by the various security offices. We are aware when these
come in that a person has an exit visa. This time it was before the
exit visa, I think. Yes--well, we were trying to get this case prepared
so it wouldn't be held up in Moscow because of investigations that
might be delayed on this side.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why would you do that?

Miss JAMES. Only because it is our regular practice to expedite these
matters.

Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't that depend upon whether the case was meritorious
or not?

Miss JAMES. Yes; but I mean as a general thing we would expedite,
hoping it would be expedited until it its turned down. Then if it is
turned down, that is the end of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. What you are saying is that SOV just wants to make sure
that all the paperwork gets done, that you are really not making the
decisions but you don't want any decision held up on the ground that
the papers aren't there, but you have no particular interest which way
the decision would be made?

Miss JAMES. Yes; we have an interest in that. We know from our policy
what we think is good for the U.S. Government, and we would hope that
cases are handled in that framework.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you say that there was a decision in the Oswald case
that the best thing for the United States was to get Oswald out of
Moscow, Russia, and back to the United States, even if he had renounced
his citizenship?

Miss JAMES. I can't go on that because that is a supposition, but
on the basis of the case we felt that it was better for the U.S.
Government to bring Oswald back.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who made that decision?

Miss JAMES. Again, that is our general policy. When we received this
OMV asking for an advisory opinion on Mrs. Oswald's visa application,
we already knew that the Passport Office had approved her husband's
citizenship.

Mr. COLEMAN. So you say, therefore, that once it was clear that Oswald
was still an American citizen, that you felt it was to the interests of
the United States?

Miss JAMES. Of the United States?

Mr. COLEMAN. To get him out of Russia?

Miss JAMES. To get him out of the Soviet Union, and also to bring his
family.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, could you look in file No. VIII of the State
Department, Document No. 21. Is that a telegram?

Miss JAMES. No; that is a wire.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you read what it says? Will you describe to whom it
is sent and tell me what it means?

Miss JAMES. It says, it is addressed to the American Embassy in Moscow
and refers to this request for an advisory opinion----

Mr. COLEMAN. It has typed thereon: SOV, Miss James. You signed it,
didn't you?

Miss JAMES. No; this was the Visa Office telegram, and in fact I didn't
initial that telegram. It has my name on it, but Mr. Owen initialed it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Does it have your name?

Miss JAMES. It has my name typed on it, but Mr. Owen initialed it.

Mr. COLEMAN. On October 3, 1961, a cable was sent to the Embassy in
Moscow having something to do with Oswald. Would you indicate for the
record what the cable said?

Miss JAMES. As I understand it, the cable authorized the American
Embassy in Moscow to issue a visa to Mrs. Oswald if when she appeared
there was nothing against her otherwise derogatory, and the cable also
indicated that her membership in the Trade Union would not affect the
issuance of a visa, that such membership did not indicate that she was
a Communist.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, the cable or the copy that I have seen indicates that
it was typed by you, at least your name appears on it.

Miss JAMES. No; it was drafted by the Visa Office, drafted by V. Smith,
typed by initials RLC, signed in the Visa Office by Frank L. Auerbach,
and sent to the Soviet Desk, Office of Soviet Union Affairs, for
clearance, typed "SOV Miss James" and in parentheses "(in substance),"
and I apparently was out that day and it has Mr. Owen's initials on it,
and there is another initial which I don't identify, but mine are not
on that.

Mr. COLEMAN. But to the best of your recollection you never saw that or
had anything to do with it?

Miss JAMES. Never saw that cable, but I was aware that they approved it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Had there been some discussion of the operation memorandum
of August 28, 1961, Commission Exhibit No. 944, in your office as to
whether Mrs. Marina Oswald was eligible for a nonquota immigrant visa?

Miss JAMES. I don't recall any special detailed discussion, except
that this was a case, an unusual case, which we would be interested in
following.

Mr. COLEMAN. Were you the one in the office who had the initial contact
with the INS, in connection with the waiver of section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I had no contact with INS at that time.
I never remember discussing these cases directly with INS. Our
conversations were all with the Visa Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. You dealt directly with the Visa Office?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is Mr. Crump in your office?

Miss JAMES. I was going to say I dealt with Mr. Crump in the Visa
Office at that time.

Mr. COLEMAN. But he is not in your office?

Miss JAMES. No; he was in the Visa Office, now assigned abroad.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that the Visa Office had made a request of
INS to get it to, (1) determine whether Mrs. Oswald was eligible to
come into the country, and, (2) whether it would waive the section
243(g) provision? I just asked you, Miss James, what you knew. When was
the first time you knew that----

Miss JAMES. When Mr. Crump told me that INS had approved the petition
of the husband but had not approved the request for waiver of section
No. 243(g).

Mr. COLEMAN. Prior to that time, you had nothing to do with the visa
request or the section 243(g) waiver?

Miss JAMES. No; I don't recall having anything to do with it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall----

Miss JAMES. As I recall, it was a surprise to me that it was refused.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you had nothing to do with the first petition?

Miss JAMES. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. You weren't the one that sent the petition from the
Department of State to INS?

Miss JAMES. No; that is routine visa work.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall when Mr. Crump informed you that INS had
refused to grant the waiver under section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. I don't recall the date. I do recall his informing me that
they had had this information from INS that the petition was approved,
but that the section 243(g) waiver was not approved and, therefore,
it looked as though Mrs. Oswald would not be able to come directly to
the United States. If she came at all she would have to go via another
country that did not have this sanction against it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you explain for the record just what the sanction is
under section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. Yes; the sanction is that the United States will not
issue an immigration visa to a citizen of a country which refuses to
accept a deportee from the United States based on the reasoning that
if you can't deport to that country, if a person turns out to be an
unsatisfactory immigrant, you are stuck with that immigrant.

Mr. COLEMAN. Does that mean that the person cannot come into the United
States?

Miss JAMES. No; it means that Mrs. Oswald could have gone to Belgium,
France, England, any other country that accepts deportees, and applied
for an immigration visa and have been admitted without any question on
a section 243(g) waiver.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked as James Exhibit No. 2 a memorandum from
Robert I. Owen to John E. Crump, under date of March 16, 1962, and
the subject of the memorandum is: "Operation of sanctions imposed by
Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in case of Mrs.
Marina N. Oswald."

(The document referred to was marked James Deposition Exhibit No. 2,
for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you prepare the original of that memorandum.

Miss JAMES. Yes; I prepared it under Mr. Owen's supervision.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall Mr. Owen asking you to prepare it?

Miss JAMES. This was my responsibility, this case, but I had long
discussions with Mr. Owen on the case as to how we should proceed with
it before I wrote the memorandum.

Mr. COLEMAN. And Mr. Owen told you, "Why don't you draft a memorandum
for Mr. Crump explaining to him the situation?"

Miss JAMES. We came to agreement in a talk as to how to handle the
case, and I drafted the memorandum which would go to Mr. Crump because
he was the officer in the Visa Office handling the case.

Mr. COLEMAN. In the third paragraph of the memorandum it is stated
that: "SOV believes it is in the interest of the U.S. to get Lee Harvey
Oswald and his family out of the Soviet Union and on their way to
this country soon. An unstable character, whose actions are entirely
unpredictable, Oswald may well refuse to leave the USSR or subsequently
attempt to return there if we should make it impossible for him to be
accompanied from Moscow by his wife and child."

Did you draft that?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was this language that Mr. Owen had discussed with you and
told you to put in the memorandum?

Miss JAMES. My way of working is to draft a memorandum in rough draft.
I give it to Mr. Owen. He and I--he might well have put in some few
words. I don't know just where he would have changed it or whether he
did change it. I can't say. It is impossible to say at this time unless
I had the original draft, but I know he was in agreement with this.

Mr. COLEMAN. Were you the one that brought up the point that Oswald was
an unstable character, or was that something Mr. Owen contributed?

Miss JAMES. I believe the Department--I will say our office was sure
that he was an unstable character by the very fact that he had tried
to renounce his American citizenship, and then come--by the fact he
had tried to renounce his American citizenship, makes him an unstable
character to me.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was it your thought that once he got out of Russia and
back into the United States, that we wouldn't let him go back again?

Miss JAMES. I think we would have--I would have, based on my work in
the office, I would have hoped we would have done everything to keep
him from going back. Whether the passport regulations would have made
this possible, I don't know.

Mr. COLEMAN. You never wrote a memorandum to the Passport Office,
though?

Miss JAMES. No; that if he applies again, don't let him go back--no; we
did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why didn't you do that in the light of the fact----

Miss JAMES. Because there was no reason at this time. He was in the
Soviet Union trying to get out, and it would not have occurred to me to
predict that 5 years from now he might want to go back and we should
put a stop on his passport. In fact, I don't ever recall taking such
action.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you drafted this memorandum, did you send the
telegram to the Embassy which you suggest in the last paragraph should
be sent?

Miss JAMES. I did not send any telegram as far as I know. If it had
been sent, it would have been sent by the Visa Office on the basis of
our recommendation. I would assume if they agreed to this memorandum,
they sent it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was the memorandum which I have marked as James Exhibit
No. 2 in any way motivated or written as a result of the telegram dated
March 15, 1962, which you received from the Embassy in Moscow, which
says: "Please advise when decision on petition in 243(g) waiver Lee
Oswald wife may be expected," which I have marked as James Exhibit No.
3 and am showing you a copy of it.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 3 for
identification.)

Miss JAMES. May I have you repeat that question again, please?

Mr. COLEMAN. I am asking you was the memorandum of March 16, 1962,
drafted by you, which we have marked as James Exhibit No. 2, in any way
motivated by the telegram from the Embassy dated March 15, which I have
marked as James Exhibit No. 3? It came out of State Department file
IV-13.

Miss JAMES. My memory is that it was not motivated in entirety,
although undoubtedly the telegram brought the case to our attention.
As I recall in those days or weeks preceding March 16, I had been in
conversation with Mr. Crump and Mr. Owen and I had been discussing the
case, and I cannot be sure, but I believe that we would have had this
in our mind before the telegram came in. But undoubtedly the telegram
would make us expedite the writing of this memorandum.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you wrote the memorandum of March 16, 1961, did you
draft the letter which Mr. Crump sent to INS, asking it to reconsider
its original decision that it would not waive section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. May I see a copy of that letter? You asked me if I drafted
it?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. No; I did not draft it, but I believe some of the reasoning
in the letter was based on the memorandum from SOV.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can you tell me who drafted it?

Miss JAMES. Mr. Crump has his initials on the file copy. Again, I
didn't clear that outgoing letter. Mr. Owen cleared it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft a memorandum from Mr. Hale to Mr.
Cieplinski, dated March 20, 1962, or did Mr. Crump draft that?

Miss JAMES. Mr. Crump drafted that.

Mr. COLEMAN. March 20, 1962.

Miss JAMES. We have March 23 from Hale to Cieplinski. It was drafted on
the 20th, apparently sent on the 23d.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark as James Exhibit No. 3-A a memorandum from Mr.
Hale to Mr. Cieplinski in re immigrant visa of Mrs. Marina H. Oswald,
and ask you whether you have seen a copy of that document.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. You got a copy, but you didn't draft it?

Miss JAMES. No; you said, did I see a copy of it, I thought.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; and is that the same document that you described as
the memorandum dated March 23?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. After the memorandum----

Miss JAMES. May I have a moment, please, to read this letter that they
sent to the INS?

Mr. COLEMAN. Sure.

Miss JAMES. Which I don't remember seeing before.

Mr. COLEMAN. You didn't draft that letter?

Miss JAMES. No. Thank you.

Mr. COLEMAN. You say you didn't draft that?

Miss JAMES. No; it was drafted in the Visa Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you knew that it had gone out, I take it?

Miss JAMES. I received a copy of it, so, therefore, I knew that they
had sent this to the head of the Special Consular Administration at
that time, SCA.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now after----

Miss JAMES. Special Consular Affairs, I beg your pardon.

Mr. COLEMAN. After that letter was sent out, did you have occasion to
call INS, and ask them to find out what the status of the letter was?

Miss JAMES. To the best of my memory I never called INS on this case.

Mr. COLEMAN. My problem is I have a letter here which is from Robinson
to Michael Cieplinski, and it says at the bottom: "5-29-62 Miss James
SOV called to say she had received letter from Mr. Oswald's mother
saying he had written he had no money and was unable to travel."

Miss JAMES. I would have called the Visa Office on that. That doesn't
mean I called INS.

Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, I see. All your calls were to the Visa Office?

Miss JAMES. Yes; in fact, I think I am clear that in saying that there
is a policy that all approaches to INS are through the Visa Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark as James Exhibit No. 4 a copy of a letter from
Robert H. Robinson to Mr. Michael Cieplinski, dated May 9, 1962, and I
ask you whether you have seen a copy of that letter.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 4 for
identification.)

Miss JAMES. I don't recall having seen it at the time. I do recall
reading it in the file prior to my coming to this meeting.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall making the call that they at the bottom said
you made?

Miss JAMES. I am sure that I did if Mr. Crump put his initials on it. I
don't remember it. I do remember the letter from Mr. Oswald's mother.
In fact, I had some telephone calls from her, also.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall receiving a copy of a telegram from the
Embassy at Moscow, which telegram is dated May 4, 1962, which I have
marked as James Exhibit No. 5?

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 5 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Have you seen that telegram?

Miss JAMES. An information copy came to EUR, which is European Bureau,
and I am sure that that means that an information copy came on down to
the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, and I would have seen it, and that
is why I called to inquire about the case.

Mr. COLEMAN. And there is a note on there that on May 8, 1962, you
called to inquire about the case and apparently you were told that the
waiver had been granted.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know why you made the call?

Miss JAMES. Well, I would have considered, reading it today, that this
is an urgent telegram from the Embassy in Moscow wanting some action
from the Department, and I would have made the call to try to get done
what the Embassy was pleading for, action one way or the other on this
case.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you clear this with anybody else within the office?

Miss JAMES. There is nothing to clear on this, only that I called to
find out--I might well have talked to Mr. Owen about this telegram. I
am sure he saw it. The general routing is for telegrams to go through
the officer in charge to the person who handles the specific subject,
but it has been a part of my duty to have called them to----

Mr. COLEMAN. And you say that as a result of getting the telegram from
Moscow, that you without consulting with anybody else in the office
would call and find out the status?

Miss JAMES. I wouldn't have to have any further instruction on that
telegram.

Mr. COLEMAN. I would then like to show you a document which has been
marked as Commission--James Exhibit No. 7 which is a telegram to the
American Embassy in Moscow, dated May 8, 1962, and ask you whether you
sent that telegram.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 7 for
identification.)

Miss JAMES. That telegram was sent by the Visa Office of the
Department, and was apparently cleared by me telephonically and
initialed by Mr. Crump as having cleared with me over the telephone.

Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, I see, Mr. Crump is in the Visa Office?

Miss JAMES. Yes; now this gives me a lead to another paper back there,
where I said I had not seen it. It had Mr. Owen's initials or some
initials, which I couldn't identify.

I now identify those initials as Mr. Crump's initials, and, after that,
it said Miss James, in substance. I now realize that he had probably
telephoned to me, cleared it in substance, initialed it, sent it up to
SOV, and Mr. Owen put his initials on it, and I never had my initials
on it for that reason.

Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you say that this telegram which I have
marked as James Exhibit No. 7, was actually drafted by Mr. Crump as
a result of Mr. Crump's office finding out that the waiver had been
granted?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. That they called you, told you what they were going to do,
and you said, "Fine," and that is how your name got on the telegram?

Miss JAMES. That is why my name is there and Mr. Crump's initials above
it show that he was the officer who cleared it with me.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, I take it in the document that I have marked as James
Exhibit No. 8, which is a telegram dated March 20, 1962, in which the
Embassy at Moscow was instructed to "withhold action on Department's
OMV 61" because the sanction is being reconsidered. That telegram also
was not drafted by you, and the only reason why your name appears on it
is that it was cleared with you over the telephone.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 8 for
identification.)

Miss JAMES. Yes; and, again, although that was cleared, those are my
initials, VHJ, that is my initials. It was apparently cleared over the
phone telephonically and also sent it up to us and Mr. Owen and I each
initialed it, VHJ, and O for Owen.

Mr. COLEMAN. But the fact that your name appeared on the telegrams
doesn't mean you wrote them?

Miss JAMES. No; you see, the way the telegrams are in the State
Department, that first line says drafted by, and then underneath is
clearances, and those offices are clearing offices.

Mr. COLEMAN. And could you identify for me a letter which I have marked
James Exhibit No. 6, which is a letter from Michael Cieplinski to Mr.
Farrell, dated March 27, 1962. I ask you whether that is a copy of the
letter which was sent forward to the Immigration Service asking them to
reconsider the waiver?

Miss JAMES. This exhibit is a photostatic copy of the file copy which
is in the file I am examining, and it is an exact copy. I did not clear
it.

Mr. COLEMAN. As far as you know, that is a copy of the letter?

Miss JAMES. An exact copy; yes. I see the initials are carried through.
Everything is exactly the way the file copy is, the Department's file
copy.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as James Exhibit No. 9 a transmittal
slip under date of March 16, 1962, and it bears the signature which
purports to be Virginia H. James, and I ask you whether that is your
signature that appears thereon.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, what occasioned your sending this transmittal slip to
the American Embassy and the attachment?

Miss JAMES. We wanted the Embassy in Moscow to know what we were doing
on the despatches and telegrams that they sent in, and that we were
in agreement with their recommendation, that we were making these
recommendations to the Visa Office, and this would more or less give
them some assurance that their recommendations were in harmony with our
thinking. This is the way we work, very closely with the Embassy in
Moscow.

When we are in harmony with what they do, we write memos through the
Department. We frequently send memos to them so they say, "Well, we
have made the right recommendation. The Political Office is supporting
us and now we wait for the other offices in the Department."

Mr. COLEMAN. Were you aware, did you know, or did you have anything to
do with suggesting to the Embassy that they should try to send Mrs.
Marina Oswald into the country by her first going to Brussels?

Miss JAMES. No; except that is a regular procedure that we use, we call
it third country procedure. The immigrant can't come directly to the
United States. They do go to another country.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you were not the one to suggest it in the Oswald case?

Miss JAMES. No; it is established procedure, though. It would not be
unusual for any officer in the Visa Office to think of that.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you didn't suggest it?

Miss JAMES. No; I did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, when Mr. Oswald came into the country--when Oswald
left Moscow, I take it you were informed the day he left or the day
after he left, and did you receive a copy of the telegram from Moscow
to the State Department, dated May 31?

Miss JAMES. Yes; our office received it, SOV.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked that as James Exhibit No. 10.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 10, for
identification.)

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you then, after he got back, drafted a letter to
Oswald's mother?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark that as James Exhibit No. 11.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 11 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. This is in file IV, a copy of it. I show you a copy of a
letter from Robert I. Owen to Mrs. Oswald, under date of June 7, 1962,
and ask you whether that is the letter.

Miss JAMES. Yes; I drafted that letter. I recall it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, in connection with the Oswald case, was there any
instance where you wanted to do one thing but somebody told you no,
something else would have to be done?

Miss JAMES. In the Oswald case?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. We worked in harmony on these cases. The Visa Office is
very well--harmonize with SOV policy on these cases. There is no
bickering or unpleasantness or somebody pulling one way or the other.
We seem to go along with them. Every time one comes up they go along in
the regular way based upon established policy.

Mr. COLEMAN. There was no instance where you said, "I think that this
ought to be done" and somebody said, "I don't care what you think, this
is the way it should be done."

Miss JAMES. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. In all these cases you discussed the problem with the Visa
Office and you reached a mutual agreement. You never had a dispute?

Miss JAMES. I recall no such feeling or reactions.

Mr. COLEMAN. You had indicated earlier, Miss James, that there was a
general policy in your office to see that husbands and wives were not
separated. Would you want to describe for the record just what that
policy was?

Miss JAMES. May I go back historically?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. Since the time we first recognized the Soviet Union, we
have had these cases of separated families, spouses, husbands and
wives and children and other relatives who by some reason or another,
mostly because of the operation of Communist policy, have become
separated from their American citizen families. And from the time we
first recognized the Soviets, this has been a problem there. Files are
filled with notes to the Soviet Government asking them to please issue
exit visas to permit certain relatives to join families in the United
States. This has gone on, and I remember hearing an officer say that if
the result of recognizing the Soviet Union was for no other reason than
to assist these people this was a very powerful reason. During World
War II no visas were issued and nobody traveled and this died. Right
after the war we again had the problem of people trying to get their
relatives out, and the number was greatly increased by Russia taking
over those various countries, Lithuania, Estonia, parts of Poland,
parts of Czechoslovakia, Rumania went into the Soviet Union, and we had
the number greatly enlarged.

Then, in addition to that, because of war operations, American
citizens were stationed in the Soviet Union and they had married
Soviet women, and so we had pressing cases of correspondents. American
correspondents, a few people assigned to the Embassy in Moscow who
married Soviet wives, probably about 15 or 16 who were very, what we
would call, worthy cases of good marriages and good people who had made
a good marriage with women we thought were good people, and they have
since made good American citizens.

So in 1953, when Stalin died, we had the first break, and they issued
the visas on this group. And since then we have gone forward with
this. We saw we had a break and so we have been pressing the Soviet
Government to issue visas to clear this problem up.

In 1959 when Mr. Nixon went there, he was importuned by relatives to
help to get their relatives out, I mean American citizens, and he took
a list of about 80 people, and he agreed to take up these cases, and
we added a number of worthy cases, and Mr. Khrushchev said, "I want to
clear up this problem"--present it through channels.

Since then, we have presented it through channels and we have succeeded
in getting about 800 relatives of American citizens out. And the
defector's wife falls into that pattern, because while we are not
sympathetic with these people we know that if we refuse to grant U.S.
visas to a wife of an American citizen, the Soviet Government can
immediately say, "Well, we grant visas to these people, exit visas.
Then you don't allow them to go to the United States. What does this
mean?"

So that was the basis of our whole policy with Marina Oswald, that we
felt that we didn't want to put the Embassy in a position of fighting
for exit visas for relatives, and then when they issue you say, "Well,
this is not quite the kind we want."

Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you say that once the Passport Office
made the decision that Oswald was still an American citizen, then your
policy that you don't want to separate husbands and wives came into
play, and if the Soviet Union is willing to let both of them out, that
we will let them come in?

Miss JAMES. That is the basic policy. That was the whole interest in
our Office, the Embassy in Moscow's primary interest there as far as
Marina Oswald was concerned, and her child.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have no further questions.

Thank you.




TESTIMONY OF JAMES L. RITCHIE

The testimony of James L. Ritchie was taken at 12:20 p.m., on June
17, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs.
William T. Coleman, Jr., and W. David Slawson, assistant counsel of the
President's Commission, Thomas Ehrlich, Special Assistant to the Legal
Adviser, Department of State, and Carroll H. Seeley, Jr., were present.


Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Ritchie, will you state your full name?

Mr. RITCHIE. James L. Ritchie.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear the
testimony you are about to give is the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Mr. RITCHIE. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Please state your name and address.

Mr. RITCHIE. James L. Ritchie, 5010 North 13th Street, Arlington, Va.

Mr. COLEMAN. Our information is, sir, that some time around October 22,
1963, you had occasion to look at the Oswald file----

Mr. RITCHIE. I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. After the Department received a telegram from the CIA
indicating that Oswald had made an inquiry at the Russian Embassy in
Mexico City, and that you took certain action as a result of looking at
the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. And that is what we want to ask you about, sir. But before
I do that, let me ask you a few preliminary questions.

Mr. RITCHIE. Certainly.

Mr. COLEMAN. You have given your address, is that correct?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Where are you presently working?

Mr. RITCHIE. State Department Passport Office, Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. And what is your position?

Mr. RITCHIE. Attorney advisor.

Mr. COLEMAN. And how long have you been in that capacity?

Mr. RITCHIE. Nine or ten years.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you a member of the Bar?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes; District of Columbia.

Mr. COLEMAN. When was the first time you ever heard the name Lee Harvey
Oswald?

Mr. RITCHIE. October 22, 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. And would you indicate what occasioned your hearing the
name?

Mr. RITCHIE. The Security Division transmitted a telegram from the
CIA marked Secret, to the Passport Office. It was received in the
Legal Division October 16, and it had been marked "Mr. Anderson, pull
previous" which means get the file, and it was then handed to me
October 21, approximately.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who handed it to you?

Mr. RITCHIE. I don't know. It was placed on my desk. I imagine the
file----

Mr. COLEMAN. Prior to that time, you hadn't called for the file? You
knew nothing about the case?

Mr. RITCHIE. No; I knew nothing about it. It had been placed on my desk
for review. I read the telegram, noted that copies had been sent to
SCA, that is the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, CMA, Mexico,
the Soviet desk, and the press section of RAR.

Mr. SEELEY. American Republics Political Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. Then what did you do after you got the telegram?

Mr. RITCHIE. I reviewed the entire file.

Mr. COLEMAN. That means you read every document in the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. And do you have any idea how long it took you?

Mr. RITCHIE. Not more than a half hour.

Mr. COLEMAN. And then what did you do after you read or reviewed the
file?

Mr. RITCHIE. I don't want to say I read every item. I read the majority.

Mr. COLEMAN. As a lawyer?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes; I glanced over it.

Mr. COLEMAN. You read what you felt was relevant?

Mr. RITCHIE. Relevant.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you did thumb through every document?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you then do?

Mr. RITCHIE. I made a judgment there was no passport action to be
taken, and marked the file to be filed.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you make a written memorandum?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; just put "file" on it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you discuss it with Mr. Seeley or anyone else?

Mr. RITCHIE. I took the file to Mr. Seeley.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you summarize for him what was in the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. No; I did not. I don't know what my exact words were to
him. I must have said, "Look at this."

Mr. COLEMAN. Didn't you say to him, "This guy was a defector"?

Mr. RITCHIE. I don't recall what I said to him, back in October. I know
I said something to him. I directed his attention to it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Then did he discuss it with you?

Mr. RITCHIE. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. You put the file on his desk and you didn't have anything
to do with it?

Mr. RITCHIE. That is right.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why did you put it on his desk?

Mr. RITCHIE. He was in charge of the section, and I just brought it to
him for his attention.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you do that with every file that you are asked to
review?

Mr. RITCHIE. Those files that I thought should be brought to his
attention; yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, you felt that this file was other than just
the routine file that you would look at and put back?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't you tell Mr. Seeley something as to why you
thought it was other than routine?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; I just said "Look at it." I presume I just
directed his attention to the file, and that he should look at it.

Mr. COLEMAN. And then you had no more discussion with him?

Mr. RITCHIE. None that I can recall.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you say anything to him, like for example, "This guy
the last time he was abroad tried to, or at least threatened that he
would give to the Soviets whatever he had learned in the Marine Corps
with reference to our radar information"?

Mr. RITCHIE. I have no recollection of my conversation with Mr. Seeley.
All I know is my usual procedure is I review a case. If there is no
passport action to be taken, I place it, mark it "file" and place it in
the box to go to file.

Mr. COLEMAN. Without Mr. Seeley taking a look at it?

Mr. RITCHIE. Without Mr. Seeley ever seeing it.

Mr. COLEMAN. And this one you felt----

Mr. RITCHIE. And this one I felt he should see.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you didn't give him any memorandum----

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Or point out what he should look at?

Mr. RITCHIE. I may have directed his attention to the case, but I have
no independent recollection of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Then after October 22, 1963, you had no contact with
Oswald, the file or anything else?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; let me change that. I reviewed the file before I
came here. I have reviewed the file.

Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, sure.

That is all. Thank you, sir.




TESTIMONY OF CARROLL HAMILTON SEELEY, JR.

The testimony of Carroll Hamilton Seeley, Jr., was taken at 11 a.m., on
June 17, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs.
William T. Coleman, Jr., and W. David Slawson, assistant counsel of the
President's Commission. Thomas Ehrlich, Esq., Special Assistant to the
Legal Adviser, Department of State, and James L. Ritchie, were present.


Mr. COLEMAN. Would you state your full name, please, sir?

Mr. SEELEY. Carroll Hamilton Seeley, Jr.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you raise your right hand, please?

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give in this
deposition is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?

Mr. SEELEY. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I would like to state that you have been called and
asked to give a deposition because in looking through certain files
supplied us by the State Department, there are indications that you
had something to do with one or more of the documents in the file, and
we also want to ask you concerning what you did after you received
information that a person named Lee Harvey Oswald was at the Soviet
Embassy in Mexico City some time around the first of October. As we
understand it you received such notice on or about the 16th of October.

Mr. SEELEY. I did see the notice. I think that I saw that notice on the
22d, on October 22, 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. Those are the two subjects that we are going to question
you about.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you state your address for the record?

Mr. SEELEY. My address is 6944 Nashville Road, Lanham, Md.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you familiar with the congressional resolution in re
this Commission?

Mr. SEELEY. I am familiar with the newspaper accounts.

Mr. COLEMAN. You are familiar with the resolution?

Mr. SEELEY. I am familiar with it to the extent that I have read in
the newspapers that there is a Commission set up to investigate the
assassination.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you state whether you are presently employed by the
Federal Government?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I am. I am employed with the Department of State.

Mr. COLEMAN. What is your position with the State Department?

Mr. SEELEY. I am Assistant Chief of the Legal Division of the Passport
Office of the Department of State.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who is your immediate superior?

Mr. SEELEY. Robert D. Johnson, chief counsel.

Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you had that position?

Mr. SEELEY. I have been in that position since approximately February
1962.

Mr. COLEMAN. Prior to February 1962, what was your position?

Mr. SEELEY. I was Chief of the Security Branch of the Legal Division of
the Passport Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. How long did you have that job?

Mr. SEELEY. I had held that job since approximately 1957.

Mr. COLEMAN. As assistant to Mr. Johnson----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What are your duties?

Mr. SEELEY. My duties are mainly supervisory and to review material
that has been prepared in the Passport Office Legal Division, and on
some occasions to clear information or material that has been prepared
in other divisions of the Passport Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it you are a lawyer?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you a member of the Bar?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. COLEMAN. Of what State or States?

Mr. SEELEY. I am a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia.

Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you been with the Department of State?

Mr. SEELEY. I have been with the Department of State since 1954.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me the first time you heard, read or saw
the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, Mr. Coleman, I don't have an independent recollection
of that. I feel that probably the name first appears in the file on
March 28, 1961.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, by consulting the file, to refresh your
recollection, you think that the first time you heard or saw the name
Lee Harvey Oswald was in March 1961?

Mr. SEELEY. It is possible, it may have been that I had heard of it
before, though, because he did have some publicity, and I usually
follow those items, but I don't have any recollection of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. What happened in March 1961, that occasioned your knowing
or hearing the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. May I look at the file?

Mr. COLEMAN. Certainly.

I take it, sir, you are looking at the file which is the file of the
passport--the original passport file of the State Department.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is the file that has been given State Department file
No. X, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

The first time my name appears in the file is on a form DS-10, which is
a reference slip, and it is addressed to Mr. Cacciatore in PT-F, and to
Mr. Seeley, in PT-LS.

It requests to know insofar as I am concerned, should instruction be
classified confidential.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I will mark for the purposes of this deposition a
document as S-1, meaning Seeley Exhibit No. 1, which is the State
Department document which already has been marked by the State
Department as X-45.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 1 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Who is the reference slip dated March 28, 1961, from?

Mr. SEELEY. Mr. Kupiec.

Mr. COLEMAN. To two persons, and you are one of the two persons, Mr.
Seeley, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you the document which has been marked as S-1 and
ask you is that a copy of the document you referred to?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that you got this because someone asked whether
the instructions should be classified as confidential.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. I don't have an independent recollection of this,
but I assume that it is referring to this instruction which is State
Department's document X-47, which had been classified as Official Only.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I show you a document which has already been marked
as Commission Exhibit No. 969, and ask you whether these were the
instructions that were attached to S-1.

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I am able to determine, I don't have an
independent recollection, but looking at the formation of the file and
the fact that this was not sent, and I know that there was another one
that was sent, I believe it is the same document.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you were asked as to whether it should be classified
as confidential?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. What, if anything, did you do?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't know. I have no recollection of what action I took
on that particular aspect of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. You don't recall ever talking to Miss Waterman or anyone
else in the Department as to what form the proposed instruction should
take?

Mr. SEELEY. No. I don't know whether I even know Miss Waterman. I
know Mr. Kupiec, and I probably know Miss Waterman, but I don't have
recollection of what she looks like.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Kupiec as to what form the
instruction should take?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir. This instruction was drafted by Miss Waterman,
and it was sent up for clearance to PTL, Mr. Johnson. I presume that
when it went to either Mr. Cacciatore or Mr. Kupiec, I put my name on
for the clearance procedure, in particular with regard to whether the
thing should have been classified, have a higher classification than it
did.

Mr. COLEMAN. You don't have any independent recollection of discussing
Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Or whether the instruction should have been in a different
form?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me the next occasion where you had anything
to do with Oswald, or the file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next occasion, I think, relates to document X-43.

Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as S-2 a memorandum from Robert D.
Johnson to Mr. John T. White, under date of March 31, 1961, which in
the State Department files has been marked as X-43.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 2 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Is that the document referred to?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, sir, did you draft S-2?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can you tell me the circumstances surrounding your
drafting S-2?

Mr. SEELEY. This particular item I do have a recollection of because
there was a discussion between Mr. Johnson and myself concerning the
propriety of sending the passport through the mail as had been proposed.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was that discussion?

Mr. SEELEY. We were opposed to this action on several grounds.

Mr. COLEMAN. What were they?

Mr. SEELEY. One was the fact that I think we already had information
that Mrs. Oswald, the mother, had not been able to get in touch with
her son.

Mr. COLEMAN. You are talking about Oswald's mother?

Mr. SEELEY. The mother; yes. And we felt that the mails shouldn't be
trusted for a U.S. passport which we know has a value outside the
United States.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, you also indicated in the memorandum that, "We should
not be bound by the opinion he expressed in paragraph 2 of his letter
set out in Moscow Despatch No. 985 of February 28, 1961."

Mr. SEELEY. May I get that? It is No. 585. The paragraph that we are
referring to reads: "I desire to return to the United States, that is
if we could come to some agreement concerning the dropping of any legal
proceedings against me. If so, then I would be free to ask the Russian
authorities to allow me to leave. If I could show them my American
passport, I am of the opinion they would give me an exit visa."

The item in the memorandum concerns itself mainly with his request for
agreement concerning the dropping of any legal proceedings against him.

Mr. COLEMAN. You indicated that the Department ought not to give such
agreement.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Johnson with respect
to this March 31, 1961, memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. I don't have a complete recollection of it, but
I do know that I did discuss this particular item, particularly the
mailing of the passport, with Mr. Johnson.

Mr. COLEMAN. And do you recall what Mr. Johnson said?

Mr. SEELEY. I think Mr. Johnson was the one that instructed me to draft
this so that we would not send this through the mail, so that the
passport would not be sent through the mail.

Mr. COLEMAN. After the memorandum of March 31, 1961, and this
discussion you had with Mr. Johnson, what did you do?

Mr. SEELEY. I am sorry?

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft the instructions in the form that they
actually went forward?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with that?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; except I think there is a clearance, but I am not
sure about that. I think we cleared it.

Mr. COLEMAN. And the instructions that actually went forward did
indicate that they ought not to return the passport by mail?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was the date of that instruction?

Mr. SEELEY. The instruction that went forward?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. SEELEY. That was AE-173, of April 13, 1961. It is Department X-38.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will the record show that that document has already been
marked as Commission Exhibit No. 971 before the Commission. You say
that you read Commission Exhibit No. 971 and cleared it before it went
forward?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Exhibit No. 971 which you referred to as X-38 shows on the
left-hand side that there is a notation that a copy of the instructions
was sent to the CIA.

Mr. SEELEY. Was furnished to the CIA.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was that done at the same time the instructions went
forward?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with sending it to the CIA?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have a recollection on this. I would imagine what
happened is that there was a request by the CIA for a copy of this, and
that I authorized them to be furnished a copy on October 5, 1961.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it you actually read the instructions which went
forward on April 13, 1961.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. My initials are at the bottom.

Mr. COLEMAN. The fact that your initials are at the bottom indicates
that you approved them?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was the next occasion on which you had anything to do
with the Oswald file or heard the name Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. I will have to check the file. The next occasion where the
record shows that I had something to do with the Oswald file concerns
Item X-31. It is a Department of State instruction, W-7, dated July
11, 1961, drafted by Mrs. Waterman, and I cleared this particular
instruction.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can we note for the record that that instruction has
already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 975?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. You cleared those instructions prior to the time you
received word from Mr. Snyder in the Embassy in Moscow that Oswald had
appeared at the Embassy on July 8, 10, or 11?

Mr. SEELEY. Of 1961?

Mr. COLEMAN. 1961.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; that is true. I wasn't sure of the time element
in there, but that is true. This went out the same day, apparently,
that the instruction was drafted and was sent in, or the despatch was
drafted and sent in.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, you took that action or you approved that
action prior to the time that you knew that Oswald had appeared at the
Embassy in Moscow?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it a fair reading of the July 11, 1961, instructions
which you approved, that you indicated that Oswald could be given back
his passport?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I don't think so. I call your attention to
paragraph 5 of the despatch; "It is noted that the Embassy intends
to seek the Department's prior advice before granting Mr. Oswald
documentation as a United States citizen upon any application he may
submit."

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, as of this time it was still open as far as
the Department was concerned in Washington whether Oswald had renounced
his citizenship and was entitled to a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. I don't think that the adjudicative proceeding
had been completed.

Mr. COLEMAN. When was the adjudicative process completed so far as you
were concerned, that the Passport Office in Washington determined that
in its opinion, that Mr. Oswald was still a citizen?

Mr. SEELEY. I would say that the operations memorandum of August 18,
1961, from the Department of State to the American Embassy in Moscow
which refers to the Embassy Despatch No. 29, the passport renewal
application and the questionnaire.

Mr. COLEMAN. You would say that as of that date the Passport Office
determined that Oswald was still a citizen?

Mr. SEELEY. I would say at that date that we concurred in the
conclusion of the Embassy that he had not expatriated--that we had no
information or evidence that he had expatriated himself.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with this decision?

Mr. SEELEY. Not the citizenship decision; no, sir. I had nothing to do
with that.

Mr. COLEMAN. You weren't consulted prior to the time the decision was
made?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you approve the operations memorandum of August 18?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. 1961; before it was sent forward?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I did. My initials are at the bottom there.

Mr. COLEMAN. If you had disapproved it, at least there would have been
further discussion?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; there would have been.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, to that extent, you did have something to do with the
decision?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, to that extent, there was no consultation. This
was sent up for clearance, and insofar as the citizenship angle was
concerned, I agreed with what they had done.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you call for and look at the file prior to the time
you initialed the operations memorandum of August 18, 1961?

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume that I had the whole file. Mr. Ehrlich has
suggested that I mention that I was not in the citizenship area at the
time that I put my concurrence on this operations memorandum, and I was
looking at it only from the aspect of my own area.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was your area?

Mr. SEELEY. I was in the Security Branch. I was Chief of the Security
Branch of the Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you have to do with the decision?

Mr. SEELEY. In this particular case if you had objected, I am sure that
there would have been further discussion on this particular case.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as Seeley Exhibit No. 3--instead of "S"
I think we had better call these Seeley exhibits, the operations
memorandum dated August 18, 1961, from the Department of State to the
American Embassy.

Mr. SEELEY. Fine, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 3 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. That is the document that you referred to as X-27, is that
correct?

Mr. SEELEY. X-27, that is correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. If you had felt that there was evidence in the file that
Oswald had renounced his citizenship, I take it you would not have
approved this memorandum, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I would not have.

Mr. COLEMAN. You would not have approved it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I would not have approved it.

Mr. COLEMAN. There would have been further discussions?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, as far as you were concerned in reviewing
the file and what you knew and looking over it, what Miss Waterman had
said and what Mr. Snyder had said, that your decision was that you saw
no reason why you would disagree with the decision?

Mr. SEELEY. I was in complete agreement with the decision.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you concurred in the operations memorandum of
August 18, 1961, what was the next occasion on which you had anything
to do with the Oswald file?

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I can determine----

Mr. COLEMAN. The Commission Exhibit No. 979 is the same as I have
marked as Seeley Exhibit No. 3.

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I can determine by examination of the file, the
next contact I had with the file concerns a slip that is part of State
X-19, consisting of a DS-10 reference slip dated 12-29-61.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is attached to a letter from L. A. Mack, to the
Director of the Passport Office of the State Department, is that
correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Mr. Coleman, on that particular item, I don't think that
that was what it was attached to. I think it was probably attached to
X-20.

Mr. COLEMAN. What is that?

Mr. SEELEY. That is a memorandum from Miss Knight to Mr. Boswell.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will you read that memorandum into the record? It is short.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes; the subject is: "Lee Harvey Oswald." It is classified
"Confidential."

It states: "We refer to the Office Memorandum of July 27, 1961, from
SY, which stated that '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."

Mr. COLEMAN. You say that your reference slip of 12-29-61 was attached
to that memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume it was.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you look at the letter, the Mack letter from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of Passports?

Mr. SEELEY. I am looking at it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you see that letter or did you have anything to do
with that letter?

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I know, I had nothing to do with that letter. I
have seen the letter.

Mr. COLEMAN. By the time you did, the reference slip of 12-29-61--which
I would like the reporter to indicate was marked Seeley Exhibit No.
4--what was your job in the State Department?

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 4 for
identification.)

Mr. SEELEY. At the time that I--I was still Chief of the Security
Branch of the Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. What does PT-L mean?

Mr. SEELEY. PT-L, Passport-Legal, PT-LS, Passport-Legal Security.

To give you an idea about it, the Legal Division is divided into two
branches, and we have a short designation for it, PT-LS and PT-LAD.

Mr. COLEMAN. I see.

Mr. SEELEY. I will tell you further if you wish, about this particular
item. This was----

Mr. COLEMAN. What is this particular item? You are now talking about
the letter?

Mr. SEELEY. The letter; yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. It is the Mack letter?

Mr. SEELEY. State Department File X-19. It was addressed to our Liaison
Branch, and I see at the bottom it was reviewed by Mr. Reichman, of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. And I would presume that I did
not, that this was not in the file at the time that this DS-10, that it
was probably in Liaison, and the file was called for. It was reviewed.
The file was then reviewed by Mr. Reichman who answered for his own
service.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, sir; what was the next occasion on which you had
anything to do with the Oswald file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next occasion concerns Item X-11.

Mr. COLEMAN. We have marked as Seeley Deposition Exhibit No. 5 a
memorandum from Robert Owen, to Michael Cieplinski, dated March 23,
1962.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 5 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask you, sir; whether that is the document you refer to.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft Seeley Exhibit No. 5?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. You reviewed it?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; on March 28, 1962.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with Seeley Exhibit No. 5
other than the fact that you just read it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why would you be reading it?

Mr. SEELEY. The item was referred to, a copy of this item was referred
to Miss Knight. It was, in turn, referred to the Legal Division, and
then in turn referred to the Security Branch of the Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you take any action with respect to it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not, other than to note that I had read it
and initialed it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did the fact that he had originally stated that he had
information as a radar operator in the Marine Corps which he would make
available to the Soviet Union--did that in any way raise in your mind a
security problem?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I thought that this certainly raised a doubt. He
had originally, I think, way back had made some similar type statement.
Here he made the statement, "Oswald stated he had never in fact been
subjected to any questioning or briefing by the Soviet authorities
concerning his life or experiences prior to entering the Soviet Union,
and never provided such information to any Soviet organ." I thought
that certainly there were two statements by him.

Mr. COLEMAN. I note on the copy you have there is a red check right
beside the line which I read. Did you place that red check on there?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't think so, sir. It looks like--I think I had a
regular pencil, and I think I would have done it with a pencil.

Mr. COLEMAN. Merely because a person who had attempted to defect now
says when he is trying to get back into the country, "I really didn't
tell the Soviets anything," that wouldn't completely satisfy you that
maybe he hadn't, would it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; but I had no information that he had in fact done
so. He had just made a statement that he would. I think that was his
original statement.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you didn't do anything other than read Seeley Exhibit
No. 5?

Mr. SEELEY. That is right, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. When was the next occasion you had anything to do with the
file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next concerns Item X-7, which is a memorandum from
Robert D. Johnson to William O. Boswell, dated May 4, 1962.

Mr. COLEMAN. We have marked that as Seeley Exhibit No. 6, and
identified as a memorandum from Robert D. Johnson to William O.
Boswell, dated May 4, 1962.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 6 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft this memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you have to do with it? You just read it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I signed it in Mr. Johnson's stead, to send it on
its way to Mr. Boswell.

Mr. COLEMAN. In effect, you said that based upon the evidence and
information of record, that Oswald had not expatriated himself under
the pertinent laws of the United States?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you review the file before you wrote that memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. I didn't write the memorandum. Before I signed it?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have any recollection of it. I presume the file was
with the memorandum. That is in the normal course of business, that
would be the way it was handled.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you don't have any independent recollection of whether
you checked through the file to see whether----

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me who wrote the memorandum from looking at
the initials?

Mr. SEELEY. I think it was a Mrs. Abboud.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you discuss it with her before?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not. This came from the citizenship area.
She is in the citizenship area.

Mr. COLEMAN. If they prepare a memorandum for your signature, just
merely because somebody in the citizenship area drafts it doesn't mean
that you sign it, does it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; it does not. I would imagine, although I don't
have any recollection, that I did look into the file.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it fair to say that you would not just initial it
merely because somebody else had drafted it?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. And normally you would look through the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; in the normal course of business I would look at
the file--see what my own conclusion was.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you drafted or after you initialed the memorandum
which has been marked as Seeley Exhibit No. 6, what was the next
occasion you had to look at the Oswald file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next occasion concerned the two items that are
identified as X-5.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as Seeley Exhibit No. 7 a photostatic copy
of an article which appeared in the Washington Post on Saturday, June
9, 1962, and also attached is a reference slip.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 7 for
identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Are they the two items that you refer to?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; they are.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, I take it you just read this and put it in the file.

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume that I cut this article out. I see that it
is my printing on the side there where it says "Oswald, Lee Harvey" on
the right-hand side.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is your printing?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; and I would presume that I saw the article in the
newspaper, cut it out and brought it to be filed with this case.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I show you a sheet which has the word "Refusal"
Commission Exhibit No. 962, and ask you whether that hand printing that
appears there is your printing, too?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; that is not. I have looked at that. It doesn't
look like mine.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after you put this newspaper article in the file, did
you have anything else to do with the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes; I sent this item, this is CS, these items to our
Special Services, Miss Waters.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know what she did?

Mr. SEELEY. No; I don't. I have no recollection. I see that it was as
requested. It may have been a telephone request.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything else to do with the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was that?

Mr. SEELEY. That was on October 22, 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. What occasioned your looking at the file on October 22,
1963?

Mr. SEELEY. I am looking right now at State Department Exhibit X-3.

Mr. COLEMAN. And what occasioned your looking at the file on October
22, 1963?

Mr. SEELEY. It was the transmittal from INR of the Department
transmitting a secret--well, I know what it is, a CIA document,
telegram, to the Passport Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can you recall what the CIA telegram said?

Mr. SEELEY. The telegram said in effect that Lee Oswald had appeared
or had contacted, I believe was the word, the Soviet Embassy in Mexico
City in October 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, did the telegram also indicate that Oswald was the
person who in 1959 had attempted to defect?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, when you got the telegram on your desk, did you also
get the file with it?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; the passport file.

Mr. COLEMAN. That came to you at the same time, or did you get the
telegram and then send for the file?

Mr. SEELEY. I had the whole thing. I am morally certain on this, that
I had the whole file. I can tell by the reconstruction on this. Mr.
Ritchie and myself have discussed this. We are both sure how this went
about.

Do you want me to give this reconstruction?

Mr. COLEMAN. You can, if you wish to; yes.

Mr. SEELEY. I notice that there was a little note. "Mr. Anderson pull
previous." "Previous" means to pull the file, whatever file there is.
This was on October 17. The file was pulled according to our records in
our office on October 17 or 18, I forget the exact date. It was within
a day or so thereafter this. And I presume that this was first reviewed
by Mr. Ritchie and then reviewed by myself.

Mr. COLEMAN. When you pulled the file which is the State Department
file X----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you send for the security file?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why wouldn't you send for the security file if you get
a telegram from a security agency saying that the gentleman who was
down at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City is the same guy who in 1959
attempted to defect?

Mr. SEELEY. I looked at this report strictly from a passport office
point of view. The significance which, of course, might have great
intelligence significance, had little or no significance insofar as any
action that we would take in the Passport Office is concerned.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why would that be, sir?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, we have to have some basis under our regulations to
take any action.

Mr. COLEMAN. I mean why, if you get information which you can
immediately realize may have intelligence significance, why wouldn't
you look at it from a point of view of intelligence?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, I am working for the Passport Office. Certainly, if
I saw something that I could do something about, I would take whatever
action I thought was necessary.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why didn't you, for example, write a letter to the FBI
saying that this fellow is down in Mexico City, are you interested, or
do you want to see the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, I would say the probability is that a copy of this
was apparently furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you noted that, I take it, at the time of reviewing
the file?

Mr. SEELEY. I have no independent recollection that I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. But the fair assumption is that you did?

Mr. SEELEY. I would assume that.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that is also the reason why you didn't notify
the CIA, because the telegram had come from the CIA?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes; from the CIA.

Mr. COLEMAN. When you looked at the file, did you know or were you
aware after looking at the file that Oswald in June 1963 had been
issued a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. I presume I was. The passport is the next item there, and I
am sure that I looked at it and saw that he did have a passport.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you after you looked at it say to yourself "can we
revoke this passport?"

Mr. SEELEY. I am sure that is why I looked at it. I am sure of that,
Mr. Coleman, that I looked at it with that view in mind, if there was
any action to be taken of that sort.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that he had defected or attempted to defect
in 1959?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that when he attempted to defect that he
had indicated that he was going to pass some radar information to the
Russians if they gave him citizenship?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that the Soviet desk had indicated in 1961 or
1962 that it would be to the interests of the United States to get him
out of Russia and back to the United States?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you note in his passport application for his 1963
passport that he indicated that one of the countries that he intended
to travel to was Russia?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have an independent recollection of that. I presume
I did note that.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you are saying with all that information that you
would look at that file, I take it you did it on October 22?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Read it and just put it back and did nothing about it?

Mr. SEELEY. I did nothing about it other than to note the fact that I
had read the telegram.

Mr. COLEMAN. All I am saying, just asking for your best recollection----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I realize you did nothing, but wouldn't that cause you
to at least do something, to talk to somebody and say, "Can we do
something about this?"

Mr. SEELEY. Mr. Ritchie and I undoubtedly talked about this, or at
least we both saw it. I was well aware of the file. But there was
no particular passport significance to the fact that a man shows up
down at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He was married to a Soviet
citizen. I think there is an indication somewhere she was supposed to
report or something. I don't know what the score was on that.

Mr. COLEMAN. But the problem is, sir, that----

Mr. SEELEY. But even if she was to report, I don't get the significance
of an individual appearing at a Soviet Embassy, either here or anywhere
else in the world, by itself meaning anything insofar as passports is
concerned.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, the problem is, if there is a problem, that on
June 24, 1963, when Mr. Oswald applied for his passport, the State
Department issued it routinely because under the lookout system there
was nothing on Oswald, so, therefore, it went out the next day.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. And we think, from what we know, that as of June 24 or 25
no one looked at the file, so, therefore, there is no reason why the
passport wouldn't go out.

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume from looking at this file, that that is
absolutely correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. But our problem is that if on June 24 or June 25 someone
had looked at the file, would you have issued the passport based upon
what was in the file as of June 24 or 25, or would you have at least
talked to people to see whether some action should be taken?

Mr. SEELEY. If I had seen this application on June 24 or 25, before it
had been issued, I think I probably would have discussed it. But that
would have been the end of it. We have no basis upon which to deny him
or hold up his passport. There would have been a discussion.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you saying, then, it is your opinion that after
reviewing the file that if the request for a passport had come in and
you had looked at the file before the passport was issued, there was no
regulation or legal basis on which you could refuse him a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. That is correct. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. And, therefore, I take it then, that the only additional
information you got in the October CIA telegram was that he was in
Mexico City, and he had visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City.

Mr. SEELEY. That is correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. And it is your position that he had the right to go back
to Russia if he wanted to go anyway; is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. And so, therefore, there is nothing that you could have
done about it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you make any memorandum or any memoranda when you
looked at the file in October 1963?

Mr. SEELEY. Aside from this notation which is in my handwriting, which
says "Noted CHS 10-22-63" that is the extent of the documentation that
I gave to them.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you do say you had some discussions with the other
gentlemen that looked at the file?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have a recollection. I don't know whether Mr.
Ritchie does. I don't believe he does either, but the fact that we both
had it, he may have passed it to me. You have to get this in context.
We have hundreds of these cases. This is one case out of hundreds.

I am surprised that I have got any recollection, but I do have some,
as I mentioned before in my testimony here, that I did have some
recollection of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. No one called you and said, "Well, look, let him have the
passport, don't do anything about it," I take it?

Mr. SEELEY. Oh, no, sir. At the time the passport was issued, it was
issued.

Mr. COLEMAN. But I mean when you got the telegram, nobody called you
and said, "Look, just skip it. Let him have the passport."

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. "Don't do anything about it"?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. All the action you took, you took independently?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; as my own independent action.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it if faced with the situation again, knowing only
what you knew on October 22, 1963, you would take the same action today?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; that is correct. There is one additional item,
and that is under our new regulations we do put a card in on a defector
or a person--I think I can give you the definition here.

"Defectors, expatriates and repatriates whose activities or background
demand further inquiry prior to issuance of passport facilities."

I presume that under this criteria, in fact I know under this criteria
that Oswald would have a card placed against him today.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it your opinion as assistant legal counsel to the
Passport Office that you still in the final analysis couldn't deny him
the passport?

Mr. SEELEY. That is definite.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you would have to give it to him?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Has there been any other case of a defector where you have
actually issued him another passport?

Mr. SEELEY. We have issued passports to defectors, at least one that I
know of, and I think we have furnished a report on that.

Mr. COLEMAN. You say there is a case of another defector?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; in connection with the answer to this question,
we did a research job on a list of defectors which had been furnished
to the Department of State by the Department of Defense, and our search
disclosed that only one of these individuals, a Paul David Wilson, had
applied for passport facilities since his return to the United States,
and he was issued a passport.

Mr. COLEMAN. To go where, sir?

Mr. SEELEY. To visit Mexico, Colombia, South America, and was uncertain
of others.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was that done routinely or was that done after looking at
his file?

Mr. SEELEY. My recollection of this, that this was a routine issuance
of a passport to a person on whom we had no information.

Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, this was another case where because you
didn't have a lookout card----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Nobody ever looked at the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; well, there was no file. We have no file on this
man other than his name. The Passport Office has no file on this man,
Paul David Wilson.

Mr. COLEMAN. But there has been no case where you had a file, you knew
he had defected, and then applied for another passport and before you
issued the second passport you had to make a decision as to whether you
could refuse to issue him a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. None to my knowledge.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have no further questions, unless you have something
else you would want to say.

Mr. SEELEY. I have nothing further, Mr. Coleman. I will be glad to help
all I can. That is all I can say.

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you for coming over.




AFFIDAVIT OF LOUIS FELDSOTT

The following affidavit was executed by Louis Feldsott on July 23, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of Rockland, ss_:

I, Louis Feldsott, being duly sworn say:

1. I am the President of Crescent Firearms, Inc., 2 West 37th Street,
New York 18, New York.

2. On November 22, 1963, the F.B.I. contacted me and asked if Crescent
Firearms, Inc., had any records concerning the sale of an Italian made
6.5 m/m rifle with the serial number C 2766.

3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which
indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information
to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963.

4. Further records involving the purchase, sale, and transportation of
the weapon have been turned over to the F.B.I.

Signed the 23d day of July 1964.

    (S) Louis Feldsott,
        LOUIS FELDSOTT.




AFFIDAVIT OF J. PHILIP LUX

The following affidavit was executed by J. Philip Lux on July 22, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, J. Philip Lux, being duly sworn say:

1. I am now Store Manager at the H. L. Green Company, 1623 Main Street,
Dallas, Texas. I was not employed by the H. L. Green Company in 1963.

2. H. L. Green Company records show that in 1963, the Company had in
stock and sold Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were surpluses from World War
II.

3. The records also reflect the fact that the H. L. Green Company
received its supply of Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms
Company, New York City.

4. A review of the records has failed to reflect any record of a 6.5 mm
rifle with Serial No. C2766.

5. As far as I know, the H. L. Green Company is the only company in
Dallas handling any quantity of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles.

Signed the 22d day of July 1964.

    (S) J. Philip Lux,
        J. PHILIP LUX.




AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN

The following affidavit was executed by Howard Leslie Brennan on May 7,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Howard Leslie Brennan, being first duly sworn, do upon oath depose
and state:

On or about March 24, 1964, I testified in Washington, D.C., before
the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
In that connection I testified as to the reasons why I declined on
November 22, 1963, to give positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald
as the man I saw firing a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963.

Included in these reasons at pages 3629 and 3630 of Volume 28 of the
transcript of the Commission proceedings are the following reasons:

"And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself,
might be in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that
he wasn't going to be set free to escape and get out of the country
immediately, and I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret
Service wanted me, my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch
with them, if they didn't get in touch with me, and to see that the man
didn't get loose."

"... "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of
the man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement,
and they had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and
all that. But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that
anything could happen to me or my family."

I have also been advised that on page 3595 of Volume 28 of the
transcript of the Commission proceedings, the following appears:

"Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family, and
yourself?

"Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
Communist activity, and I felt like there had been more than one eye
witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye witness,
my family or I, either one, might not be safe."

I hereby state that this is a court reporter's error and that in truth
and in fact my answer to the question was:

"Mr. BRENNAN: I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a
Communist activity, and I felt like there _hadn't_ been more than
one eye witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye
witness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe."

Signed the 7th day of May 1964.

    (S) Howard Leslie Brennan.
        HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN.




AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT C. YEARGAN, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by Albert C. Yeargan, Jr., on July
21, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Albert C. Yeargan, Jr., 1922 Mayflower Drive, Dallas, Texas, being
duly sworn say:

1. I was the Sporting Goods Department Manager at the H. L. Green
Company, 1623 Main Street, Dallas, Texas, from the Summer of 1963 until
March 13, 1964. I am now employed by Smitty's Sporting Goods, 111 West
Jefferson Avenue, Dallas, Texas.

2. When I worked for the H. L. Green Company, it had in stock and was
offering for sale a large number of Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were
surpluses from World War II.

3. On November 22, 1963, FBI Agents, Secret Service Agents, and I
examined all sales records and receipt records concerning Italian 6.5
mm rifles.

4. The records showed that the H. L. Green Company obtained its supply
of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company in
New York City.

5. A review of all of the records failed to reflect any record of sale
of a 6.5 mm rifle with the Serial Number C2766.

6. As far as I know, the H. L. Green Company was at that time the only
Company in Dallas that handled any quantity of these Italian 6.5 mm
rifles.

Signed the 21st day of July 1964.

    (S) Albert C. Yeargan, Jr.,
        ALBERT C. YEARGAN, Jr.




AFFIDAVIT OF LOUIS WEINSTOCK

The following affidavit was executed by Louis Weinstock on May 20, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of New York, ss_:

Louis Weinstock, being duly sworn, says:

1. On or about December 19, 1962, I was General Manager of "The
Worker," the address of which is 23 West 26 Street. New York 11, New
York. On or about December 19, 1962, I wrote the attached letter on the
letterhead of "The Worker" addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald, Post Office
Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, and sent or caused such letter to be sent to
Mr. Oswald. I have initialed that letter immediately below the initials
"WJL" appearing thereon for the purpose of identifying it as Weinstock
Exhibit No. 1.

2. The letter refers to certain "blow ups" which were apparently sent
to "The Worker" by Mr. Oswald. I described those "blow ups" in my
letter as "poster like blow ups" and indicated that they would be "most
useful at newsstands and other public places to call the attention of
newspaper readers that 'The Worker' is available."

3. While my recollection is not entirely clear concerning the nature
of the "blow ups" which Oswald had apparently sent to "The Worker," it
appears from the description of such "blow ups" in my letter that they
must have consisted of the item which has been marked as Exhibit 5A in
the deposition of Mr. Arnold S. Johnson, which Exhibit, as indicated in
Mr. Johnson's testimony, was obtained from the files of "The Worker"
and turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by Mr. Johnson's
counsel.

4. Aside from the attached letter of December 19, 1962. I know of no
other correspondence which I may have written to Lee Harvey Oswald and
I do not recall receiving anything from him other than the material
described in this affidavit.

Signed the 20th day of May 1964.

    (S) Louis Weinstock,
        LOUIS WEINSTOCK.




AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT T. LEE

The following affidavit was executed by Vincent T. Lee on May 20, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of New York, ss_:

Vincent T. Lee, being duly sworn says:

1. My name is Vincent T. Lee. I reside at 37-1/2 St. Mark's Place, New
York, New York. I was formerly the National Director for the Fair Play
for Cuba Committee. I make this affidavit to supplement the testimony
which I gave to the above Commission on April 17, 1964.

2. I have examined the attached membership card of the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee and state that it is an authentic membership card of
that organization and that it bears my signature.[B]

3. I sent that card or caused it to be sent to Lee Harvey Oswald on or
about May 29, 1963.

4. I have initialed the attached card under the initials WJL which
appear on the card for the purposes of identification of that card in
the record of the proceedings of the above Commission.

Signed the 20th day of May 1964.

    (S) Vincent T. Lee,
        VINCENT T. LEE.

    [B] The FPCC membership card referred to in the above affidavit
        is Commission Exhibit No. 828.




AFFIDAVIT OF FARRELL DOBBS

The following affidavit was executed by Farrell Dobbs on June 4, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of New York, ss_:

I, Farrell Dobbs, being duly sworn, depose and say:

1. I have read the twenty-six page transcript of the examination of me
in a proceeding of the Commission to Report upon the Assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, held at New York, N.Y., on April 17, 1964,
and find it accurate with the exception of the corrections noted and
initialled by me on pages 1, 6, & 7.

2. I have read the original of a letter dated November 5, 1962, to Mr.
Lee H. Oswald from Farrell Dobbs, and have initialled it so that it may
be substituted as R. Watts Exhibit 11 for the typewritten copy shown me
on April 17, 1964.[C] I have no doubt that it is a letter I wrote, and
the signature is mine.

3. I have initialled the original of a letter dated December 9,
1962, to Mr. Lee H. Oswald, signed "Bob Chester," so that it may be
substituted as R. Watts Exhibit 12 for the typewritten copy shown me on
April 17, 1964.

4. As requested on pages 19-20, I have made a further search of our
files for the letter and reproductions from Lee H. Oswald referred to
in the Bob Chester letter but have found no record of them. Further,
I have discussed this matter with Mr. Chester and he advises me
that he has had a vague recollection that the reproductions were of
headlines from the _Militant_ but has no further recollection of any
correspondence with Lee H. Oswald.

5. As requested on page 21, I have made a further search for a copy of
R. Watts Exhibit 13 and for the letter and clipping referred to in it
as from Lee H. Oswald but have been unable to find any such material in
our files.

6. As requested in J. Lee Rankin's letter to Mr. Rowland Watts dated
May 20, 1964, I have made inquiry of the Young Socialist Alliance
and am advised that its files have been searched and that its
representatives have found no record that Lee H. Oswald's name was ever
referred to it, nor does it have any record of ever having had anything
in its files from, to, or concerning Lee H. Oswald.

7. In pursuance of the information supplied in Mr. Rankin's letter to
Mr. Watts dated May 20, 1964, I have made inquiry of _The Militant_
and have had its files further searched. There is no photograph of Lee
Harvey Oswald, with or without a rifle, in its files (other than a
clipping from the daily press after he was taken into custody). I am
confident no photograph of him was ever received prior to President
Kennedy's assassination.

8. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have submitted to you
all of the material in the files of the Socialist Workers Party, _The
Militant_, and Pioneer Publishers, concerning Lee Harvey Oswald, and I
have no further material or information concerning him.

Signed the 4th day of June 1964.

    (S) Farrell Dobbs,
        FARRELL DOBBS.

    [C] Since all of the Rowland Watts Exhibits have been
        redesignated as Farrell Dobbs Exhibits, R. Watts Exhibits
        Nos. 11, 12, and 13 referred to in the above affidavit have
        been marked Farrell Dobbs Exhibits Nos. 11, 12, and 13,
        respectively.




AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA GRAY

The following affidavit was executed by Virginia Gray on May 28, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
 _County of Durham, ss_:

Virginia Gray, being duly sworn says:

1. My name is Virginia Gray. I am the Assistant Curator of Manuscripts
of the Duke University Library, Durham, North Carolina, (the Library)
and the person most familiar with the records of the Socialist Party of
America which are now in the possession of the Library.

2. The records of the Library reflect that it purchased the original
official records of the Socialist Party of America covering the period
from 1900 to 1938 from Leon Kramer, a New York dealer in Leftist
literature. Since the time of that original purchase the Library has
become the unofficial repository for files of the Socialist Party
of America and periodically acquires the inactive records of that
organization.

3. On or about January 2, 1959 the Library acquired certain records
of the Socialist Party of America from Mr. Stephen Siteman, Executive
Secretary of that Party, 112 East 19th Street, New York, New York.

4. A letter dated October 3, 1956 addressed "Dear Sirs" from Lee Oswald
and an advertisement coupon of "The Socialist Call", photostatic copies
of which are attached to this affidavit, were found in those materials
while they were being processed by the Library.[D]

5. The Library has received additional materials from the Socialist
Party of America and is presently processing such materials. As of
the date of this affidavit, however, the only materials relating to
Lee Harvey Oswald which have been found amongst the records of the
Socialist Party of America presently in the possession of the Library
are those of which photostatic copies are attached.

Signed the 28th day of May 1964.

    (S) Virginia Gray,
        (Mrs.) VIRGINIA GRAY.

    [D] The photostatic copies referred to in the above affidavit
        have been marked Gray Exhibit No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ALBERT F. STAPLES

The following affidavit was executed by Dr. Albert F. Staples on May
26, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

Dr. Albert F. Staples, being duly sworn says:

1. My name is Albert F. Staples. I reside at 6056 Ellsworth Street,
Dallas, Texas. I am a dentist at the Baylor University College of
Dentistry and am familiar with the records in possession of the College
relating to Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald.

2. I have caused a search of the files of the Baylor University College
of Dentistry which reveals a file on Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald. The
foregoing file is now in the possession of the deponent. To the best of
my knowledge this file contains the only papers relating to Mrs. Lee
Harvey Oswald in the possession or control of the Baylor University
College of Dentistry. Accordingly under my supervision photostatic
copies[E] have been made of this entire file, such copies being
attached to this affidavit.

3. On information and belief the attached photostatic copies are of the
entire file and comprise all the papers relating to Mrs. Lee Harvey
Oswald in the possession and control of the Baylor University Dental
Clinic.

Signed the 26th day of May 1964.

    (S) Dr. Albert F. Staples,
        Dr. ALBERT F. STAPLES.

    [E] The photostatic copies referred to in the above affidavit
        have been marked Staples Exhibit No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF KATHERINE MALLORY

The following affidavit was executed by Katherine Mallory on July 20,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of Broome, ss_:

I, Katherine Mallory, 412 East Main Street, Endicott, New York, being
duly sworn say:

1. In 1961 I was a sophomore at the University of Michigan. In March of
1961, I was a member of the University of Michigan band which toured
Russia and the Near East.

2. We arrived in Minsk, U.S.S.R. from Moscow on March 10, 1961.
While in Minsk, the band gave some concerts at the Minsk Polytechnic
Institute. We stayed in a hotel in Minsk. We left Minsk on March 14 and
proceeded to Kiev, U.S.S.R.

3. There was an evening in Minsk when members of the band were divided
into small groups, each of which was assigned a Russian interpreter,
for the purpose of going on a tour of the facilities of the Minsk
Polytechnic Institute.

4. Near the conclusion of this tour, at about 10:00 p.m., when the band
members were boarding a bus, I became surrounded by Russian students
who were asking me questions. Although one student was interpreting I
was having difficulty communicating with them.

5. At this point, an American approached and offered to act as an
interpreter. I accepted the offer. While I never really had a chance
to talk with him, he mentioned that he was an ex-Marine from Texas.
Sometimes he spoke with a Texas accent and at other times he spoke with
an English accent. Somehow I got the impression that he was working in
Russia and that he never intended to return to the United States.

6. This American appeared well dressed. I think he wore a camel hair
coat and possibly a tie. He did not indicate if he had been at the
concert.

7. After just a few minutes of further questions from the Russian
students, with the American interpreting, I boarded the bus. I never
again saw nor heard from this individual. I noted in my diary something
about the incident, and I wrote that this American seemed to be a
crackpot. I did not meet any other Americans in Minsk.

8. I have seen pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspaper, and the
individual I saw in Minsk very much resembles Oswald as pictured. I
recall that the person I saw seemed to have more hair and was heavier
than Lee Harvey Oswald as pictured in the newspapers.

9. Except possibly for this one occasion in Minsk, I never saw nor
communicated with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed the 20th day of July 1964.

    (S) Katherine Mallory,
        KATHERINE MALLORY.




AFFIDAVIT OF KATHERINE MALLORY

The following affidavit was executed by Katherine Mallory on July 20,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of Broome, ss_:

I, Katherine Mallory, 412 East Main Street, Endicott, New York, being
duly sworn say:

Following my telephone interview on July 10, 1964 with Mr. Richard
Mosk, I rechecked my diary of the University of Michigan Symphony Band
Tour and letters which I sent to my parents. Therefore, I append the
following minor corrections of statements in the interest of being as
accurate as I can.

Statements 3, 4, and 5. I made no mention of the tour of the Institute
and therefore cannot verify the details of the arrangement, i.e., small
groups. However, I recall that the tour preceded the talent show. The
following is a statement from my diary; "Tonight the students at the
Bilo (sic) Russian (White Russian) Polytechnic Institute put on a
talent show for us ... (description of performance).... Afterward Jerry
Anderson and I missed getting out with our crowd and we were mobbed
by the students. I met a boy from Texas (now a Russian citizen) who
translated questions and answers for me." In a letter to my parents
dated March 17, 1961, "The first night we were there, the students of
the Polytechnic Institute gave us a reception and put on a very nice
talent show. Afterwards, we all were mobbed by the students. I met a
young man probably about 26 who is from Texas but after the war he
became a citizen of Minsk. It was rather weird meeting an ex-American
but he did come in handy as an interpreter for me and the other
students I was talking to."

Statement 7. While I am sure that in conversations about this incident
I applied term "crackpot" I did not note it in my diary.

All other statements prepared on the basis of the telephone interview
are true.

Signed the 20th day of July 1964.

    (S) Katherine Mallory,
        KATHERINE MALLORY.




AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. MONICA KRAMER

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. Monica Kramer on July 17,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
 _County of Santa Barbara, ss_:

I, Mrs. Monica Kramer, Janin Way, Sunny Acres, Solvang, California,
being duly sworn say:

1. In 1961, Miss Rita Naman and I took a trip to Europe which included
a visit to the Soviet Union. Miss. Naman had purchased a Singer
automobile in Great Britain and we drove through Europe and the Soviet
Union.

2. When we were in Moscow staying at the National Hotel, we met Mrs.
Marie Hyde, who, to the best of my knowledge, presently resides in
Port Angeles, Washington. Mrs. Hyde was desirous of driving with us to
Warsaw. Such an arrangement was made.

3. My travel notes indicate that we arrived in Minsk, U.S.S.R., on
August 10. After arriving at our hotel, we were asked to take a guided
tour of Minsk. We subsequently found out that after we left the hotel,
our bags had been searched. Out Intourist Guide's name was Svetlana.

4. We visited the Central Square where we stopped to take some
photographs. Kramer Exhibit 1, also labelled Commission No. 859d,
is a photograph taken by Miss Naman in Minsk on August 10, 1961. As
I recall, it was taken between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The building
in the background is the Palace of Culture, and the statue is one of
Joseph Stalin. The automobile in the center of the picture is the one
that was then owned by Miss Naman. The woman at the far left is the
Intourist Guide. She appears to be speaking with me, the woman standing
next to her. There are three men to the right of the automobile and a
small boy in front of it, all of whom I did not know.

5. On every occasion that we stopped while on the trip through Russia,
people would gather around the automobile and look at it. As a result,
we became accustomed to this and therefore paid little or no attention
to these people.

6. I cannot recall these three men. I never spoke with them. It now
appears to me that the man in the middle, wearing dark trousers and a
dark, short-sleeved plaid shirt, resembles Lee Harvey Oswald, whose
picture I have seen in the newspapers.

7. I recall that Miss Naman spoke with somebody in Minsk who spoke
English. They talked about records. I do not recall if this person was
Lee Harvey Oswald.

8. We left Minsk on August 11, 1961.

9. Except for possibly on August 10, 1961, I never met nor communicated
with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed the 17th day of July 1964.

    (S) Mrs. Monica Kramer,
        Mrs. MONICA KRAMER.




AFFIDAVIT OF RITA NAMAN

The following affidavit was executed by Rita Naman on July 17, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
 _County of Santa Barbara, ss_:

I, Rita Naman, Janin Way, Sunny Acres, Solvang, California, being duly
sworn say:

1. I am in the real estate business in Santa Ynez, California, and I
live with Mrs. Monica Kramer.

2. In 1961, Mrs. Kramer and I took a trip to Europe. I purchased an
automobile in England, and we drove it through Europe and the Soviet
Union.

3. While in Moscow we stayed at the National Hotel. There we met Mrs.
Marie Hyde, who, as far as I know, currently resides in Port Angeles,
Washington. We arranged to drive her to Warsaw, Poland.

4. All three of us left Moscow and travelled to Minsk, U. S. S. R.
We arrived there on August 10, 1961. After going to our hotel, I was
called by the Intourist Office and asked to go there. The official at
the Intourist Office wanted to know why I was in Russia. He appeared
hostile. I suspect that they were interested in me because in Moscow,
I had given a person who claimed to be a student a Newsweek Magazine
along with my business card. The official then insisted that Mrs.
Kramer, Mrs. Hyde, and I go on a tour of Minsk. When we returned to our
room after the tour, we found that our luggage had been searched.

5. Our Intourist guide's name was Svetlana. We visited the Central
Square where we stopped to take some photographs. Kramer Exhibit 1,
also labelled Commission No. 859 d, is a photograph taken by me at
this time. As I recall, it was taken about 8 or 8:30 p.m. The building
in the background is the Palace of Culture, and the statue is one of
Joseph Stalin. The automobile in the center of the picture was owned by
me. The woman at the far left is the Intourist Guide. She appears to be
speaking with a woman standing next to her, who is Mrs. Kramer. There
are three men to the right of the automobile and a small boy in front
of it, all of whom I did not know.

6. Kramer Exhibit No. 2, also labelled Commission No. 859c, is a
photograph taken by me at the same place and at about the same time;
however, I took this photograph with Mrs. Hyde's camera. In this
photograph Mrs. Hyde is at the far left with the Intourist Guide and
Mrs. Kramer. Only two men are pictured to the right of the car.

7. I do not remember speaking to any of the men pictured in Kramer
Exhibit 1 and in Kramer Exhibit 2. I was so disturbed by the earlier
interview with the Intourist Guide official, that I cannot remember
much of what happened thereafter.

8. I do recall that after this photograph was taken, I went to a nearby
record store. When I left the store, a man spoke to me in an American
accent and asked me about my car. He asked how many miles to the gallon
it travelled. I do not recall if this man was the same one pictured in
Kramer Exhibit 1 and in Kramer Exhibit 2.

9. The man appearing in these photographs, wearing dark trousers and a
dark, short-sleeved, check shirt, resembles Lee Harvey Oswald, whose
picture I have seen in the newspapers.

10. Except for possibly on August 10, 1961, I never met nor
communicated with Lee Harvey Oswald.

11. We left Minsk on August 11, 1961.

Signed the 17th day of July 1964.

    (S) Rita Naman,
        RITA NAMAN.




AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN BRYAN McFARLAND AND MERYL McFARLAND

The following affidavit was executed by John Bryan McFarland and Meryl
McFarland on May 28, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
 _County of Lancaster, City of Liverpool,
 Consulate of the United States of America, ss_:

Before me Wilfred V. Duke, Consul of the United States of America, duly
commissioned and qualified, personally came John Bryan McFarland and
Meryl McFarland, of 7a Riversdale Road, Liverpool, 19, England, who
being duly sworn, depose and say that:

Q. When and where did you board the bus for Mexico City?

A. We boarded the Continental Trailways bus at Jackson, Mississippi,
and traveled via connecting buses to Mexico City where we arrived
September 27, 1963.

Q. When and where did you first see the man later identified as Lee
Harvey Oswald?

A. We changed buses at Houston, Texas, at 2:00 a.m. September 26th and
it was probably about 6:00 a.m. after it became light that we first saw
him.

Q. What reason did Oswald give for traveling to Mexico?

A. He stated that he was en route to Cuba and that he could not travel
there from the United States as it was against the law.

Q. Did you see Oswald speaking to any other persons?

A. Yes. We observed him conversing occasionally with two young
Australian women who boarded the bus on the evening of September 26th
at Monterrey, Mexico. He also conversed occasionally with an elderly
man who sat in the seat next to him for a time.

Q. When did it first occur to you that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man
you had met on the bus?

A. When we saw his pictures in the newspapers.

Q. How many suitcases was Oswald carrying when he boarded the bus at
Houston, Texas, or any other time?

A. We did not see him carrying any suitcases at any time.

Q. Did Oswald check any luggage with the bus company so it would have
been carried underneath the bus in the baggage compartment?

A. We never actually saw him check any luggage in with the bus
company, but in the bus station at Mexico City the last we saw of him
was waiting at the luggage check-out place obviously to collect some
luggage.

Q. What kind of luggage was he carrying?

A. We did not notice but presume he must have been carrying some hand
luggage.

Q. Did he check any suitcases or other packages at a place en route to
Mexico City or otherwise dispose of them?

A. We never actually saw him check any luggage in with the bus
company, but in the bus station at Mexico City the last we saw of him
was waiting at the luggage check-out place obviously to collect some
luggage.

Q. What kind of clothing was he wearing?

A. As far as we recollect, ordinary slacks and, a more definite
recollection, a sort of zipper jerkin.

Q. Did he mention any names or places either in the United States or
Mexico, in any connection whatever?

A. Only New Orleans, whence he said he had come. In the course of
conversation, we worked out that he must have left New Orleans at about
the same time we had left Jackson, Mississippi, i.e. 2:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 25th, 1963.

Q. Did he show you any documents, such as passport or Fair Play for
Cuba Committee Card, or letters, newspaper clippings or other similar
material? If so, describe them as fully as possible.

A. We saw no document, but he said he was the secretary of the New
Orleans branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Organization, and that he was
on his way to Cuba to see Castro if he could. We saw him at the next
table to ourselves in the Customs Shed at Laredo, but did not notice
his passport or tourist card.

Signed the 28th day of May 1964.

    (S) J. B. McFarland,
        JOHN BRYAN McFARLAND.
    (S) Meryl McFarland,
        MERYL McFARLAND.




TESTIMONY OF PAMELA MUMFORD

The testimony of Pamela Mumford was taken at 12:30 p.m., on May 19,
1964, at 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif., by Mr. Joseph A.
Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Miss Mumford was
accompanied by her attorney, Mr. C. C. Dillavou.


Pamela Mumford, called as a witness herein, having been first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. BALL. You received a letter, didn't you, from Mr. Rankin, as
counsel for the Commission, advising you that we would request you to
give your deposition?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; that's right.

Mr. BALL. And you also received a copy of the joint resolution of
the Congress, didn't you, authorizing the Commission to proceed to
investigate the facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And you willingly give your deposition today, do you not?

Miss MUMFORD. I do.

Mr. BALL. To tell us all the facts that you might know to assist us in
this investigation?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. Your name is Pamela Mumford?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. Where do you live?

Miss MUMFORD. 153 North New Hampshire Avenue, Los Angeles 4.

Mr. BALL. What is your occupation?

Miss MUMFORD. Secretary.

Mr. BALL. A legal secretary?

Miss MUMFORD. Legal secretary.

Mr. BALL. And you work for the firm of Dillavou & Cox, do you?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. That is in a building at 6th and Grand, Los Angeles, Calif.?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. Now, because of the fact that you will not appear before the
Commission, and the members of the Commission will have to read this
deposition, they would like to know something about you: Where you were
born, your education. So, just go ahead and tell me all you can about
yourself.

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I was born in the Fiji Islands in 1941, and my
father was transferred to Australia in 1951. I was brought up and went
to school in Australia until 1961.

And then I traveled to England, where I worked for a period of a year.
I went to Europe and then I obtained a working visa to come to the
United States.

I worked in New York for 8 months and then my friend and I traveled
through the United States and Mexico on our way to Los Angeles where we
intended to remain.

Mr. BALL. Now, what was your friend's name?

Miss MUMFORD. Patricia Winston.

Mr. BALL. And she left Australia with you, did she?

Miss MUMFORD. She left with me, yes. We had been traveling together for
2 years. And she also made the journey through the States and through
Mexico with me. That takes us up to Los Angeles.

Mr. BALL. When did you arrive in Los Angeles?

Miss MUMFORD. In the first week of November 1963.

Mr. BALL. Is Patricia Winston a legal secretary also?

Miss MUMFORD. No; Patricia is an occupational therapist, who was also
born in the Fiji Islands and raised in Australia. Our families were
friends.

And she was unable to obtain work in California owing to certain
California laws. She had to sit for some exam to enable her to work
here.

So, finally, she returned home to Australia in January, mid-January.
And she is there now.

Mr. BALL. As of 1964?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How old is Patricia Winston?

Miss MUMFORD. She is 23.

Mr. BALL. You took a trip into Mexico last fall, didn't you?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And did you travel from New York to Mexico?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, we traveled by bus on a scheme which allowed us
to travel on Trailways buses for a period of 3 months for a certain
amount. We just got on and off at various places we wanted to see: For
instance, Washington, D.C.; Miami, where we stayed a week; then we went
across to New Orleans, down through Texas to Laredo, and from Laredo we
crossed the border also by bus and went to Monterrey.

We spent one day in Monterrey and left by bus at 7:30 p.m. at
Monterrey, and it was on that bus that we met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BALL. Where did you buy your ticket to Mexico?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, the ticket we had on this deal enabled us only to
travel in the States, not in Mexico.

So, we bought the ticket on the bus at Laredo and that enabled us to
stop off in Monterrey. But the ticket was from Laredo to Mexico City.

Mr. BALL. And from what company did you buy the ticket?

Miss MUMFORD. As far as I can remember, it was a bus company called
Transporter del Norte.

Mr. BALL. And did you buy the bus ticket in Laredo at the Trailways bus
depot?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What date did you buy the bus ticket?

Miss MUMFORD. It must have been September 25.

Mr. BALL. And you left Laredo at what time?

Miss MUMFORD. Early September the 26th.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you leave the bus depot at Laredo on September 25th,
about 10 o'clock in the morning, or was it September 26?

Miss MUMFORD. September 26. Now, hold on. We had one day in Monterrey
and one night in Monterrey. We left Monterrey, I know, on the night of
September 26 at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. BALL. And you had come down to Monterrey from Laredo the day
before, hadn't you?

Miss MUMFORD. The day before, yes.

Mr. BALL. Now, on the way from Laredo to Monterrey you didn't see
Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You saw him on a bus that left Monterrey?

Miss MUMFORD. That left Monterrey. But he had traveled from Laredo on
that same bus.

Mr. BALL. How do you know that?

Miss MUMFORD. He told us.

Mr. BALL. Now, you got on the bus at Monterrey on the evening of
September 26 at 7:30 p.m., you just told me?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And what was the company that operated that bus, do you know?

Miss MUMFORD. That was also Transporter del Norte.

Mr. BALL. And were there the same accommodations for all travelers?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; there were. There were four seats in the front that
were occupied by English-speaking people. But, having got on so late in
the journey, we were taken down to the back to sit with the Mexicans.
And we were the only English-speaking people at the back of the bus.

Mr. BALL. All others were Mexican-speaking?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Now, who were the English-speaking people that you mentioned?
Will you describe them?

Miss MUMFORD. There was a young English couple who were traveling down
to the Yucatan to study the Indians and their way of life.

There was an elderly English gentleman in his mid- or late-sixties, I
should imagine. He told us during the journey that he had lived on and
off in Mexico for 25 years.

Then there was the young Texan, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Patricia and
myself.

Mr. BALL. Now, when you first boarded the bus did you speak to the
English-speaking people?

Miss MUMFORD. We got on and Oswald heard Patricia and I talking. And we
had two heavy overnight bags, and he told us later that he had turned
to his companion, who was the middle-aged English gentleman, and said,
"I wonder how you say 'How can I help you' in Spanish", which gave us
the opinion later that he couldn't speak the language: couldn't speak
Spanish.

He took us for two Spanish girls, I guess, and was going to help us
with our luggage.

Mr. BALL. Did he help you with your luggage?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You went on to the back of the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You didn't say anything to the four English-speaking people
when you first got on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. And they didn't speak to you?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. When did you first speak to any of these four?

Miss MUMFORD. Oswald was the first one we spoke to. He left his seat
and came down to the back of the bus to speak to us.

Mr. BALL. That was after the bus had left Monterrey?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And while it was en route?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say to you?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, he said that he had heard us speaking English and
wondered where we came from.

He then told us the story of how he had thought we were Mexican and was
going to help us if he could speak the language.

Mr. BALL. What did he say? Can you tell me his language as close as you
can?

Miss MUMFORD. No, I can't really put it into his words; not at that
stage. He then proceeded to tell us about himself.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Miss MUMFORD. I will have to refer to notes. Oh, yes; the first thing
he told us was that he was from Fort Worth, in Texas. And he wanted to
know where we had been, and we told him we were Australians.

He wanted to know the places we had visited. We told him.

And he mentioned that he had been in Japan while he was in the Marines,
and that was the closest he had got to Australia and that he would very
much like to go to Australia.

He then told us that he had been to Russia and asked whether we had
ever been to Russia. We said no, and we told him of a friend of ours, a
fellow Australian, who had been to Moscow, and her experiences there.

And we asked him what he was doing in Russia and did he have trouble
getting in. He said that he was studying there. He had an apartment in
Moscow and was studying. We didn't ask him what he was studying.

At this stage he showed us his passport that had a Russian stamp on it;
some sort of a Russian stamp. And he didn't mention his Russian wife at
all. But we noticed he had a gold wedding ring on his left hand.

We made about three stops or four stops every 2 or 3 hours, and he
didn't speak to us during these stops. We got speaking to the other
British people.

Mr. BALL. Did he speak to you again after that time that he first came
back?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; oh, about 2 hours before we arrived in Mexico City
he asked us whether we had accommodations arranged there. And we said
no, we had a vague idea from a book called "Mexico on Five Dollars a
Day" where we were going to stay.

And he suggested that on previous trips to Mexico City he had stayed
at a place called the Hotel Cuba, and he recommended it for clean and
cheap living.

And he then made a crack that he wasn't suggesting the Hotel Cuba
because he was going to be there; he just suggested it to help us.

And we decided that we wouldn't take him up on his suggestion; that we
would go our own way.

Then we arrived in the Mexico City bus station and he didn't speak to
us, attempt to speak to us at all. He was one of the first off the bus
and the last I remember seeing him he was standing across the end of
the room.

Mr. BALL. At the bus station?

Miss MUMFORD. At the bus station. And we left by taxi.

Mr. BALL. Then you had two conversations with him?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Or more?

Miss MUMFORD. No; two. During the trip I engaged the middle-aged
English gentleman in conversation, asking him about the weather, and
what it was like usually. And he said, "The young man traveling beside
me has traveled to Mexico also. Why don't you talk to him?" And that
was all.

Mr. BALL. Where were you when you talked to the English gentleman; the
elderly man?

Miss MUMFORD. Just standing outside at one of the rest stops, standing
outside waiting to board the bus.

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to any one of these four people as the bus was
en route, except Oswald; the four English-speaking people?

Miss MUMFORD. Not on the bus. We did speak to the young English couple
for a while, told them where we had lived in London, and they had told
us very vaguely, I remember, that they were also traveling through the
United States, but their main aim wasn't to go to the tourist resorts
in America but to go down to Mexico.

Mr. BALL. Did you get their names? Did they tell you their names?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You didn't ask them their name?

Miss. MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. When did you talk to this elderly English gentleman who was
sitting beside Oswald when you first got on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. The only time we talked to him was at one of the rest
stops outside the bus. And I just happened to ask him about the
weather, and that was the only conversation.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything else to you on the trip except that there
was a young man sitting next to him that had been in Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. That's all he said?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. About how many people were on this bus?

Miss MUMFORD. There must have been about 14 rows on both sides, with
two people on each. About 50, 55. It was crowded.

Mr. BALL. I have a note here of a statement you made to an agent for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 18th of December in which it
was reported that you estimated about 39 passengers.

Do you recall that? Did you ever say that?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, these were conflicting reports, naturally. The FBI
questioned Patricia at our apartment and he then questioned me here
and, naturally, two people get different ideas on a bus load.

But, it was well crowded. There were a lot of children on the bus. I
should imagine there would be--they were long, great big, long, heavy
buses.

Mr. BALL. Were there any vacant seats when you got on?

Miss MUMFORD. Quite a few people boarded in Monterrey. And we were a
bit frightened that we wouldn't get a seat together. But I think we
were one of the few people who got on first.

Mr. BALL. What part of the bus did you sit in?

Miss MUMFORD. In the middle of the bus, more towards the back than the
front.

Mr. BALL. Did the English man ever come back while you were being
seated and speak in Spanish to any of the Mexican people?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You don't recall that the English man ever came back and
asked the Mexican people to make room for you to sit down?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. At the bus stops, you say, you did not talk to Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No. He was the first off the bus and the last back on. He
had a meal at every bus stop.

Mr. BALL. Oh, he did?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. He ate at every bus stop?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes. I never saw him ordering. I took it that he didn't
speak the language, but he always managed to order himself a large
meal, because he never seemed to get it over to them what he wanted.

Mr. BALL. What gave you the impression that he did not speak the
language?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, simply that on arriving on the bus he told us--when
we had boarded the bus he had told us that he had turned to the English
gentleman and asked "I wonder how you say 'Can I help you' in Spanish."

Mr. BALL. You told him when he came back to talk to you that you had
had a friend travel in Russia?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And you say you had mentioned her experiences. What did you
tell him about that?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, we said that she had come back and told us that
Moscow was a beautiful city and she had gathered the impression that
they were being taken on a tour and shown only what they wanted to be
shown.

She, being a school teacher, asked a lot of questions of their female
guide, and the questions just were evaded or not answered.

And she said she got the impression that she was told to say certain
things and nothing else.

Mr. BALL. Did Oswald make any remark to that?

Miss MUMFORD. No; the only remark he made on his life in Moscow was
that he had had a lot of trouble getting out. That's all he said.

Mr. BALL. Did he make any statement at all concerning his life in the
Soviet Union; whether he had enjoyed the stay there or not?

Miss MUMFORD. No; he gave me the impression that he was the average,
normal American citizen who had gone over there and had wanted to get
out and couldn't get out for some red tape reasons.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything or make any mention of politics?

Miss MUMFORD. No; never.

Mr. BALL. Did he mention anything about communism, socialism, or
anything of that sort?

Miss MUMFORD. No; he never said anything about his political views or
even mention politics at all.

Mr. BALL. You did see his passport, though?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How did he happen to show you this passport?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I think it was rather to prove that he had been in
Russia. I think he was trying to find places that we hadn't been that
he had, and he just--in fact, he left us at the seat to go up and take
his passport from his traveling bag and bring it down to show us.

Mr. BALL. Had he told you his name before that?

Miss MUMFORD. He never mentioned his name once.

Mr. BALL. He never did?

Miss MUMFORD. He never introduced himself; no.

Mr. BALL. How did you know his name?

Miss MUMFORD. We didn't.

Mr. BALL. Did you notice the name on the passport?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I didn't; no. Pat says it rang a bell when the rest
of the business came up, and we recognized him on television. And she
said, when the name came through on the television, it did ring a bell
with her, but she said even then she couldn't picture that name on the
passport.

Mr. BALL. You did see the name on the passport, did you?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, yes, he must have shown it to us. I can't really
remember.

Mr. BALL. But you didn't remember the name?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You made no note of it?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Did the elderly Englishman ever make a statement to you as to
whether or not the young man sitting next to him on the bus, that is,
Oswald, had been to Mexico City before, or been to Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; Oswald must have told him he had been there numerous
times, because this Englishman did refer us, or did refer me to Oswald
and say "He has been there before. Why don't you ask him?"

Mr. BALL. Did he say he had been to Mexico City or Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. I think we were speaking about Mexico generally, because
we had contemplated a trip down to Acapulco, and I was interested in
the difference in temperatures.

Mr. BALL. Was that at a bus stop?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes, outside the bus; a rest stop.

Mr. BALL. Now, you gained some impression, didn't you, from talking to
the English man, that he had not known Oswald before?

Miss MUMFORD. Only by his reference to Oswald as "the young man sitting
next to me." They were talking quite a lot, the four of them.

In the first two seats were the young English couple, and directly
behind them were Oswald, sitting on the aisle, and the Englishman,
sitting near the window. And we could hear them talking a lot, and
laughing, when we were sitting in the back, wondering what was going on.

Mr. BALL. Did you gain the impression from anything else said by the
Englishman that he was not traveling in the company of Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Nothing except that he referred to him as the young man----

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; but they never spoke to each other on rest stops.
Oswald just went his way completely.

Mr. BALL. When you arrived at Mexico City did the English man get off
the bus with Oswald, or at the same time when Oswald did?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember. I remember Oswald was standing
completely alone in the bus station.

Mr. BALL. What did the Englishman do?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember what he did at all. We got off the bus
and I don't remember seeing him leave the bus even.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you have any conversation with the English couple to
indicate that they had never before seen Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't think they made any reference to him at all.

Mr. BALL. The Federal Bureau of Investigation agent that you talked
to on the 12th of December stated this: That in talking with the
Englishman, the elderly Englishman, he said, and I will quote what he
put down, "I gather the young man sitting with me has been to Mexico
City before."

Do you remember words like that used by the Englishman?

Miss MUMFORD. That may have been his words. I really don't remember.
That was just the general impression I got of what he said to me.

Mr. BALL. Now, also at that time, the agent reported that it was your
opinion that "Oswald was traveling alone, and that he had had no
previous contact with any of the English-speaking people on the bus
prior to that time." Did you tell him that?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; and that is still my opinion.

Mr. BALL. Did you have breakfast on that morning before you got into
one of your stops? Did you have a breakfast?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Where? Did you notice the name of the place?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't know the name of the place. It was about 6
a.m. in the morning and we arrived in Mexico City at about 10, so it
would have been about 4 hours before we arrived in the city.

Mr. BALL. Did you eat with Oswald at that time; eat breakfast with him?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Did he eat breakfast with anyone?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember at that particular stage. Earlier in the
night, twice, I knew he ate alone.

Mr. BALL. In the statement which the agent reported, the agent reported
his conversation with you, and he says that, "Oswald always ate alone
except for breakfast on the morning of September 27, 1963, when he ate
with the English couple." Do you remember whether Oswald ate breakfast
with the English couple?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't; no. Pat may have remembered that. I don't
remember seeing him at all in that particular restaurant.

Mr. BALL. Did you give this young man a nickname?

Miss MUMFORD. "Texas."

Mr. BALL. Did you call him "Texas" to his face?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You just called him "Texas" when you----

Miss MUMFORD. No; we wrote home from Mexico City describing the awful
bus trip, with crying kids, et cetera, and happened to mention that
there was a young Texan and we called him "Texas."

Mr. BALL. But you didn't call him "Texas" to his face?

Miss MUMFORD. No, No.

Mr. BALL. How was this boy from Texas dressed?

Miss MUMFORD. He was dressed casually. I don't remember what color
trousers he had on. He had on a dark sweater. I know that. It was a
wool sweater, a sort of a charcoal gray color.

When we saw him on television, being arrested or being taken down to
the Dallas County jail, Patricia was the first to recognize that that
was the same sweater. We were reluctant to believe this, of course,
at first; that we knew this man. But she said the thinning hair on
the top, the thinning, curly, wiry hair, plus the sweater that she
recognized right away, and I recognized afterwards, made us almost
certain that this was the same man.

Mr. BALL. Did he have a shirt on?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember. In discussing this with Patricia
she said that she felt he had some sort of a checked shirt on, just
underneath.

Mr. BALL. He didn't have a tie on?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Open?

Miss MUMFORD. Open sport shirt; yes.

Mr. BALL. And did he have on a jersey; pale-green jersey that you
noticed?

Miss MUMFORD. No; not pale green.

Mr. BALL. Now, you said he had some luggage. Did you see the luggage?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How much luggage did he have?

Miss MUMFORD. Just one medium sized--I can't remember whether it was an
overnight bag or one of these pouch affairs, you know.

Mr. BALL. Was it a zipper bag?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I thought it was a zipper bag. I am not really
certain on that point.

Mr. BALL. What color was it?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Did he have the bag with him in the seat, or near the seat
where he was sitting?

Miss MUMFORD. Up on the railing, above him.

Mr. BALL. And when he left the bus in Mexico City did he carry the
luggage with him?

Miss MUMFORD. I can't say for sure.

Mr. BALL. When you last saw him standing in the bus depot did he have a
piece of luggage in his hand?

Miss MUMFORD. I can't remember that either.

Mr. BALL. Did Oswald tell you where he had boarded the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't think he did.

Mr. BALL. What was the name of the bus depot in Mexico City where you
last saw Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. I am not sure of that. I know the name of the bus, or I
am fairly certain of the name of the bus. But I am not sure of the bus
station.

Mr. BALL. Were there a lot of bus stations?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, that is a point I am not sure of. We took a bus
down to Acapulco from Mexico City and I have the feeling that was the
busline we took to Acapulco. I know there are about three different
buslines situated in different places in Mexico City, and I am not sure
just what was the name of the depot we came into.

Mr. BALL. Now, again, on the luggage, did he have one or more pieces of
luggage?

Miss MUMFORD. I think it was one.

Mr. BALL. Just one?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And that was a zipper type?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Are you able to tell me what color it was?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You saw Oswald on television after the President had been
shot, didn't you?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Now, tell me where you were when you saw the television and
who was with you and what you said.

Miss MUMFORD. On the Friday night of the 22d, Pat and I left by bus
for Las Vegas for the weekend. Patricia was not working at that time.
I am not sure whether she had seen television shots--I think we had
both seen television shots before we left for the bus station. I am not
familiar with whether we realized at that stage that it was him or not.

I remember in Las Vegas we had a television in our motel room and it
was then that we were both very sure that it was the same man.

Mr. BALL. You saw him on television, did you?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And you thought you recognized him then?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. As the man you had met on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. The man you have referred to as "Texas"?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; well, we knew we had seen him somewhere before, and
we were sort of going over our travels in our mind, and it hit us that
it was on that bus, particularly when they said he was from Fort Worth,
or from Texas.

Mr. BALL. Now, can you give me a description of the Englishman; what he
looked like? You told me his approximate age.

Miss MUMFORD. He was short. Yes; about 5'8". Quite bald, plump; fat. He
was also dressed casually.

Mr. BALL. Did he have a tie on?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember. He seemed to me not to be well dressed.
He was scruffy. He spoke well. He spoke with a cultured English accent
more than a Cockney or a suburbia accent.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you whether or not he had lived in Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; Not--he didn't specify Mexico City. He said that he
had lived on and off in Mexico for 25 years.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you his name?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Well, you were shown pictures of a man later on by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, were you not?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And they showed you pictures of Oswald, didn't they; Lee
Harvey Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You didn't ever see a picture of Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. But they showed you pictures of a man, did they not?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; they showed us two pictures the first time, one
picture I was fairly certain was the same gentleman. The other picture,
whom they said was the same man, I couldn't give that description--I
couldn't say definitely that it was him or even the same man.

The second time the FBI official showed me a photo was some weeks or
months later and I could make a definite--what is the word I want?

Mr. BALL. Identification?

Miss MUMFORD. Identification of that picture.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell the agent?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, that third picture, on the second time he had
showed it to me, was, I was certain, the same man.

Mr. BALL. You mean the elderly Englishman?

Miss MUMFORD. The elderly Englishman.

Mr. BALL. That you had seen on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see this Englishman again?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Except this night, or this ride on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; that was the only time.

Mr. BALL. Did they tell you that the Englishman's name was John Howard
Bowen?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't recall ever being told his name.

Mr. BALL. Or that he might have had the name Albert Osborne?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You don't remember either of those?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Was your friend with you when the agent showed you the
pictures?

Miss MUMFORD. The first set of pictures, she was still in this country
and she was also shown them. The second set of pictures was shown to me
after she had left.

Mr. BALL. When the first set of pictures was shown to your friend
Patricia Winston, what did she say?

Miss MUMFORD. If I remember correctly, she felt the same way as I did:
that one of the photos was a good likeness, and the other one she
couldn't make an identification.

Mr. BALL. Do you have anything else that you would care to say; any
impressions that you obtained from this ride on the bus that you think
might be of assistance to us?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You have told us about all you know about that trip, have
you, now?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. This will be written up and submitted to you for your
signature, I hope this week.

Mr. DILLAVOU. You mentioned to me, Pam, something about the frugality
of this boy in his travels. I don't know if you want that----

Mr. BALL. Yes; we would like that.

Miss MUMFORD. Oh, yes; he did say that the Hotel Cuba was a very cheap
place to stay, and I think either Patricia or myself made the comment,
"Well, that suits us fine because that is the way we do it, too."

That is the only thing I can remember that he said that referred to his
way of travel.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything about how much money he had, or how much
he could spend or would spend?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. That's all.




TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER

The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 5:25 p.m., on March
25, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Would you please rise, I will swear you as a witness.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please be seated. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a
member of the legal staff of the President's Commission investigating
the assassination of President Kennedy. Staff members have been
authorized to take testimony of witnesses by the Commission pursuant
to authority granted to it by Executive Order No. 11130 dated November
29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137. The Commission has
adopted rules of procedure in conformance with the Executive order
and the joint resolution. I understand that Mr. Rankin, the general
counsel to the Commission, wrote you a letter last week and told you
that I would contact you to take your testimony this week. He sent with
that letter, I understand, a copy of that Executive order and joint
resolution together with a copy of the rules of procedure adopted by
the Commission for the taking of testimony of witnesses. You received
that letter?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And copies of the papers I referred to?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Today we want to examine you briefly concerning the
possibility that you did some work on a rifle for a man by the name
of Oswald who may in fact have been Lee Harvey Oswald. Before we get
into that, we would like to have you state your full name for the court
reporter.

Mr. RYDER. Dial Duwayne [spelling] R-y-d-e-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. RYDER. 2028 Harvard.

Mr. LIEBELER. What city?

Mr. RYDER. Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where are you employed, Mr. Ryder?

Mr. RYDER. Irving Sports Shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is that?

Mr. RYDER. 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of place is the Irving Sports Shop?

Mr. RYDER. Well, it's a retail sporting goods store.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you do in your work there?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, my capacity is, I guess you could refer to it as
service manager. I do all the service work, gun work, outboard motor
work, rig boats. I guess you say general flunkie or service man you
refer to it as.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are you?

Mr. RYDER. Twenty-five.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you born here in Texas?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I was born in Claremont, Ill.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you move to Texas?

Mr. RYDER. 1945.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1945?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you go to school?

Mr. RYDER. Irving High School; actually, I went all the way through the
Irving public school system.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you graduated from the Irving Public High School?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you graduate from high school?

Mr. RYDER. 1957.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you been working for the Irving Sports Shop?

Mr. RYDER. Five years be close enough; it's a little less than 5, but 5
covers it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you married?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have children?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you been married?

Mr. RYDER. Five years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you been in the military service?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What branch were you in?

Mr. RYDER. Went in the National Guard, 49th Armored Division which I am
still an active member.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of the National Guard?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you serve on active duty with the U.S. Army?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. For 2 years?

Mr. RYDER. No; actually it was, let's see, I guess you say it was 15
months, 16, something like that. In other words, while I was on 6
months' training, they activated the 49th Armored Division and I was
called in to stay 9 extra months on active duty.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you stationed while on active duty?

Mr. RYDER. Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Knox for advanced individual
training, and Fort Polk, La., with the 49th.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of training did you receive?

Mr. RYDER. Armored tank training.

Mr. LIEBELER. You served as a tanker at Fort Polk?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your rank in the National Guard?

Mr. RYDER. Now?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. RYDER. Sergeant.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was it at the time you went into active duty?

Mr. RYDER. It was June 11 in 1960 when I reported to Fort Leonard Wood.

Mr. LIEBELER. June what? What was your rank when you went on active
duty?

Mr. RYDER. I was just an E-2.

Mr. LIEBELER. E-2?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; or private--beginner--actually, I had 3 months
actually, National Guard work which waives your time for E-2, three
months' period. Of course, there isn't much difference in pay rate.

Mr. LIEBELER. It appears that there was a newspaper story that appeared
in the Dallas Times Herald on November 28, 1963, and apparently a
version of that story was carried in the New York Times on November 29,
1963, which mentions you. Do you recall being interviewed by a reporter
from a Dallas newspaper?

Mr. RYDER. After the story was out; yes--before, no.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you mean by that?

Mr. RYDER. Well, the deal is the story came out on Thanksgiving and
early that morning the telephone rang--I would say roughly 7:30 or 8,
something like that--and I answered the phone and a guy introduced
himself and I told him I didn't have any comment and hung up.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was a newspaperman?

Mr. RYDER. To tell you the truth, I didn't pay that much attention. I
was half asleep because it was a day off. I was going to get some of
that extra dozing time, you know, and I just told him I didn't have any
comment and hung the phone up and took it off the hook and later on
that day, CBS television came out and they were wanting a blownup deal
on it to put on television when they found it was opposite which came
out in the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. In other words, you were not interviewed as far as you
can remember by a newspaper reporter prior to the time the story came
out in the Times Herald?

Mr. RYDER. Not as far as I know. I was interviewed by the FBI and
Dallas Police Department and I believe a couple Secret Service men came
out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one of those interviewed you first?

Mr. RYDER. The FBI was the first one out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what the date was when the FBI first
interviewed you?

Mr. RYDER. It was on Monday, the day of the funeral of President
Kennedy.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25. Friday was the 22d,
Saturday would be the 23d, Sunday the 24h, Monday the 25th. Do you
remember the name of the FBI man?

Mr. RYDER. Mr. Horton.

Mr. LIEBELER. Horton [spelling] E-m-o-r-y E. H-o-r-t-o-n?

Mr. RYDER. I didn't get his first name. His last name stuck with
me--well, I don't know why; it just stayed there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did Mr. Horton say to you and what did you say to
him, to the best of your recollection?

Mr. RYDER. Of course, we were closed on that Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Irving Sports Shop was closed?

Mr. RYDER. Right, and he came to the house, so, at that time he showed
me pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald and pictures of the gun and asked me
about it. I said "Well, the face and the body features of Oswald there
was real common in this country." I mean, you know, in this area in
Texas and that to say that I had him in the shop, actually, this was
after a period of time that we boiled it down to. Oh, I told him I had
a ticket with the name Oswald, no date, no address, just for drilling
and tapping and boresighting--no address, or name; he didn't say he'd
like to see the ticket and was looking at the pictures, then I seen the
gun. Of course, from the picture I told him as far as I could remember
I told him I hadn't mounted that scope, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You based that statement that you had not mounted the
scope on your recollection that you had not worked on that particular
kind of rifle, is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. Right, on this Italian rifle--I never worked on them. I seen
them but as far as doing any physical work, I haven't done none even to
this date, I haven't worked on any of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are absolutely sure about that?

Mr. RYDER. I am positive on that, very positive. So, we went up to the
Irving Sports Shop and I opened it up and got the ticket and showed
him. It was just a little repair ticket actually what it amounted to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it have a number on it?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir; I don't remember the number.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you give the tag to Mr. Horton?

Mr. RYDER. No; he told us to hold on to it, keep it and they would
probably get it later on and they did. It seems to me like it was 2 or
3 weeks ago they came and got it now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just 2 or 3 weeks ago?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who came and got it?

Mr. RYDER. I don't know; the boss, Mr. Greener, gave it to him. It was
on Saturday, I believe it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did that tag indicate the nature of the work that was to
be done?

Mr. RYDER. Well, actually, all it had on it was drill and tapping;
it said drill and tap and a price of $4.50, I believe it was and
boresight, of course, no charge on that, so by us charging $1.50 a
hole--that's what we normally charge for drillin' and tappin'--would on
this particular thing, would have been three holes drill and tap, where
in the picture of the gun there was only two screws holding the mount
of the scope on which is, more or less, made it positive we hadn't
mounted it on the gun, so Mr. Horton, so he took it for granted that I
hadn't done the work on it and I am sure I haven't because----

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of gun was it?

Mr. RYDER. It was a 6.5 Italian.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the make?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, I have seen several of them but as far as who
made the gun, I don't know; probably some Italian gun manufacturer but
as far as who it was, I don't know. I can't read Italian.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell from looking at the ticket when this work
was done? First of all, the tag was not dated?

Mr. RYDER. The tag was not dated.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you make any estimate of the time by looking at
this ticket as to when the work was done?

Mr. RYDER. Well, it was done sometime between the 1st and 15th of
November.

Mr. LIEBELER. How could you tell that?

Mr. RYDER. Because the work was done while the Greeners or the Woody
Francis Greeners, the owners of the sport shop were on vacation.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know?

Mr. RYDER. They were gone that 2 weeks.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know it was done while they were gone?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, I can't really say too definitely sure but I am
quite sure it was because he doesn't remember seeing the gun in the
shop while he was there. In other words, before they left, and of
course, it was gone when they came back.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say "the gun," what do you mean?

Mr. RYDER. The one I worked on--in other words, he keeps a pretty good
watch on my work to make sure I'm getting it out on time and he will
check fairly close every day, every other day, and check to make sure
I'm getting the work out, that old work isn't laying there to be done.
He's pretty sharp on remembering names and he would have remembered
that quite surely if----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have much work of this type?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir; at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did have quite a lot of work at this time mounting
telescopic sights?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; when they left, that's 2 weeks prior to the opening of
the deer season here and I guess that 2 weeks I mounted 35, 40, maybe
50 scopes in that week as well as run the business while they was gone
which is quite a headache in itself. That's just prior to hunting
season, you see. Just like I told everybody all along, I couldn't say
specifically if it was by seeing pictures if it was him or another
Oswald. In other words, I don't put that close relation to a man's face
to a particular item of work.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the deer season open--the 14th or 15th of
November?

Mr. RYDER. The 15th, I believe it was this year.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you say you mounted perhaps as many as 50 scopes in
the 2 weeks preceding that day?

Mr. RYDER. Very possibly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's go back to the last 2 weeks in October. Did you
have a similar number of scopes to mount during that time?

Mr. RYDER. Not quite that many. Lot of these guys like to get their
scopes mounted just before they leave. For instance, buying these
license plates and getting your car inspected works the same way. They
wait until the last minute before they really get ready to go.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any recollection of about how many scopes you
might have mounted during the last 2 weeks in October?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I sure wouldn't say specific to remember, sure
wouldn't be sure about the number.

Mr. LIEBELER. It would not have been as many as you did the first 2
weeks in November but would it have been more than 10?

Mr. RYDER. Oh, yeah; I'm quite sure. I say roughly 25 scopes. Of
course, a lot of these people that buy their scopes wholesale or buy
a cheap scope that we don't handle, we handle the better priced and
better scopes and they buy these things and mounts and everything
somewhere else and have us mount them.

Mr. LIEBELER. The thing I am working toward here is trying to fix the
date on which this ticket with the name Oswald on it--when the work was
done.

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you mounted, say, 25 scopes or approximately that many
during the last 2 weeks of October, isn't it possible that the Oswald
scope could have been mounted during that period of time and your boss
would not have remembered the name Oswald as being connected with one
of those rifles?

Mr. RYDER. Could have, but like I say, he's pretty sharp. He's pretty
smart; I mean in keeping up with the business, you know what I mean. In
other words, the flow of the work that I had; in other words, he keeps
a close watch on it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you stated that the repair tag had a number on it.
Are these repair tags taken off a book with tags with consecutive
numbers on them?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do these numbers come from?

Mr. RYDER. We buy repair tags, of course, they have a main base of
the tag, just a tag you can tear off and you can tear off--say I have
number 41626 of the other piece; in other words, have the right tag on
the gun. As far as sequence, we don't use any. We have a box and we
reach over, get a tag, put a man's name on it. The same tag is used on
reels, rods, outboard motors, boats.

Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no possible way in which you could fix the
date by observing the sequence of the number on the tag?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you limit it to a period of 2 weeks?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, it would be from the 1st to around the 14th or
15th of November while the Greeners was away.

Mr. LIEBELER. You said before you were quite sure you never worked on
a----

Mr. RYDER. The Italian gun.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Italian rifle. Do you have any recollection of the
kind of rifle that this Oswald tag referred to?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't. That's another place where we did--in
other words, I did so many and I was so rushed that I didn't pay a
whole lot of attention to what tag was to have such and such a scope
put on. That is where actually our fall-down went on the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. There is no indication on the tag as to what kind of
rifle it would be?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you helped at all by the fact that the tag indicates
that three holes were drilled? Do you ordinarily drill three holes on
all rifles?

Mr. RYDER. We boiled it down to this: That there are two type bases
used that have three. The Redfield base and the Buehler base and then,
actually, these could go on any gun that you want. In other words, if
a man bought a Redfield or Buehler base they can be adapted to any gun
with three holes. Now any imported, we couldn't say definitely if it
was imported because the Springfield O3A3 requires three holes; the
British 303 requires three holes. These are guns they use and that's
the only ones we could think of offhand that would require just three
holes, so we boiled it down, it was either Buehler, Redfield base or
with the Weaver base being on the Springfield O3A3.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or the 303 British rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say you boiled this down in your conversation with
Horton from the FBI?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, this was amongst ourselves, I and Mr. Greener.
Actually, there was a lady from the Washington press, of course, I
don't know, I forgotten which paper she worked with but she was with
the Washington press and we discussed this with her quite thoroughly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember her name?

Mr. RYDER. I sure don't. She, in turn, called Klein's and found out
the rifle that was used in the assassination had already been drilled
and tapped. In other words, he had bought the scope and rifle from
Klein's and they were shipped together and all he had to do was attach
it to this particular gun. In other words, the one he used in the
assassination. Of course, they order by serial number.

Mr. LIEBELER. You also testified you did not mount any scope on an
Italian rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say, that when you mount a scope you do not charge
for the process of boresighting, is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, it's hard to say, really. At that time we were
not charging if we drilled and tapped one, we didn't do it. Now we do
charge extra, $1.50 bore sighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall if there was an extra $1.50 for
boresighting indicated on the ticket in question?

Mr. RYDER. I don't even remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing that point with Agent Horton?

Mr. RYDER. Yeah; we talked maybe we did charge $1.50 for the
boresighting. As a matter of fact, I did because $6--or was it $4.50--I
don't even remember that now.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't now remember whether the ticket was for $4.50
or $6?

Mr. RYDER. That's right, right now, I don't. It seems like to me it was
for $4.50 for drill, tapping, and bore sighting. I believe it was for
$4.50. In other words, I didn't charge for boresighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you do when you bore sight a rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Well, I use a sight-a-line. That's actually three different
things but, what it is, it's an optic deal made by this manufacturing
company that has a little cross hair in it just like a scope. It lays
like such instead of like such [illustrating]. By taking a little sprig
that fits different caliber rifles, fits in the rifle, you look through
the scope and line the four cross hairs together to the center point
of the cross hairs. It doesn't zero a gun by any means. It just gets
you--oh, better where you can tell where you're hitting.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, you can't really zero a gun any by just boresighting
it?

Mr. RYDER. No; actually, it lines your bore and your sight at one point
or close to one point where you can get your point from there without
wasting ammunition. If I were to anchor a barrel or piece of pipe in
a vise and pick out a spot over there on that building [indicating]
somewhere; say, draw a circle and I line this with that and aline the
sight, I have a scope or open sight either one, over to that point, I
go to shoot at it offhand and there's a different way I hold that gun.
This breaks it down to a fine deal where you understand the difference
between boresighting and zero. If you been in the army, you know the
difference. In other words, this method I was just describing say, to
the building, is the way we use the bore sight.

Mr. LIEBELER. But now you have a little machine that does that?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; we have this little optical instrument we use now which
makes it simple and faster.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever worked with any rifles that came from
Klein's in Chicago or mail-order rifles that came with scopes mounted
on it?

Mr. RYDER. You can't tell unless a man tells you. In other words, to
look at one you can't tell any difference in workmanship.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as how the scope was mounted, you mean?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any way of knowing whether these scopes are
boresighted when mounted by a mail-order house or not?

Mr. RYDER. Most likely they are. Now, I don't know how they operate,
if they do boresight any there or not. I do know for a fact if you
boresight or zero a boresight on a Redfield base or any base except
Bausch and Lomb, other than those, other than the Bausch and Lomb, if
you take the scope off and put it back on you have to rezero. In other
words, if they did boresight it and take it back off and ship it, it's
going to be entirely different when the man receives the gun. It might
be close enough for a man to shoot one in but won't be near as close.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that a rifle would have to be zeroed in any
event after it had been shipped from a mail-order house before it
could be used to shoot accurately?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; take for example, I have a Model 70 Winchester .30-06
caliber with a K-4 Weaver scope; nearly every season prior to deer
season I will shoot it in and I have found several times it has been
off just by riding in the back of the car. Taking it in and out of a
gun case, things like that will make them off. In other words, they
are not built so rigid that a little something here and there can get
bumped loose so it would be like I say, he would have to have it zeroed
after he received it from the mail-order house, most definitely.

Mr. LIEBELER. If I were to tell you that this particular rifle had been
carried to New Orleans and back in a station wagon and had laid in a
garage in Irving for 2 months prior to the assassination and had been
moved around in the garage, would that lead you to believe it might be
out of sight at that time?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; it could be very possible.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think it would be probable or do you have any
experience to make a judgment like that?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, of course, I take proper good care of the gun
I got and I have to readjust it quite often when I shoot it in. Of
course, then again, too, later on, from one season to the next I might
change from the way I held my gun which is another thing to make a lot
of difference in the way I shoot but one to be carried that far, unless
it was really taken care of can very, very easily be knocked out of
alinement or out of adjustment. Another thing, too, on just looking at
this picture----

Mr. LIEBELER. The picture of the rifle?

Mr. RYDER. The picture of the rifle that Mr. Horton had; this was a
real cheap, common, real flimsy looking--of course, I couldn't tell by
just looking at the picture say the type of material it was made of,
but to me it looked rather cheap. It would be very easily knocked out
of adjustment.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never been shown the actual rifle itself, is
that correct?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I haven't. I would like to see which mount it is,
see whose make it is, but I haven't seen it yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember being interviewed by an agent of the
Secret Service?

Mr. RYDER. They came out and talked to Mr. Greener rather than
myself. Well, I talked with them, too; we had a triangular, circular
conversation--Mr. Greener, myself, and the agent.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the agent's name?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it refresh your recollection if I said his name was
Elmer W. Moore?

Mr. RYDER. Doesn't ring a bell.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the Secret Service agent that you
were certain after viewing photographs of Oswald that you had never
done any work for him; in fact had never seen him?

Mr. RYDER. Not actually in that tone; like I say, like I told all of
them that interviewed me, even the reporter, that his features are very
common, I say, for the working class in the Dallas and Fort Worth area
and he could have been in the shop, sport shop, I might ought to say,
and be easily mistaken for another person or another person similar
to his features could have been in, but I couldn't say specific if he
had been in the shop or not, I mean, that's something I won't draw a
conclusion on because like I say his features, face and all is common
with the working class here and he could easily be mistaken one way or
the other either for him or for another person.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as far as outside of the shop is concerned, you see,
I'm troubled to some extent because I have before me a report of the
agent from the Secret Service and a report from the agent of the FBI.
One report says you are quite sure you have seen and talked to Oswald
and the other one says you are quite sure you have not seen him. I am
puzzled by those statements.

Mr. RYDER. Like I continue to say all the way through on their
investigation, both that Secret Service man and from the FBI that he
could have been in the shop; I could have talked to him but to say I
had definitely, I couldn't say I have really talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you say you definitely have ever seen him outside
of the shop anyplace?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't believe I have. I mean I couldn't say
specific because back again to the common features, so on and so forth,
but, actually, we have drawn a conclusion, of course, that is, I and
the boys and people concerned at the sport shop there that it was
either this Oswald with another gun or another Oswald with another gun.
We know definitely that it was another gun. We know that for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have already carefully considered the possibility
of identifying that other gun but you are not able to do it?

Mr. RYDER. Right; Mr. Greener called all the other Oswalds listed in
the Dallas and Irving directories.

Mr. LIEBELER. He did that?

Mr. RYDER. Right, with no avail; in other words, nothing turned up.

Mr. LIEBELER. Whose handwriting does the name Oswald appear to be
written in?

Mr. RYDER. It's mine.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is your own handwriting?

Mr. RYDER. It is my own handwriting; the whole thing was written up by
me.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first discover this tag?

Mr. RYDER. Well, it's kind of funny, actually, how I found the tag. My
workbench generally is cluttered up, you know how tools get scattered
around and I was--I had been to the Evinrude Service School----

Mr. LIEBELER. Here in Dallas?

Mr. RYDER. Yeah, at the Marriott over here and we were talking about it
that evening and, of course, by the time I got back from the service
clinic was just about time to close and we left and that Saturday
afternoon I started cleaning off the workbench and I found the ticket
of which I didn't say anything to anybody else there and when Mr.
Horton came out on Monday, well, then I told him we had a tag. I
didn't want to keep anything back but after he showed me the picture
and everything I apparently drew my conclusions of not working on that
particular gun anyway.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did Horton know to come out to the sports shop?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, I don't know. He evidently was checking all of
the----

Mr. LIEBELER. Gunshops?

Mr. RYDER. Gunshops and hit us on Monday, well, let's see, it was, oh,
it was about 10:30 or 11 that morning whenever he first came out.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not familiar with this particular kind of rifle,
are you? You have not worked on any similar rifles?

Mr. RYDER. Well, there's quite a few similar but this particular one is
a real oddity. It's an odd job and I have never worked on any. I have
seen several.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever broken one down?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; never have. As a matter of fact, the only thing I
can remember doing is just pulling the bolt back on it and closing it
back up. That, to me, is common; I always make sure there's no shells
or anything before I look at one. That's the first thing if you hand me
a pistol, I kick the cylinder out or spin it through to make sure it's
unloaded but this gun is real odd, I mean it's a crude-built gun.

Mr. LIEBELER. When a gun is broken down, by that, I am sure you
understand that I mean you remove the action and the barrel from the
stock. The rifle then is, generally speaking, in two shorter pieces.

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. The two pieces you have are shorter than the gun is when
put together?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is generally true because the stock of the rifle
doesn't ordinarily extend to the end of the barrel?

Mr. RYDER. Right; now on some military rifles they do extend all the
way to the end of the barrel or close to the end, put it that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you note in connection with the picture that you
observed of this rifle they found in the Texas School Book Depository
Building, did you note whether or not on that rifle the stock went
very close to the end of the barrel or didn't come out so far?

Mr. RYDER. As far as I remember it had been cut off, or, in other
words, it didn't go to the end of the barrel, as far as I remember, I
don't. I am quite sure it didn't. It went a little over half way in the
picture that I saw.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned that sometimes in the military rifles the
stock goes quite far along the barrel?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that not a common type of construction in a domestic
rifle or nonmilitary rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Right; or nonmilitary or what we call a sporter rifle your
stock goes half way to the end of the barrel leaving the end of the
barrel to wiggle as it may. A military rifle, M-1, Garand, O3A3, 303,
they all are of wood and completely encased around the barrel. In other
words, you had a piece run all the way on the bottom of it; piece that
filled in on the top side. Lot of people use military rifles or use
sporter rifles that some cut the stock off at a slight angle, say, a
little above half way of the barrel. Others go ahead and spend and
buy the sporter-type stock they can fit their gun to, but as far as I
remember, this stock on the picture didn't go all the way to the end of
the barrel.

Mr. LIEBELER. Unless you can think of anything else that you want
to add at this point I just tell you for the record that my present
inclination is to close the deposition at this point. I may wish to
question you again and possibly bring the rifle down here so you can
look at it. Unless you can think of anything else you want to add at
this time that you think might be helpful, we will terminate. Can you
think of anything else?

Mr. RYDER. No; I can't think of anything right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to ask one or two more questions. You mentioned
you were interviewed by the Dallas police force about this. Do you
remember the name of the man or men who talked to you on the Dallas
police force?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't. Actually, I say Dallas Police Department,
it was the sheriff's department rather than the Dallas Police
Department, really. Of course, I connect the two together but they're
two separate organizations; I know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. In view of my former statement, I would like to thank you
at this time. If we decide to continue with this, we will advise you in
the future.




TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER RESUMED

The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 12:45 p.m., on April
1, 1964, at the Irving Sports Shop, 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving,
Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. This is the continued deposition of Dial Duwayne Ryder.
The witness having been previously sworn, we will continue with the
examination.

First of all, Mr. Ryder, I want to show you a picture that has been
marked Exhibit No. 1, on Mr. Greener's deposition. I ask you if that is
a picture of the repair tag that you found here in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that is the one right there.

Mr. LIEBELER. It has the name Oswald on it and the words drill and tap
$4.50; bore sight, $1.50; total $6.

Mr. RYDER. That is the one we was thinking about the other day. Did it
have the $6 tag or the $4.50 tag, because we sometimes charge for the
boresight and sometimes don't, depending on the type work we do or what
we actually do on the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the exact details under which you found
the tag in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Well, we talked about this thing on Saturday morning and
like I said before, like you saw the workbench up there today, that it
is cluttered up, and on Saturday evening I was cleaning it off and
found the tag laying back on the workbench.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Saturday following the assassination?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You found the tag there yourself?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the FBI been out here prior to that time?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had not?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out?

Mr. RYDER. On Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late
President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came
out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is
that right?

Mr. RYDER. He told us to hold onto it, and then they later came by and
got the tag.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to the newspaper reporter about this?

Mr. RYDER. There were several out here after the FBI had been out, and
we told them the same thing that we told the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't talk to any newspaper reporter before the
FBI came out here?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite sure about that?

Mr. RYDER. I am positive about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was your impression at the time the FBI came that they
were making a routine check of all guns?

Mr. RYDER. That is my opinion. That is the idea I had.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't know of any special reason why they came to
this particular gun shop?

Mr. RYDER. No; he didn't give any specific reason. He was just checking
us out. Like I say, probably just routine like he checked all others.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now I show you two pictures that have been marked
Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 on Mr. Greener's deposition. They are pictures of
a rifle, and I ask you if you have ever seen a rifle like that or ever
worked on one here in your shop?

Mr. RYDER. I have seen them but never have worked on one of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you seen them before the assassination?

Mr. RYDER. This is what I was talking about the other day. This is not
as plain a picture as Mr. Horton had. Evidently that is a reprint, but
there are two screws, one here and one here, where on the tag I have
charged for three holes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are indicating the screws on Exhibit No. 3, that hold
the scope mount to the rifle; is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. Mr. Horton, the FBI man, on the rifle he had it was real
plain and you could see these two screws, and this was a hole, but
there wasn't any screws. There was just two screws in the mount.

Mr. LIEBELER. The mount had three holes but only two screws?

Mr. RYDER. That is apparently in the picture you have here, and this is
what I was referring to as a cheap mount. This looked to me like even
in this picture it was real thin gage metal. I can show you something
like that, that we use on a .22 scope, and that is all we use.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in your opinion it is too light a mount?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; it is too easy to get jarred off on a high-powered
rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would throw the accuracy of the rifle off, wouldn't
it?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is all I have, Mr. Ryder. I just wanted you to look
at the pictures, and I thank you very much.

Mr. RYDER. I don't know which one it was, but it looked--it looks like
a copy of the one the FBI man had, except it's been copied over and
over. This is not as plain as the one he had.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you if the FBI or anybody that ever talked to
you ever showed you any pictures of a man and asked you if you could
identify that man as Oswald?

Mr. RYDER. He showed me a picture of Oswald, but like I told him, I
couldn't say definitely if I knew him or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some other pictures that we have. The
first five pictures have previously been marked Commission Exhibits
Nos. 451 and 453 through 456, and I will ask you if you can recognize
the man or men described in these pictures. Have you ever seen them
anywhere, as far as you can recall? And second, if you have ever seen
him in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. No; they don't look like--too familiar to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do they appear to be pictures of the same man to you, or
a different man?

Mr. RYDER. They look actually to me like they are different men. These
two look real close.

Mr. LIEBELER. Referring to Commission Exhibits Nos. 456 and 451?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; they look real similar in their hairline. Actually, I
guess this looks about the same, too.

Mr. LIEBELER. Referring to Commission Exhibit No. 455. But the other
two pictures look a little different?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The other two being Commission Exhibits Nos. 453 and
454? Now I show you a picture that has been marked previously as Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-A. I ask you to look at all the individuals in that
picture and tell me if you recognize any of them.

There are two individuals that have been marked by a green mark, but
don't confine your attention to them.

Mr. RYDER. This one I know is Oswald, as the pictures in the paper, but
as far as seeing the guy personally, I don't think I ever have. I could
have, but being in business here, it would be hard to say. Any of the
others, I don't believe I have seen any of the others, but this one,
like I say, just by picture----

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to the man that has been marked with an
"X"?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or with two lines as opposed to one straight line on
Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A. I now will show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B,
and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture? There is a man
marked with a green mark in the left-hand corner of the picture.

Mr. RYDER. This would be the only one. Like I say, seeing him on
television and in the paper, that is as far as I could go.

Mr. LIEBELER. The man marked with the green line, is that right?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Here is another picture which has been marked Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-C. Do you recognize him?

Mr. RYDER. This is the same picture that the FBI had of Oswald, the
same picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember seeing this man in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, as many people as we have in here, it would
be hard to distinguish one from another unless they come in quite
frequently and you begin to know them. Then you would know what he
looks like and kind of put a name with a face. There are several people
that come in here that have been coming in for several years, but I
can't make this old ticker work up there as to their names.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you aren't able to say whether this man was in the
shop?

Mr. RYDER. He may have or may not have been. I couldn't say for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you, Mr. Ryder. We appreciate your
cooperation The Commission wants to thank you very much for the
cooperation that you have given us.

Mr. RYDER. Yes.




TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER RESUMED

The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 7:40 p.m., on July 23,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Will you stand and raise your right hand, please.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe this is the third time that we have met and I
have advised you previously of the nature of the Commission's work and
you are familiar with the kind of problems that we have?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are aware of your rights to have an attorney if
you want to--we have already discussed that previously, as I recall,
and you know who I am, and, of course, you are Dial Ryder and you
work at the Irving Sports Shop, and we have had previous testimony
concerning the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald may have had some
work done on his rifle in your sports shop.

When I talked to you previously, I asked you if I recall correctly
about any conversations that you might have had with a newspaper
reporter from The Dallas Times Herald; do you recall me asking you
about that?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. And my recollection is that you told me that you had
not talked to any newspaper reporters from The Dallas Times Herald in
connection with the story that appeared in that newspaper on November
28, 1963?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And specifically you had said that you had not talked to
a newspaper reporter on the morning of November 28, 1963, although you
did say that on that morning, sometime around about 7:30 a newspaper
reporter did call you from The Dallas Times Herald and told you that
he wanted to talk to you about this whole situation and you refused to
talk to him?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you hung up the telephone and as I recall, you
testified that you then took the receiver off the hook, making it
impossible for any other calls to come into your telephone; is that
correct?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you were interviewed by the FBI again on May 18,
1964, and you told them that same story; is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that in fact correct?

Mr. RYDER. That's right. It sure is.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to advise you of the fact that we have located the
newspaper reporter who supposedly talked to you that morning and his
name is Hunter Schmidt, Jr., and that he has testified that he came to
work at The Dallas Times Herald that morning and had a lead on this
story that he had gotten from an anonymous telephone call that some
woman made to the FBI and one was made to a television station here in
Dallas telling them that Oswald had had some work done in your sports
shop and I think I previously asked you about this and you said you
didn't have anything to do with those anonymous telephone calls; is
that right?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Schmidt says that he started looking for your name which
he got from somewhere, apparently in connection with the Dallas Police
Department and tracked you down at your home and called you between
7:30 and 8 o'clock on the morning of November 28, 1963, and that
apparently your wife answered the telephone as you were still asleep
and you came to the telephone and you appeared to be sleepy and that
he talked to you for an extended period of time, and that you gave him
the information that subsequently appeared in the newspaper article on
November 28, 1963, in The Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. Schmidt was advised when he testified that you had denied giving
him this story, although you had admitted that some reporter had
called you on the telephone that morning. Is the name Hunter Schmidt
familiar to you at all?

Mr. RYDER. No; it's not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether or not that was the particular
newspaper reporter that called you that morning?

Mr. RYDER. I couldn't say definitely for sure--like I said--I told them
I had no comment on it and hung the thing up.

Mr. LIEBELER. In addition to the fact that Mr. Schmidt has so
testified, I have been advised that one of Mr. Schmidt's associates was
sitting right there in the office at the time Schmidt called you and
heard the entire conversation between Schmidt and yourself and he said
that Schmidt did talk to you for an extended period of time, or to a
person by the name of Dial Ryder, who gave him this information about
the gun work being done at the Irving Sports Shop and he said he heard
the whole conversation.

Mr. Schmidt has, during the course of his testimony, volunteered to
take a polygraph examination on this whole question as to whether or
not he talked to you that morning and as to whether or not you gave him
the information about the gun ticket and about the three holes that
were drilled in the rifle and all the other information that appeared
in that newspaper story. I am not here to say myself who is telling the
truth, because I don't know, but it is perfectly obvious that one of
you is not telling the truth, either Mr. Schmidt or you. I don't know
what reasons you would have for not telling the truth, and I don't know
what reasons Mr. Schmidt would have for not telling the truth, but I
wonder if on reflection and in view of the statements that I have just
made to you, if you can ponder this whole question and perhaps refresh
your recollection. I don't know whether you talked to this newspaper
reporter or not, but in view of the fact that we have this other
testimony, I wonder if it would in some way refresh your recollection
that in fact you did talk to this man?

Mr. RYDER. No; like I said, the only people I talked to were Mr. Horton
with the FBI and then the Dallas Police Department or the sheriff's
department--is the only ones I talked to about this, until, like I
told you--the CBS reporters came out and we made the television deal
after radios and everything got the thing and then we thought we had it
straightened out with them, but as far as that morning, I didn't talk
to anybody over the phone about it except I said I had no comment and
hung up the receiver and then took the receiver back off of the hook
and went on about my business of sleeping on this Sunday morning.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a woman by the name of Edith Whitworth?

Mr. RYDER. Let's see--there was a lady from the Washington Press.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; this is a woman who used to run a furniture shop in
Irving, which is down on Irving Boulevard.

Mr. RYDER. No; I don't know her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether Mr. Greener knows her?

Mr. RYDER. Now, he might--I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know any woman by the name of Mrs. Gertrude Hunter
who also lives in Irving and is a friend of Mrs. Whitworth's?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't know them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you aware of the fact that just down Irving Boulevard
from the Irving Sports Shop, a block and a half or so west, there used
to be another gunshop where a man carried guns?

Mr. RYDER. Well, there was a little place down there where he handled
guns--I don't know whether--if he was able to work on them or not,
but it was about two blocks down the street or a block and a half or
something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Toward the west?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you know that there used to be a used furniture
shop that was there?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; it's still there.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't know the people that ran it?

Mr. RYDER. No; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Schmidt is sitting out here in the front office
and I'm going to ask him to come in and have you two gentlemen discuss
this problem, see if there is some way we can resolve this story on
this telephone conversation.

(At this point Mr. Hunter Schmidt, Jr., entered the room.)

Mr. LIEBELER. I have brought Mr. Hunter Schmidt, Jr., into the room
and Mr. Schmidt has previously been sworn as a witness and testified
yesterday on this question. I introduce you to Mr. Dial Ryder.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Ryder, how do you do?

Mr. LIEBELER. As I have indicated to Mr. Ryder, Mr. Schmidt testified
yesterday that on the morning of November 28, 1963, you came to work in
your office at the Dallas Times Herald and received information of some
sort that possibly Lee Oswald had had some work done on a rifle, on his
rifle or a rifle, in some sports shops or gunshop in the outlying areas
of Dallas. Would you tell us briefly what happened after that, Mr.
Schmidt?

Mr. SCHMIDT. After I got the tip, I traced it down and thought it
was Garland first and I looked it up in the phonebook--the city
directory--and the usual sources that we go through--I looked through
and this Ryder was the only one that I could find, or apparently he was
the one that said what I was looking for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you get Ryder's name in the first place; do you
know?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was from a tip around the police station. Now, I
don't remember. I have been trying to remember where--who specifically
it came from, but it was one of the many we were getting at that time.
As I said before, we had several different leads on different stories
and that they were coming in pretty thick, so I don't really remember
where I got the Ryder name, but it came from around the police station,
one of our boys covering this angle of the assassination, called in
from down there that a Ryder was supposed to have mounted a scope on a
rifle for a customer named Oswald, so I started checking from there,
and like I said yesterday, I thought at first it was Garland and I had
to do it by a process of elimination.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you went through the city directory and you finally
found it in the phone book?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe I used the phonebooks and I found this Ryder and
I called him up.

Mr. LIEBELER. About what time in the morning?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Oh, 7:30 or 8--something like that. I come in at 7 o'clock
and it may be a little after 8, but I estimate it was between 7:30
or 8, but it was early, and I called the Ryder and there was a woman
answered the phone.

Then, apparently the Ryder I talked to, and I guess it's this same Dial
Ryder, I'm not sure, but the Ryder I talked to apparently had to get
out of bed, there was a little interval, and come to the phone, and the
person I talked to sounded sleepy. He gave me the information I got and
it was very matter of fact and I believe you used the term "cordial"
yesterday. I guess--that would be it--he was not antagonistic, but he
was very--just very conversational in the question and answer session
and explanation, and he said he had a ticket with the name Oswald on
it and that it could have been the Oswald. He said he didn't remember
for sure what the face looked like with the Oswald ticket, but he
understands--he said he understood that this Oswald had a very common
face for this area and I asked about buying ammunition or how many
time he came in. I think he was sort of vague on that--he wasn't sure
how many times he had been in, and besides talking about the sighting
the rifle and the boring of the holes, that was in essence what it
was, what we had in the paper. I believe I explained to you about the
boresighting bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. There was some conversation between you about that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. He mentioned the boresighting and I don't think I
understood it fully and that might have been a little incorrect in the
paper, but that was the only thing that this technicality bit about the
boresighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Ryder, you have been sitting here watching Mr.
Schmidt and listening to his voice; does his voice seem at all familiar
to you?

Mr. RYDER. Sure doesn't--not to me at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what your recollection is of what
happened on that morning?

Mr. RYDER. Well, like I have said before, and it is in my
testimony--the FBI has the same thing--the phone rang. It was roughly
7:30, I would say it was closer to 7:30 than it was 8, and the reporter
asked me had I mounted the scope on the Oswald gun and I told him I
had no comment and I hung up, I mean, I took the receiver off the hook
and that's all I done and all I said here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Schmidt, after listening to Mr. Ryder's voice,
can you identify it as the voice you say you spoke to on the telephone
that day, or are you unable to do it?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; I couldn't honestly identify him by voice now. It was
6 or 7 months ago and I only talked to Ryder once.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Ryder, do you know of any other Ryders out there in
the area who would have any knowledge of this gun ticket at the Irving
Sports Shop?

Mr. RYDER. Not that I know of--not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as I indicated to you, Mr. Schmidt has volunteered
and requested a polygraph examination to try to clear this matter up,
and I wonder if you have any suggestion that you think of as to how it
might be done?

Mr. RYDER. Well, I'll take the thing if you want me to take it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I don't want to ask you to do it, but if you want
to request it and assist the Commission in clearing this matter up,
I think we could make arrangements to have a polygraph examination
administered to both of you.

Mr. RYDER. Well, I'm not one to volunteer for anything.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am perfectly willing to, because I stand beside that
story. I don't know this man personally, if this is the Ryder of the
gun shop, the Irving Sports Shop, and the same one that identified
himself that morning--that was the information I got from him and I
don't have any reason to lie about it, you know, I get the same amount
of pay, I don't get any extra money for that story and I didn't even
get a byline for the story. I knew that it would be just part of a
story. So, I feel like I am a professional with my business and I just
don't like to be doubted.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether or not there was anybody else in
your office at the time you heard this conversation that you had with
Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. There were several men around there but I'm not sure
whether they recall this conversation or not or whether they were even
paying any attention. There are a couple of men that sit right to my
left and a couple to my right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the Commission has followed the practice of due
regard for the civil rights of the people who have been involved
in this thing and it is not requesting anybody to take a polygraph
examination, and it is not prepared to make an exception in this case
for you, Mr. Ryder. If you want to volunteer to do so, the Commission
will take it under advisement and decide what it wants to do, but it is
not going to request you to do so, and I cannot even put myself in the
position of even asking you to or urging you to or suggesting that you
do so. That's entirely up to you.

Mr. RYDER. Well, like I said, I will take the thing if it boils down to
that. Like I say, and I have contended all along, that I did not talk
to anybody on Thanksgiving Day, that morning. I didn't talk to anybody.
That was my day off.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any conversations with any other newspaper
reporters--that afternoon, but of course, that day--which you said you
wanted to enjoy as your day off, but you did go over to the shop that
afternoon and meet the television people, did you not?

Mr. RYDER. Right, that's after the story broke over the radio.

Mr. LIEBELER. And in the newspaper?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; and in the newspaper, and then we got with the CBS boys
and made the little film that they wanted.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember talking to any newspaper reporters at any
time the next day or the day after that about this whole story?

Mr. RYDER. Well, they were all over the place the next day--on
Friday--Friday and Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you still take the position that you had nothing to
do with the original story that came out and you never talked to the
newspaper reporters prior to the time the story came out in The Dallas
Times Herald?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea where they got the story?

Mr. RYDER. I still don't know--I kind of felt like where they got it
was over the radio--originally--I don't know. The CBS boys said that
they got it off of the Associated Press wires, is how they got it, or
over the AP.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, it is not the ordinary practice, of course, for the
Commission to advise witnesses what kind of an investigation it has
made in connection with this thing, at least, not until the report
comes out, but I think you ought to know that as a result of the
existence of this gun ticket and the story that you told the FBI and
the Commission, the FBI has attempted to find every Oswald in the whole
Dallas and Fort Worth area and the surrounding area and it has found
many of them and it has questioned all of them, some of whom have moved
out of Dallas and Fort Worth, as to whether or not they ever had any
work done in that gunshop, and you should know that none of them ever
did, and you should also know, and I think you probably do by now, that
Lee Oswald could not have had any scope mounted on the rifle that he
used to assassinate the President in your shop, and in fact, I don't
think you claim you did mount that particular scope?

Mr. RYDER. That's right. We have claimed that it wasn't that one. On
the Monday after, well, it was the Monday of the funeral of President
Kennedy, that Mr. Horton came out and I thought at that time I had it
cleared with him that I hadn't mounted the scope on the gun he used to
assassinate the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That you had not?

Mr. RYDER. That we had not.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you weren't able to remember Lee Harvey Oswald's face
as being the face of the man who had previously been in that shop;
isn't that right?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you couldn't associate any specific gun or any
specific man with that particular work ticket; isn't that right?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any possible suggestions as to where that
work ticket could have come from if it appears, and it certainly does
appear, that no other Oswald came in there and there is no evidence of
any sort to indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald ever had any other rifle
than the one he used to assassinate the President, and he never brought
that one in the sports shop?

Mr. RYDER. All I know is that we had the ticket laying on the workbench
back there and I had written it up and completed the work on it and
the gun had been picked up. Now, as to whether it was Lee Oswald, I
couldn't positively identify him or if there was another one out there
right now I could not identify anybody if they said they did bring it
in.

Mr. LIEBELER. And to the best of your recollection, you wrote that gun
ticket sometime in the early part of November; is that right?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are certain that you wrote it up before November
22?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you are not able to associate that particular ticket
with any particular gun in your own mind?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. I also recall that when I asked you questions about this
before, you indicated that possibly we could fix the date on which
this ticket had been written because you had written it with a pencil
and you said you remembered you had gone to Dallas on that particular
day, and that you used a pencil to get some materials from a wholesale
shop. Of course, the FBI, as you now know, has gone and has found out
every day that you ever went to Dallas to get gun materials and asked
you if you could identify the time and the date by reviewing this list
of materials that you got from the wholesale house in Dallas and you
weren't able to associate it with any particular day you used a pencil.

Mr. RYDER. Right; he had 2 or 3 days there that he showed me some
copies--actually, he gave me some dates that I came to town and signed
and there were 2 or 3 days there in that period that I had signed with
a pencil, and it could have been that some of those days I had a pencil
laying handy and I just picked it up rather than taking my pen out of
my shirt.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you be surprised if the Commission concluded, after
this investigation that the FBI conducted and the questioning that we
have done, that there was never any man in there by the name of Oswald
with any gun at all?

Mr. RYDER. Yeah--like I said--all I've got is that ticket with his name
on it and the work being done.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, at this point I think we might as well conclude the
deposition. The Commission will take under advisement Mr. Schmidt's
request to have a polygraph examination administered to him, and I
am advised by one of the U.S. attorneys here that one of the other
reporters over at the newspaper does remember the conversation and we
will take his deposition tomorrow. If you want to have a polygraph
examination administered to you, after reflecting on this, or if you
have anything further to say about the whole thing, contact Miss Stroud
here at the U.S. attorneys' office, if you want to.

Mr. RYDER. Okay. Is that all?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's all. Thanks a lot, Mr. Ryder.




TESTIMONY OF HUNTER SCHMIDT, JR.

The testimony of Hunter Schmidt, Jr., was taken at 4:20 p.m., on July
22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Would you rise and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Will you please sit down. My name is Wesley J.
Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission
investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been
authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to
authority granted to it by Executive Order 11130, dated November
29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137. Under the
Commission's rules of procedure, you are entitled to have an attorney
present should you wish to have one. And you are entitled to 3 days'
notice of the hearing, should you wish to insist upon it. And you are
entitled to all privileges in terms of not answering questions that
you would have in any other proceeding. I assume that you are prepared
to proceed at this point without an attorney, since you don't have one
here?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't think that it would be necessary.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Hunter Schmidt, Jr.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. SCHMIDT. 1118 Osceola Trail, Carrollton, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born?

Mr. SCHMIDT. September 12, 1933.

Mr. LIEBELER. Give us your educational background.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Tyler High School, Tyler Junior College; I have a B.A.
from Lamar Tech, and I am working on my masters at SMU.

Mr. LIEBELER. In what? In journalism?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; in government. Two courses and a thesis away.

Mr. LIEBELER. I understand that you are presently employed by the
Dallas Times Herald, is that correct?

Mr. SCHMIDT. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you work for them in the capacity of?

Mr. SCHMIDT. County editor.

Mr. LIEBELER. County editor. What do you do as county editor?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I cover, or well you might say my beat is everything in
Dallas County outside of the city of Dallas, and parts of Eastern
Tarrant County. That is roughly some surrounding towns, and I take
care of the general news coverage in that area.

Mr. LIEBELER. At the request of the President's Commission, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation conducted certain investigations into the facts
surrounding a story that appeared in the November 28, 1963, edition of
the Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Thanksgiving Day; that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. The story related to the possibility that Lee Harvey
Oswald had had a telescopic sight mounted on a rifle at a sports shop
in Irving, Tex.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding from reviewing the FBI report,
that you were the reporter that wrote that story?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I gathered facts for the story and gave the facts to the
rewrite man who wrote the actual story, but they were from the facts
that I gathered. We were checking out several, running down all clues
and all possible reports at that time. Anything that might be a lead
to the story, we checked out. We checked out many many things of that
nature, and that was just one of the tips that I checked out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you first get information that Oswald had had a
scope mounted on his rifle at this Irving sport shop?

Mr. SCHMIDT. We heard of it, I think it was around the police station
somewhere. I don't remember where that exact tip came from. We heard
that a gunsight had been mounted by a man named Ryder, and they thought
at first it was Garland.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean Garland, Tex.?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Garland, Tex.; that's right. Since that was my beat, well,
they gave me the tip to check it and I checked it in Garland and found
out that there wasn't any Ryder listed in the city directory and so
forth, so I did it by process of elimination and checked several towns,
and I found, well, I came to rest on Irving, because I found the Ryder
there listed as the sports shop man, and I just took it that that was
the gunsmith.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether Ryder, when you checked the city
directory, that Ryder was listed as being associated with a gunshop, or
did you just find the name Ryder and call him?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't remember exactly what I found in the city
directory then. It was a process of elimination, and apparently that
looked like the only one in Irving, so I checked that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did there come a time when you called Mr. Ryder on
the telephone?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; this was Thanksgiving morning. In fact, that is the
same morning I got the tip. After the process of elimination, I called
Ryder and it was early that morning. I called out there, and a woman
answered the phone, and he apparently had gotten out of bed, from the
time it took. He sounded sleepy on the phone and so forth. So I talked
to him then on the phone and asked him about the information I got for
the story.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you talk to him on the phone about that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Oh, I am just guessing. I would estimate 15 minutes or
roughly thereabouts.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he tell you?

Mr. SCHMIDT. He told me--I asked if he had a customer--now this is a
tip we got, that this Ryder mounted a scope for a customer, and the
customer's name on the ticket with the gun was Oswald. And he confirmed
on the phone that morning. And the reason I took it as the truth was
because I didn't think a fellow would get out of bed early and make up
a story half asleep and fabricate a story that early in the morning,
and get out of bed on a holiday. He told me that he had a ticket with
the name Oswald on it, that it was a foreign-made rifle, that he did
put the scope, bored the holes and sighted it in. I asked him if he
bought any ammunition, and he said no; he didn't. I think he said he
didn't remember him buying any ammunition. He then gave me the prices
for the mounting of the scope, $1.50. I think he said he bored three
at $1.50 a sight, and $4.50 for the boresighting--I mean for the hole
drilling. And $1.50 for the sighting in of the rifle. And let's see,
after he gave me the prices and everything, I just took it as pretty
authoritative, because I didn't know that much about rifles.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you say that Ryder told you that he believed that
the rifle was a foreign make; is that right?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; I asked him what kind it was. He said he didn't
remember for sure, but he said he believed it was a foreign-made rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Ryder say anything about the fact that he was sleepy
and had not slept well the night before?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, I don't believe he mentioned that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of that? Did Ryder tell you what
boresighting was, or did you know about that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; I might have gotten that mixed up in the story. Some
of the people who know more about rifles than I do said that wasn't
exactly correct. The boresighting was explained in the story, but I did
the best I could with the information I had there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any conversation with Ryder about the
significance of the term boresighting?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Not that I remember. This boresighting thing came
up--there is a fellow down there that knows something about rifles,
and I mentioned boresighting, and then there was a conversation with
the rewrite man that took the facts I had and added to the story. The
top of the story is the story I got from Ryder, and the other part of
the story were some other tips that had been run down and other parts
of the story we pieced together about the general investigation and so
forth.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was Ryder's attitude when he talked to you on the
phone that morning?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was just a man giving information, as far as I
was concerned. He wasn't antagonistic or anything. It was just a matter
of facts, I would say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI about this?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Petrocas from Oklahoma; an FBI agent?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am not sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling him that Ryder was cordial and
invited you to get in touch with him again?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; he did. I think he said get in touch with him again
if I wanted to, I am not too sure, but it was that type conversation.
He wasn't antagonistic. As a matter of fact, it was like you would get
a story from anybody. Nothing apparently controversial about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI report that I have also indicates that the agent
says that you told him that Ryder did explain to you in detail the
significance of the term "boresighting." Do you recall telling the
agent that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't remember for sure. That was back, I guess, in May.
I don't remember any detail about the boresighting, but I remember him
mentioning boresighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. This FBI report indicates that on the evening of November
28, 1963, which was the same day that you had talked to Ryder, you saw
a taped television interview?

Mr. SCHMIDT. A denial. He denied the story that he had given me that
morning. But the thing that, immediately after I saw that, I called
one of the fellows on the paper. I think it was Charlie Dameron or Ken
Smart or one of my immediate superiors, and told him I thought the
story had something behind it because they didn't mention the ticket,
they didn't mention about the name Oswald on it, in the denial, and
they didn't mention the cost of doing this.

Mr. LIEBELER. It did not?

Mr. SCHMIDT. It did not, as best I remember, mention the cost of doing
that, and didn't mention the ticket. It just said he denied the report
that he put the sight on the rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, according to this report that I have, and it says,
"Schmidt advised that while at his address the evening of November 28,
1963, he observed a taped television interview on a 10 o'clock news of
CBS television, in which Ryder denied furnishing any of the information
to a Dallas Times Herald reporter as set forth in the article which
had appeared in the newspaper that day."

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right. About that 10 o'clock, I was guessing that that
was the 10 o'clock news. I did see a television denial of that, and I
am just guessing that it was the 10 o'clock news. It was CBS, because
I know I remember it was. It had to be CBS because I believe, and I am
not sure about that 10 o'clock, because the best I can remember, it was
Walter Cronkite reading the denial, and if it was Walter Cronkite, it
couldn't have been the 10 o'clock news, because I don't think he was
on then. In any event, I did see the television denial of it, and I am
pretty sure it was CBS.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Ryder actually appeared on the television taped
program, at that time; did he?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am trying to remember that. I just remember the
denial clearly on television. I wouldn't swear to Ryder being on the
television tape.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember for sure that Ryder denied furnishing any
information to a Dallas Times Herald reporter?

Mr. SCHMIDT. In that interview he denied having done, having mounted
a scope on the rifle, and he denied the story in the Times Herald, is
what he was doing in essence. And he said he just didn't do it, is what
he said on that, or what the story on the television said.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether or not he specifically denied
having told that story to a Dallas Times Herald reporter?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; I don't remember if he specifically said that in
essence. I remember the denial being credited to Ryder. As best I can
recall now, the denial being credited to Ryder.

He said he denied the story in the Times Herald, that he did thus and
so, that he mounted the scope. Now I am trying to remember back from
what I saw on that television, because now I understand he has denied
to his boss later on.

His boss had talked to our people at the Herald. He denied to his boss
later on, and his boss talked to us and said that he denied to him
talking to anybody from the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to Greener (Ryder's boss) about this?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. SCHMIDT. On the phone.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. SCHMIDT. He called. He was very cordial. He called in and he said
that--this is after he had talked to somebody else, as I understand it.

Either he called in, or I called him. We got together on the phone, and
I told him that I talked to the man Thanksgiving morning and got those
facts from him. And he said that the guy denied the story, and that was
in essence what was said. I told him I didn't know why he denied it or
anything, unless he figured that it might not go over very well with
the public.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Greener know about this work that had supposedly been
done on Oswald's rifle, when you called him?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't remember discussing that, whether he knew about
the work or not. But I remember pointing out the fact that in the
denial that I heard on television, that the ticket and the cost and
all that wasn't mentioned. And as I have said, I didn't know that much
about rifles, and I told the man I couldn't make up that much about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember Greener telling you that he was
completely unaware of any of the information that was set forth in the
article that appeared in the paper on November 28, 1963, until after
he had been contacted by a CBS television reporter that afternoon, and
that was the first time that he read it? That he, Greener, had learned
any of the facts about this whole thing?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe he said something to that in essence.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ask Greener why Ryder had denied talking to you
and giving you the information?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Did I ask Greener why Ryder denied it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; as I understand, the sequence went something like
this. You talked to Ryder on Thanksgiving morning, and he gave you all
the information and you wrote the story that came out in the paper.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that night you saw on television a program on which
Ryder in general denied ever talking to you, or denied the story that
was printed in the paper?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And I understand shortly after that time you called
Greener?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe it was the next day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You said to Greener, what is going on. Did you ask him
why Ryder denied the story that he had previously given you? That is my
question now.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I could have very well. I do remember talking to Greener
and telling him that, I am sure, I got the story from Ryder that
Thanksgiving morning, and I told him the reasons I thought that it was
a factual story because, as I said before, about getting up early on a
holiday, and the ticket with the name Oswald on it, and the cost and
everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did Greener ever tell you that Ryder had told him,
Greener, that he had never talked to a reporter from the Dallas Times
Herald?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe Greener said that Ryder said that he hadn't
talked to anybody, as best I can remember. I think he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talked to Ryder at any other time except on
the morning of Thanksgiving, November 28, 1963?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, sir; I wouldn't know him if he walked in this room now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you had any other possible source of information for
this story? Did you talk to anybody in the Dallas Police Department
about it?

Mr. SCHMIDT. About the mounting; no, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about the FBI?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, sir; I got all those facts from Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. You got those facts from Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir; nowhere else did I get any information. I
thought that was getting it from the horse's mouth. If I thought there
was anything phony about it, I would have told the city editor about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you given consideration to the reason for Ryder
denying having talked to you? He denied talking to you, he denied it to
the television reporter, and furthermore, he has denied it to me under
oath.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, he would have to deny it under oath, but like I say,
I wouldn't have any reason to fabricate the story. I didn't get any
extra compensation for it. I got paid the same thing if I hadn't gotten
the story, if it had been a complete hoax.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I think you got the information for the story
somewhere. I don't think there is any question about that. But isn't
it a possibility that you might have gotten the information from some
other place, a confidential source of information that you would rather
not disclose? Wouldn't that be a sufficient reason to say you got the
story from Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, sir; I had no reason to fabricate anything about Mr.
Ryder. I don't know the man. I have nothing against him. I just have a
story, and I will stick by that story we had in the paper. But the only
thing possible that I would be willing to retract any part would be
some details of how you do the boresighting. But I don't know that much
about rifles as to why he would deny it, except that he possibly could
have thought that wouldn't go over too well with the public, "Here I
mounted a sight on the gun that killed the President." Many people
would think--he never told me that this was the gun that Lee Harvey
Oswald used on the President. He said a customer with a ticket on it
that said Oswald, and I believe I asked him what Oswald looked like,
and I don't think he could put the face with the ticket, if I remember
correctly.

I believe I asked him that, but I wouldn't have any reason to fabricate
anything. And the man I was looking for was the man who mounted the
scope. After I got that with these other bits of evidence behind it, or
evidence in my mind, probably circumstantial, but to me it seemed like
human nature.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was enough evidence to justify writing a newspaper
article?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I think so, and we try to be factual. I think we have
tried to be very factual and very honest on this thing.

At this time you see we were getting things that were hoaxes that was
full of holes, and I wouldn't have any reason specifically to inflate
this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you are absolutely firm in your position that on
the morning of Thanksgiving you did call Ryder and you did talk to him
and did get from him the basic facts about the gun, ticket, and the
boresighting and the drilling of the hole?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Absolutely. Like I say about the boresighting. I got the
boresighting statement and details that I didn't know about. But I did
get the cost. I got the ticket with the name Oswald on it, that he
mentioned in the story, the statement about the ammunition. He didn't
buy any ammunition that he could remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me say this to you. We are faced with a situation
where Ryder has denied under oath the statement that you have just
affirmed under oath. It is perfectly clear that somebody is not telling
us the truth.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Obviously.

Mr. LIEBELER. What I would like to do in order to try to determine
who is telling the truth about this question is have you come in here
tomorrow evening at about 7:30 or so when Mr. Ryder is going to be here
again to testify before the Commission. After I discuss this with Mr.
Ryder, by myself, for a while, I would like to bring you into the room
and I would like to have you and Mr. Ryder see if you can't iron out
this apparent inconsistency in the two stories.

Mr. SCHMIDT. It is perfectly fine with me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you are willing to do that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. At this point, we will suspend Mr. Schmidt's deposition
until such time as we resume tomorrow in the presence of Mr. Ryder. And
needless to say, of course, you will hold in complete confidence the
request that I have made of you now until after we have our meeting
with Mr. Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. That will be fine with me.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would be very unhappy if I found it in the newspaper
before Ryder gets here.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Is it free knowledge after that, though?

Mr. LIEBELER. That is something that is entirely up to you, I suppose.
I don't know if the Commission would request you not to write a story
about it. I would like to talk to Washington, and even if we request
you not to write a story, that is all we can do.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, we have tried all the time to cooperate with people.
If there is anything other than that you want me to do, if you have a
polygraph test, I will be perfectly willing to submit to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have I mentioned a polygraph test?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; but I would be perfectly willing to submit to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is something that we will take under advisement
after we see what happens with regard to Mr. Ryder tomorrow.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Perfectly fine with me.




TESTIMONY OF CHARLES W. GREENER

The testimony of Charles W. Greener was taken at 12:15 p.m., on April
1, 1964, at the Irving Sports Shop, 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving,
Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. I would like to swear you as a witness and she will take
this all down. Would you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear
that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. GREENER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think that Mr. Sanders' office called you previously
and told you that we would be out here?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have advised you that I am an attorney on the staff
of the President's Commission. I want to ask you about some of the
background concerning the possibility that Lee Oswald or some other
Oswald had a rifle in the shop here and had some work done on it?

Would you state your name?

Mr. GREENER. Charles W. Greener.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you the owner and operator of the Irving Sports Shop
located at 221 East Irving Boulevard in Irving?

Mr. GREENER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is Dial D. Ryder one of your employees?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you known Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Approximately 6 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has he been employed by you here at the shop practically
all that time?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. We have a repair tag that has the number 18374 on it and
the name Oswald, indicating some repairs were to be made to a rifle. We
will mark this picture as Exhibit No. 1, on your deposition. I show you
a picture of this tag and ask you if that is a tag of the type that you
use here in this shop?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen that tag before?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the first time that you ever saw it?

Mr. GREENER. Approximately a week or less after the assassination was
the first time I had seen it. That was on Thanksgiving Day, I guess,
because they called me at home and I was eating and I met some of the
news media to go through this Thanksgiving.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had there been anything in the newspaper about this tag,
or about Oswald having any work done here before you saw the tag?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; it had come out in the news, and this was Walter
Cronkite was to run a retraction on it, or at least clarify the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of retraction?

Mr. GREENER. Well, they tried to clarify the thing to say that we had
a tag showing a certain amount of work for an Oswald, but as far as
relating to that particular gun or that particular man, we had no real
knowledge of the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the FBI been out there at the shop before this thing
came out in the newspaper?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't think so. They came out after all the news
stories.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did the newspaper get hold of this, do you know?

Mr. GREENER. I couldn't tell you that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are pretty clear that it was in the press before the
FBI ever talked to you?

Mr. GREENER. I am pretty sure it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know whether the FBI could have talked to Ryder
or anybody else at the shop?

Mr. GREENER. That I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are the owner of the shop, are you not?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you here at the shop during the period after the
assassination and prior to the time that the FBI came here for the
first time?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. If the FBI had come here to talk to anybody about Oswald
having been here, they would probably have talked to you, isn't that
right?

Mr. GREENER. It is possible. Now I do know that one newsman came in and
he wasn't going to consult me in any way, so I don't know whether it
would have been the case with the FBI or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the newsman come in?

Mr. GREENER. That was on a--I believe that was on a Monday--following
Monday, as I remember it.

No; wait a minute. No; it wasn't a Monday. That holiday, it's got me
mixed up. It must have been on a Friday after the Thanksgiving holiday.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was after the story had already been out in the
newspaper, is that right?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. This reporter came in and wanted to talk to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Right. The paper stated the owner of the Irving Sports
Shop, and he apparently figured that was the correct information.

Of course, all the newspapers, they didn't check out any stories; they
just run to their office and sent it in, as you well know. No one
checked out anything. Anything they could get hold of, they put in
print, and some of the information they got a hold, I don't know where
it came from.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any reason to believe that any reporter
talked to Ryder prior to the time the FBI came to your shop?

Mr. GREENER. One told me he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that reporter's name?

Mr. GREENER. No; he was with the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. GREENER. I couldn't swear.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you he talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Ryder told me he hadn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ryder told you the reporter had not talked to him?

Mr. GREENER. Had not talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the reporter tell you when he had talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. He told me that he talked to him earlier in the morning. I
don't know when that was. I am inclined to believe, to the best of my
knowledge, it was Thanksgiving Day. Now I could be wrong on that. My
recollection is that this story first came out--I am thinking it came
out on Thanksgiving Day.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have here a clipping from the New York Times of
November 29, 1963, which appears to be one of the first times that this
story was released in the New York papers at any rate, November 29,
1963.

Mr. GREENER. What was Thanksgiving Day?

Mr. LIEBELER. Thanksgiving Day was on a Thursday, was it not?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 28, so that the 29th would
have been the day that it came out in the New York papers, and it very
likely could have come out in the Dallas paper on Thanksgiving Day.

Mr. GREENER. I think it was Thanksgiving Day when it came out in the
paper, because I hadn't heard anything of it, and I remember we were
playing dominoes when the paper came, and we quit and read the paper,
and then also they had come by to check on this story, and we came up
to the shop and went through that for Walter Cronkite's program.

Mr. LIEBELER. The reporter had come out to check out the story?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that the newspaper clipping that
I previously referred to is from the New York Times of November 29,
1963, and the story is entitled, "Gunsmith Attached Sight for Man Named
Oswald," and it is a story written by Mr. John Herbers, and it has been
marked as Exhibit No. 2, on Mr. Greener's deposition.

Now do you have a feeling or do you have the thought based on what this
reporter from the Dallas News told you that the reporter had talked to
Ryder prior to the time that the FBI ever came here to the shop?

Mr. GREENER. You are going to have to go through that again. I am not
sure that I was following you all the way. I was thinking a little bit
while you were talking.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first
broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions
before the story came out in the newspapers?

Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had
been by previous to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he came here because they saw the
story in the paper?

Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the
news reporters.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did this reporter from the Dallas paper, whose name
you don't remember, tell you that Ryder had called him?

Mr. GREENER. No; he told me that he called him, called Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how he got the idea to call Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. No; he didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you didn't ask him?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss this question with Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; I did. And he said he had not talked to a newspaper
reporter about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. At all?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you never had any opportunity or occasion to ask Ryder
whether a reporter or, or whether Ryder contacted a reporter, because
he simply denied talking to a reporter?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when you asked Ryder about this?

Mr. GREENER. Must have been on Friday, because I was a little bit
aggravated at the whole setup. They got me out of bed a time or two
at night, and I believe that I had called the Times Herald to talk to
this reporter to see where he was supposed to have been getting his
information. I'm sure that after I talked to them that day was when I
questioned Ryder. So I feel pretty sure it was Friday or Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. The 29th or 30th of November?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Ryder ever indicate to you that he had talked to a
newspaper reporter about this?

Mr. GREENER. No; he did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any recollection at all of the name of this
reporter from the Dallas newspaper?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't have the slightest idea about talking with
reporters until this bunch that was going to run the program on Walter
Cronkite's program had contacted me, and he called me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember his name?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't remember any of the boys with the television
program at all. They had called me and wanted to come down and take
some pictures, and he called me, Ryder did.

Mr. LIEBELER. The television men had called Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. That was after the newspaper article had appeared in the
newspapers.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Ryder called you and talked to you about it, whether
these men could come down?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; and I came down and met with them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what Ryder told them?

Mr. GREENER. To the best of my knowledge, he told them that we had the
ticket, but he didn't remember the name, didn't remember the gun, or
the person, because actually here is the thing about this tag here.
We have tried to keep a little better record. We get busy, you know,
and get a little lax, just like you and everybody else does, and if
we got two or three waiting, why, at that time we were not going to
dally about what the name is or date or address or telephone number or
anything. We felt like we didn't have time.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was just before the deer season?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; I guess the deer season opened November 16 in Texas,
and our workload was pretty heavy, and we were working short handed,
too, which would be one reason for no more information on the tag or
several other tags.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you fix the date?

Mr. GREENER. No; no way in the world. In the first place, I wasn't
here. I feel sure I wasn't here at the time this went on. I was gone
from--I don't remember what day I left. I started hunting in South
Dakota on November 2, and we came back somewhere between the 12th and
14th.

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you feel that you weren't here at the time
this tag was made up?

Mr. GREENER. Well, in checking around, I feel like possibly that I
would have noticed it on the gunrack. I would--I don't know whether I
would or not, because I do some of the repair work myself, and a lot of
times I go through the guns on the rack to be repaired, and if it is
something I can do, I take care of it. If he is busy, then I take care
of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ryder, you mean?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you have no recollection of this tag?

Mr. GREENER. None whatsoever, until, I believe, it was the day on
Thanksgiving when they came down here. Now, I believe--this has been
a long time and we are going into phases of this I hadn't thought of
in a long time--it seems to me that the FBI got ahold of him and they
come down scouring through the place. That was very possible after the
newspaper report broke. It could have been before, but it seems to me
that that is when the tag appeared. I believe it was an FBI man who was
out here checking.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, if that is true, then the tag would have had
to have been found and the FBI man would have had to have been here
before the story broke in the newspaper?

Mr. GREENER. No; I said it could possibly be after the newspaper story
appeared, but I believe when the tag was found lying on the desk
somewhere, that the FBI man was here when it was found.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the best recollection that you have?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who found the tag; do you remember?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't know. If I remember correctly, and I could
be wrong, because like I said, you are going into things that hadn't
entered my mind since November 22, along in there, and it seems to me
that he had contacted Ryder and they had come down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI?

Mr. GREENER. Yes, and they found the tag on the workbench somewhere.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the
tag was found?

Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. As we discussed briefly off the record before we started,
it appears that there are three possibilities concerning this tag.
One, in view of the fact that Mr. Ryder is quite clear in his own mind
that he never worked on an Italian rifle similar to the one that was
found in the Texas School Book Depository, we can conclude either that
the Oswald on the tag was Lee Oswald and he brought a different rifle
in here, or it was a different Oswald who brought another rifle in
here, or that the tag is not a genuine tag, and that there never was a
man who came in here with any gun at all. Can you think of any other
possibilities?

Mr. GREENER. That about covers the situation, it looks to me like.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any opinion as to what the real situation is?

Mr. GREENER. Nothing more than I have confidence in the boy, or I
wouldn't have him working for me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think he would make this tag up to cause a lot
of commotion?

Mr. GREENER. I don't think so. He doesn't seem like that type boy. I
have lots of confidence in him or I wouldn't have him working for me
and handling money. Especially times I am going off. He--if he wasn't
the right kind of boy, and he pretty well proved he is by dependability
and in all the relations that we have together, and I just don't figure
that is possible. Now I say I don't figure that. Of course, there is
always possibilities of everything, but I don't feel that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't feel Ryder would do that?

Mr. GREENER. Not at all; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. When we look at this tag, it appears in the photograph
that it is in two parts. There is a top part entitled "Repair Tag,"
on which writing appears, reading "Oswald, drill and tap, $4.50.
Boresight, $1.50." Or a total of $6. And it appears at the lower part
of the tag; it is in the form of a claim check; isn't that correct?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The tag number, as I have indicated, is 18374. Would I be
correct in assuming that if this tag had been made up when a customer
came in and left their rifle, that the part of the tag entitled "Claim
Check" would ordinarily have been torn off and given to the customer?

Mr. GREENER. No; you are wrong in assuming that. Because I believe
19 out of 20 would not ask for a claim check. In the first place, 18
out of that 20 would lose the claim check before they got back, so if
you are going to give them a claim check and stick to the thing, not
letting them have the merchandise if they don't have the claim check----

Mr. LIEBELER. You are running into a lot of trouble from a business
point of view?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; when they come back for the merchandise, I ask them
what the name is, and if we have a gun to go by the name----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you ordinarily tear off the claim check?

Mr. GREENER. No. If you look at the rack, you won't find one on the
whole rack that has a claim check that has been torn off.

Mr. LIEBELER. There isn't any way you can tell from the number when the
check was issued?

Mr. GREENER. No, because we got the tags dumped into a box, and we
reach in and get a tag and tie it onto the merchandise and fill it out.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to show you some pictures that have previously
been marked in another part of these proceedings as Commission Exhibits
Nos. 451, 453, 454, 455, and 456, and ask you if you recall ever seeing
the person or persons depicted in these pictures?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't believe I could identify him as ever having
any dealings. Now there is a familiarity there, but I couldn't tie it
with anything or anybody.

Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn't figure out in your mind why you think there
is a familiarity to those pictures?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you ever seen those pictures before?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has the FBI or Dallas Police Department ever shown you
pictures and asked you to identify them?

Mr. GREENER. No; they haven't shown me pictures of anyone for
identification.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to show you another picture which is a photograph
that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, a photograph of an
individual on a street, and one of them has been indicated by a green
mark on the picture, and ask you to examine that picture and tell me if
you have ever seen that man before?

Mr. GREENER. Not that I can recall now.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another photograph of a street scene which has
been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A, and ask you if you recognize any
of the people in that photograph? Two of them have been marked with a
green marker, but don't confine your attention entirely to those two
individuals. Tell me if you recognize any of the people in that picture?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Particularly I call your attention to the man who was
standing immediately to the left of the man who is marked with the "X,"
rather than the line, not immediately, to the left of him, then, but
the second man to the left. He is standing there with a tie and he has
some papers in his hand. Does he look familiar to you at all?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another picture that has been marked Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-C, and ask you if you can recall ever having seen that
man?

Mr. GREENER. I don't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that man in the picture?

Mr. GREENER. According to the other pictures in the paper, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who does it look like to you?

Mr. GREENER. It looks like Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't ever remember having seen him?

Mr. GREENER. No; my mental pictures are not hardly as good as it used
to be. You take fooling with people day in and day out, without some
reason to recognize them, the next time you see them--there is a reason
for it, you don't make a mental picture of every person that comes in.
If he was 6'6" and weighed 300 pounds, or gave you some trouble when he
comes for his merchandise, then it is likely you would remember, but
a guy just comes in and tells you what he wants done, and comes back,
and gets his merchandise and doesn't give you any trouble, then you
don't remember. Usually I never forget a face. Now, the first picture
you showed me, there was something there, but I couldn't pin it to
anything, though.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am marking two photographs of a rifle as Exhibits
Nos. 3 and 4, on the deposition of Mr. Greener. I have initialed both
photographs for the purpose of identification, and I would like to have
you initial them, too, so we don't get confused as to which picture we
are looking at.

Mr. GREENER. Both of them?

Mr. LIEBELER. Both of them, please. These are pictures of a rifle. I
would like to have you examine it and tell me whether you have ever
seen that rifle or one similar to it.

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't remember this rifle at all. The first Italian
rifle that I remember seeing was in Worland, Wyo. A friend pulled his
out, and that is the first Italian rifle that I ever recall having seen.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that subsequent to the assassination?

Mr. GREENER. That was while we were on the trip.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember ever having seen a rifle like this in the
shop here?

Mr. GREENER. No; I sure don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have taken the first two exhibits and marked them
Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, on your deposition, and I have initialed both of
them and I would like to have you initial them also for the purpose of
identification.

Mr. GREENER. [Initials.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you made any attempt on your own part to try to
figure out how this tag came to be in your shop?

Mr. GREENER. No; really I haven't inquired any at all on that. I
inquired about the reporter deal, but I didn't inquire into anything
at all about the tag, because I just assumed it was all open and above
board and didn't go into it at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now we have talked previously about the three
possibilities that could possibly explain this tag, and you have told
us that you don't think that Ryder is the kind of guy who would write
the tag up after the fact just to cause a commotion.

There are two other possibilities. One, was that Lee Oswald had a
different rifle in here. And the other is that there is a different
Oswald involved. Do you have any opinion as to which of those
possibilities might be correct?

Mr. GREENER. No; it would just be a----

Mr. LIEBELER. Wild speculation?

Mr. GREENER. Very wild. Very wild speculation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you told me before that you had been interviewed
several times by the FBI and by the Dallas police force. Can you think
of any questions that they asked you or things they discussed with you
that we haven't covered here?

Mr. GREENER. No; I can't. It seems that we have gone into it far deeper
than they ever did, the Dallas police or the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of anything else that I should have asked
you or that you can add that would help clear this situation up?

Mr. GREENER. No; sure can't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no further questions at this point, Mr. Greener.
If you can't think of anything else that you think is appropriate to
add to the record, I think we will terminate the deposition at this
point. I want to thank you very much for the time you have given and
the cooperation you have shown. I know you have been talked to about
this a lot of times. I appreciate the cooperation you have shown the
Commission, and I thank you very much.

Mr. GREENER. We have tried to cooperate with them all the way through.
When they continued to come back and ask the same questions and get me
out of bed and all at 11 or 12 o'clock at night and get a tag they had
looked at three or four times, I began to get a little bit aggravated.

Mr. Ryder and I have always been interested in helping them in any way
we could with any information we could give. I don't feel that he is
the type boy to do that. Of course, that again is people are involved.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you have known the boy a long time and you should
be in a position to make that kind of judgment?

Mr. GREENER. That is what he is. He has been a mighty fine boy and he
is just an extraordinary boy. There is not many like him, and I would
trust him with anything that I have to be done, and it just never
struck me as him being that kind of boy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you a couple of other questions about rifles
and sights. I know you do have a meeting at 12:30.

Mr. GREENER. No; it was 12.

Mr. LIEBELER. I thought it was 12:30. I am sorry you are not going
to make the meeting. You may have read in the newspapers that Oswald
purchased this Italian rifle, or was supposed to have purchased it from
a mail-order house in Chicago, with the telescopic sight mounted on the
rifle at that time?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In your opinion, based on your experience in this field,
do you think that a rifle that had been purchased from a mail-order
house that is shipped through the mails with a scope mounted on it
would be in a condition to fire accurately at that point without any
further sighting in of the rifle by firing it?

Mr. GREENER. The possibility of it being, especially with this
frail mount is, I am sure that that mount, according to what little
information I have, the possibility of it being real accurate would be
pretty small, I think.

I think the gun would be--I think even a fellow that was going to go
deer hunting would want to take the gun out and shoot it before he went
hunting, and I think that holds very true with this case, regardless of
whether we mounted the scope or who mounted it or it come mounted. I
think the man would fire it before using it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You feel that because you don't think that a rifle would
be able to be fired accurately unless it had been sighted?

Mr. GREENER. The possibility would be small that it would be real
accurate; and you talk to most any of the fellows that go hunting,
regardless of how expensive a mount they may have on the gun, he is
going to take it and fire it before he goes hunting. That holds true in
99 percent of the cases.

The only reason not to would be the fact the man was in a real big
hurry, he picked it up late in the afternoon and he was going to
Colorado and was getting there after the season and he was going to
shoot and just take his chances. Otherwise, he would take the gun out
and fire it, 99 out of 100, and fire it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would that be true even if it had been boresighted?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; because actually the boresighting with the tools that
we use, the accuracy of the thing on the windage part of it is very
accurate, but as far as distance, different guns will travel a flatter
trajectory than other guns will, and there is no calibration on the
sighting tools that tell us that you can sight the gun in on target,
that it is on 60 or 140 or 270 or 308. There is no calibration for that.

Mr. LIEBELER. No calibration for the boresighting machine?

Mr. GREENER. No; you have the crosshairs and you line the two of them
up, and that is approximately 100 or 125 yards range, but different
guns will vary as to the trajectory, and one might hit the target and
one be a little high and another a little low, so that is the reason
the man takes his gun and shoots it in as far as the elevation is
concerned. He can zero it in to what distance he wants to shoot it at.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have to be done, as you have indicated, even
if the rifle had been boresighted?

Mr. GREENER. That's right. It would be accurate as far as elevation.
The windage part is usually right on target, but the elevation has to
do with caliber.

As far as your 6.5 Italian gun is concerned, there is only two types.
One is the hand load, and one is the military ammunition. Because there
is none of the major ammunition manufacturers that builds a sporting
load for that gun, so it either has to be a hand load or old Italian or
military ammunition, and the hand load has to do with what size bullet
and the power you get, and it would be more important on that gun to
shoot it than it would any other caliber or of an American make that
you get your larger manufacturers of ammunition loading for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any 6.5 ammunition in your shop?

Mr. GREENER. Not 6.5 Italian.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had?

Mr. GREENER. We have a 6.5 Swedish and 6.5 Jap, and I believe that is
all of these 6.5's.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you do reloading of casings?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The fellow has to do that himself?

Mr. GREENER. We sell the components and the loading equipment but we
don't do any loading. The only one that I have been able to find out so
far that hand loads 6.5 Italian--I don't think this is a possibility,
but Ray Acker with Bell Telephone is the only one I know that does any
hand loading on 6.5 Italians.

Mr. LIEBELER. He works for Bell Telephone Co.?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He does this as a part-time occupation?

Mr. GREENER. Hobby; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you talked to him about this case at all?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't guess I have ever called him. How I came to
know that he reloads, and I don't know to what extent that he reloads,
but I called one of my suppliers as to the availability of 6.5 Italian,
and he gave me his name, so that is the reason but I can't say, but as
far as I know, he is the only one that loads 6.5. There may be others
that buy their own dies and hand loading, more especially since there
are more guns coming out, but that would be, oh, a year and a half ago
when I was told that he hand loaded 6.5 Italians.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you need a particular kind of equipment to reload
shells?

Mr. GREENER. Very definitely.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does the equipment vary with the caliber of the shell?

Mr. GREENER. Very definitely. The presses usually will accept all the
different calibers, and then you have to have your die sets.

Mr. LIEBELER. To pour it?

Mr. GREENER. You've got to have your shell holders, and your die holder
that resizes the brass and inserts the bullet into it, the bullet
seating and there is only one caliber that one set of dies will load.
If you load a 6.5 die, you have to have 6.5 dies. If you load .30-06,
you have to have .30-06, and you can't have any part of the two on the
different calibers of ammunition.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, thank you again, and we appreciate your cooperation.




TESTIMONY OF GERTRUDE HUNTER

The testimony of Gertrude Hunter, was taken at 5:50 p.m., on July 22,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Hunter, would you stand please and take the oath.

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?

Mrs. HUNTER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the
staff of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the
Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order No.
11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No.
137.

Pursuant to the rules governing the taking of testimony by the
Commission, you are entitled to have an attorney here if you wish
and you are entitled to 3-days' notice of the hearing. You are not
required to answer at this time any questions that you think might be
incriminating or involve some other privilege, of course. Most of the
witnesses don't have an attorney and I see you don't have one here so
I assume you want to proceed with the questioning without an attorney
being present, is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name for the record, please?

Mrs. HUNTER. Gertrude Hunter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. 141 South Hastings, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you lived in Irving?

Mrs. HUNTER. I think it was 2 years the 14th of July--right at--between
the 8th and 14th--I don't know the exact dates, but it was 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you married, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any children?

Mrs. HUNTER. Four girls.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are they?

Mrs. HUNTER. Twenty-five, twenty-one, nineteen, and sixteen.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born?

Mrs. HUNTER. Jacksonville, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have lived most of your life in Texas?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, yes; all my life.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Mrs. Edith Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you known her?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, ever since I came to Irving. We are football fans
together.

Mr. LIEBELER. You came to Irving about 2 years ago?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; in July.

Mr. LIEBELER. It appears from information that has been provided to us
by the FBI that you were in a store operated by Mrs. Whitworth sometime
in 1963--that was formerly operated by Mrs. Whitworth--at which time
people who you now believe to be Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife and
children came into the store, is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us all the circumstances surrounding that
event as best you can remember them?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it was after 2 o'clock and I had went down to talk
to her--we were planning on a football trip and we were just sitting
there in the store talking, discussing football games, and who was
going with who and all, and this man drove up out in front of the store
and he got out and he come in and he asked for a gunsmith.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the car drive up?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see who was driving it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this man driving it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many people were in the car?

Mrs. HUNTER. Just him and a woman and two children.

Mr. LIEBELER. Nobody else?

Mrs. HUNTER. No one else.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite sure about that?

Mrs. HUNTER. I'm positive, because I was sitting right there--I was
sitting this way and the door was right here [indicating], and he drove
cater-cornered up.

Mr. LIEBELER. And there are glass windows in the front of the store so
that you could see right out into the street?

Mrs. HUNTER. It is a solid glass there and the door was standing open
there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know about what kind of car it was?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, the reason I'm definite about the car--a friend of
mine in Houston--I was looking for them up and they had a car just
like this and I had left a note on my mailbox that I would be at this
place--telling them if anyone come I would be at this place and when
they drove up I thought that was them and it was a two-tone blue Ford.

Mr. LIEBELER. What year?

Mrs. HUNTER. 1957 or 1958--I won't be positive about that, but I would
rather say it was about a 1957, I think.

Mr. LIEBELER. From which direction did this car drive up?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, where the car come from--I don't know whether
it come up Jefferson or down Irving Boulevard, but I know that it did
park into the front of the store where I was sitting, you know, I was
talking and I wasn't paying any attention to which way the car came
from. The only thing I seen is the driver, when he drove up, and I seen
the color of the car, I started to get up because I thought it was
my friends from Houston, and I looked and seen that it wasn't and he
just got out and come in. She didn't get out at that time. He come in
and asked for the gunsmith, and to the best of my knowledge, I'm not
positive, but it seems to me like, because I was thinking that so many
different times that they would come in--whether he had something in
his hand or whether he didn't, but I know he went back to the car, and
if he did, he put it in the car and when he come back in, she got out
and followed him in, but he didn't help her out of the car, he didn't
help her with the kids or nothing. She just followed him in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is the furniture store that Mrs. Whitworth operated at
that time at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Irving Boulevard,
is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; you come right in to Jefferson and Irving Boulevard.
It used to be the bus station--the Continental Bus Station.

Mr. LIEBELER. And they had diagonal parking on that street? Is that the
way you parked?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, you see, it was where the buses used to park clean
off the street to get out of the way of the traffic, you see, and you
just come up with the nose right up and you would be out of the traffic.

Mr. LIEBELER. Out of the main street?

Mrs. HUNTER. Just like this here was the store [indicating], well, it
was over this way and he just kind of cater-cornered up this way.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, he parked his car diagonally in front of the store
and got out and came in?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened after he went back out and they came back
into the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, he just come in and she was over when her desk was
there and he asked her about some furniture or something and they
walked and went back to the back and this woman, she followed them and
this young baby and the new baby.

Mr. LIEBELER. This man asked Mrs. Whitworth about some furniture?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Mrs. Whitworth and this man walked toward the back of
the store and the woman and the children followed them; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but she wasn't--now, listen, she didn't pay any
attention and this lady had had a new grandbaby.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Mrs. Whitworth's daughter and she says, "Let me trade you
a boy for this girl and we will both have a boy and girl." Well, they
didn't offer to show the baby or nothing and she didn't say anything.
We thought it was very funny and we discussed it after she walked
out--about her not being interested in showing her new baby, and, of
course, I didn't say anything to them, only I did see the little girl
and so forth. I didn't put my hands on her or nothing and I didn't pay
any attention to what they were saying at the back. All I know is that
they were looking at some furniture there, back there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this man Oswald say anything about how old the little
baby was?

Mrs. HUNTER. He said something to her but he was back far enough
that what he said to her--I don't know--it was about 2 weeks old or
something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is Mrs. Whitworth you are talking about now, or
Oswald?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oswald; and she asked Oswald something about the babies
and I don't remember just what he said to her, but it was something
about the baby, you know, and he didn't seem too enthused about that
either.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't hear Oswald say anything to Mrs. Whitworth
about how old the baby was?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I won't be positive--it's been so long--just what he
answered her, but just not looking for nothing--I didn't say too much
about it, but we just thought it was a coincidence about him not being
interested in us seeing the new baby. I think he did tell her when it
was born; I'm not positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you fix for us the date on which this occurred?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, no; not right offhand. All I know is that it was
before the football game--I believe the Richland Hills football game
and it was on a Wednesday or a Thursday--I won't say positive which one.

Mr. LIEBELER. How can you say it was on a Wednesday or Thursday?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I never did go down to the store only on Wednesdays
or Thursdays afternoons---only the days that we had charters, and I
went down on Friday afternoon.

Mr. LIEBELER. On the days you had charters; what do you mean by that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Charter buses to go.

Mr. LIEBELER. To go to the football game?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a charter bus to go to the football game at
Richland Hills?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; we went in cars that night and that night I would
always wait until my daughter calls at 2 o'clock. When she would call,
then I would go down to the store and that's the reason I definitely
know it was after 2 o'clock.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which daughter is this that you are talking about?

Mrs. HUNTER. Glenda.

Mr. LIEBELER. And what is her last name?

Mrs. HUNTER. Hunter.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old is she?

Mrs. HUNTER. She's 19.

Mr. LIEBELER. And does she live with you at home?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How does it come that she calls you at 2 o'clock?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, her lunch break--she gets her lunch break from 1
until 2 and she would always call me just a minute or two before she
goes back to work--just a few seconds--every day before she goes to
work.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does she work here in Dallas?

Mrs. HUNTER. At Commercial Title.

Mr. LIEBELER. She always calls you at about 2 o'clock; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Between--she has to be back at her desk at 2. She will
call me anywhere, you know, when it's handy--if she comes up in town
to eat, it may be about 10 minutes until 2. If she takes her lunch and
eats there, it may be 15 minutes to 2, but I would always wait--I would
give her a chance to call me before I would leave and I never would
leave before 2 o'clock.

Mr. LIEBELER. How late in the afternoon could it have been, you think,
that these people did come?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I would say between 2:30 and 3:30, because I never
did stay gone past 4 o'clock. My daughter comes in from school and she
didn't have any way to get in the house. I locked the house and she
would get to the house before 4 and I would try to be back at the house
before 4 and there was just one or two evenings that I didn't get to
the house before she come in.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say you would always try to get back home by 4
o'clock?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; so I could unlock the door.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear the conversation between Mrs. Whitworth and
this man who came in about the gun?

Mrs. HUNTER. He just asked for the gunsmith and she told him the
gunsmith had moved down the street and she went out in front and
pointed down to where to go and told him where to go and showed him
where it was at. I didn't go out the door. I was just sitting in a
platform rocker and he thanked her and he just went back to the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. And after he went back to the car, then, they all came
back again and went in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. He came back in and then her and the children got out and
followed him in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether Mrs. Whitworth told him where the
gunshop that used to be in the furniture store had moved or did she
direct him to another gunshop?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; she told him that this man had gone and she thought he
was down in those sport shops or some kind of a shop down the street,
or that there was one down there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with where it is?

Mrs. HUNTER. She was over at the front and I was back here, but I heard
the conversation, you know, what he was asking for and all that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether he had anything in his hands when
he came in?

Mrs. HUNTER. It seems to me like--I'm not positive--that he had
something and it come to me that it was wrapped in brown paper. Now,
I'm not positive about that, but it was just something like you
handle--he didn't have it up in his arms--he just had it in his hands.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea how long the package was, or do you
remember that clearly?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I just remember there was something in his hands.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where the Irving Sport Shop is located?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I sure don't--I have never been there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Mr. Woodrow Greener?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Dial Ryder?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I don't know too many people, I guess, you would call
me selfish, but I don't know too many people in Irving--period. There
are just a very few that I know--just the grocery store where we trade
and the man that runs the bus station and Mrs. Whitworth and one or two
I met going to the football games--I have been there 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else in the store during the time these
people were there?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; just me and her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mrs. Oswald say anything while she was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. I never did hear her open her mouth.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did the little girl, the 2-year-old, behave? Was she
well behaved?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; she just went along holding her her mother's
dresstail. He didn't help her with either one of the babies and she was
walking along. You know, she is kind of shy and it was in a strange
place and she was kind of holding to her mother's coattail when they
were up there where I was at--where the table went around and I don't
know--I just--they was kind of dressed bummy or something--I don't know
what you would call it. She was kind of clean. He looked pretty nice.
I just thought--why was she dressed like that--you know how you will
notice that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear the little girl say anything at all to her
mother or her father?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I didn't hear her say anything. Now, when they went
down the aisle, nearly to where Mrs. Whitworth and this man was, she
looked down at her and said something, but I didn't understand what she
said. She kind of whispered it to her. Now, I don't know what she said
or--she said shhh--or something like that to her--I didn't understand,
but she did look down.

Mr. LIEBELER. The mother did look down to the little girl?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long were these people in the store altogether--the
family in the store altogether?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, I don't know--I would be scared to say about that,
because, not expecting anything--they come and went so much in there--I
didn't pay no attention to about how long they was in there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you along with them when they were looking at the
furniture?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I was sitting in the platform rocker.

Mr. LIEBELER. But the woman went back and looked at furniture with her
husband?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; she didn't--that's what I say--she just walked along
there and she didn't pay that furniture any mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any feeling that there was any argument
going on between them or hostility between them or anything like that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, I just think to myself--what is he looking at
that for, she isn't interested. That's just the opinion that I got.

Mr. LIEBELER. You thought he seemed to be much more interested in the
furniture than she did?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it seem strange to you that these people were in the
store there for the period of time that they were and there was not a
single word exchanged between this man and woman?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I didn't think nothing about that. I don't know--I
don't pay too much attention to anything like that, because while they
were back there, I got up and got out of my chair before they went back
to the car and walked to the door, and was standing looking out the
door up toward the bus that comes in for people to get off of, and I
didn't pay them any more mind until they went out to get in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, they went out and got in the car and what happened
then?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, when they got in the car--he said something to her,
but I couldn't hear that because I was standing in the door and he
turned like he was going to go back down that way and I said, "Don't
go that way, it's a one-way street, you'll have to go through the red
light and turn left." And he looked at me and he didn't say thank
you or nothing and he just backed out and went on down and I watched
him--he turned at the red light--turned down Main Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. He drove east down Irving Boulevard; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. He was going down toward Plymouth Park, I believe it was
west--it's a one-way street and you have to go out and come down south.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which way does Irving Boulevard run--it runs east and
west, doesn't it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; I would say that it did.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it's a one-way street, and it's a one-way street
running toward the west; is it not?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that he got into the car----

Mrs. HUNTER. He got in the car and backed out here and he acted like
he was going to turn this way and I said, "Uh-uh, don't go back that
way, that's a one-way street and you will have to go down here to the
red light and turn to the left," and he went down and turned down Main
Street to the left.

Mr. LIEBELER. He went down the street against the traffic, going the
wrong direction?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; he went down with the traffic, down toward Plymouth
Park. I would say he drove west with the one-way traffic. He was going
to go back opposite, and he went on down to the red light on Main
Street and turned to the left. Now, where he went to from there, I
don't know. I didn't pay him any mind because I was standing there
watching some women coming down the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say he was going to go back there--you mean in
the direction of Dallas, don't you?

Mrs. HUNTER. That's what I would figure, because he would have to turn,
unless he thought he was going to turn and go back down Jefferson, if
he come in Jefferson, but I don't know that he come in Jefferson. He
couldn't have done that--he would have gotten a ticket for that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, let's see if we can establish it between ourselves
here, first, for this discussion, which way Irving Boulevard runs. When
you come toward Irving from Dallas, it runs--Irving Boulevard runs in
the direction away from Dallas, doesn't it, toward the west?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the man got in the car and he drove west in the
direction of the traffic down Irving Boulevard?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And turned at the red light on Main Street?

Mrs. HUNTER. He turned left.

Mr. LIEBELER. He turned left at the intersection of Main and Irving
Boulevard?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that's the last you saw of the car?

Mrs. HUNTER. That's the last I seen of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this man seem to have any difficulty driving the car
as far as you could tell?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; not that I could tell.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have discussed this whole question, I am sure, with
Mrs. Whitworth from time to time since it happened, haven't you?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, not too much. When they come on television and we
noticed who it was--I don't know--let me see if I can remember the
first time I seen him on television--I wasn't watching it when the
President got killed and I didn't know anything about it until way
after it happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first get the idea that those people that
had been in the store were the Oswalds?

Mrs. HUNTER. When I seen them on television, and I just says to
whatever was sitting there, I said, "That man was down in the furniture
store the other day."

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was it in the room?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it was just one of the kids I don't know--I forgot
now which one of them it was, but we were sitting in the house and I
said, "That man on television was down at the furniture store the other
day," and it was after he got killed that they showed her, I believe,
and I recognized her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you recognize these people as soon as you saw them
and prior to the time you discussed it with Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, I don't know just how soon--I couldn't be
positive just how quick now--I done forgot--that I talked to her after
that, but it was after I seen him on television that we discussed it a
little bit and all, because after they fixed her up, she was pretty and
we did discuss that--the difference she looks now and her down there in
the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean she does--you think she does look different now?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, yes; she's pretty now. She looked awful down there in
that store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think you would recognize her as the same person
if you saw her again?

Mrs. HUNTER. I doubt it--very seriously.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think you would recognize her?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I sure don't, not from the way she looked in that
store that day and the way she looks now. Now, that's how much
difference there was and I generally notice anyone by their eyes
quicker than anything else.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you notice that she looked different?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh--it was----

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that when you saw her on television after the
assassination?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; the first time I seen her, she looked just common,
just like she did down there at the store that day, and I guess it was
when they fixed her up--it must have been after the funeral and she
was meeting with these people or something, because it was quite a
discussion about how pretty she was and why she let herself go before,
because we had discussed it that maybe he didn't want her to fix up or
something.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long was it after the assassination that you noticed
this difference between Marina Oswald as she appeared on television and
in the paper?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, you may think I'm funny, but I didn't pay no
attention at all to that television--my television wasn't on when he
got killed or the parade or nothing. I was sitting at the table and
after it happened, I wouldn't watch the television--I didn't watch none
of the burial procedures or anything--any of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. But at some point you noticed that Marina Oswald looked
different than she had the day she was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. My question is, when did you first notice that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it was undoubtedly quite a few days or several days
after Oswald--after Jack Ruby killed Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. As much as a week after that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well--it was just after that--I wouldn't say just definite
what time it was, because, you don't notice anything like that.
Naturally, it's going to pop in your mind when you do notice something
like that, but just as soon as I seen her fixed up on TV, I just
noticed it was quite a difference of how she looked then and before.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think it was within a week after the time Ruby shot
Oswald, is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. I wouldn't say--not now, it has been too long ago.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you now do have some doubt in your mind after having
seen her as to whether you would even recognize her as the same person
that was in the store, is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, with the way her features looked on television now
and the way I seen her in the store--yes; because she dresses nice and
she's real cute. She dresses cute and she was sloppy in the store that
day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Her face hasn't changed any, has it, she has the same
face.

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, her hair makes a difference now. I might recognize
her--I wouldn't say I wouldn't or I would, but I don't know--I've made
the remark two or three times that she doesn't look like she did the
day I seen her in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you still don't have any doubt in your mind that it
actually was she that was in the store the day you saw her?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I will say this, that the one I seen in the store
and the first time I seen her on television the first time was the same
woman--let's put it that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever tell anybody that Oswald actually turned
down Irving Boulevard and went against the traffic when he came out of
the store and went against the traffic?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, no; I didn't tell them that he went east. I told
them he started to turn east and I told him he was going the wrong
direction and he would have to turn back. Now, that woman from England
that came here--

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there that day she came?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; she come to my house that night.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what you told her about that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, just the same thing--about the same thing I have
told you, because that's about all I know. I might have remembered
a few different little points then that have slipped my mind now,
but that's just like what I told you, I guess a few little ends and
odds have slipped, but that's just about all I know, because I wasn't
expecting that and I wasn't looking for nothing like that and I just
didn't think too much about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mrs. Whitworth see these people get in the car and
drive away, do you know?

Mrs. HUNTER. I don't know, because she was on that side where they come
out and I was on this--at a door standing in the door.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were closer to the door than Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I was closer to the car than she was. She was back
down here where they generally went into the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. She was further away from the front door where the car
was parked than you were?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, I don't know whether she was in the door or not. I
have never discussed it with her.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have never told Mrs. Whitworth that this man got
in the car and drove the wrong way down the street?

Mrs. HUNTER. The only thing that--I says, "He started to go back down
Irving Boulevard." I did say that to her one day because it was a
one-way street and he was going the wrong way then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think if we have Mrs. Oswald come in here next
Friday morning and you come in and look at her and the children too, do
you think you would be able to come here and tell us if they were the
people that were in that store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I wouldn't say--I just wouldn't say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, we have asked Mrs. Whitworth to come in--to come
back Friday morning at 9 o'clock and we will have Mrs. Oswald and the
babies come in and we would like for you to come back to see if they
were the people in the store. Would you be willing to do that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; I will be willing to do it, but now, it's like I
say--I wouldn't say I would recognize her now because she is pretty now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think she would recognize you, do you think she
would remember being in the store if she had really been in there?

Mrs. HUNTER. I wouldn't know that--that's her--I don't know because I
never did interfere with the people that come in there to do business
with her or I I never did say anything to them and I never did answer
her telephone or nothing at that business. I was just sitting in there
talking to her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me suspend with the questioning now, Mrs. Hunter,
until Friday morning.

Mrs. HUNTER. This Friday morning?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; day after tomorrow. You and Mrs. Whitworth can come
back at that time and we will bring Mrs. Oswald here.

Mrs. HUNTER. That's all right. She is pretty now but she wasn't then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before you go, I want to show you some pictures here and
ask you if you recognize any of the people in them. I show you Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-A and ask if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, just not offhand--not, no; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I will ask you the same question with regard to Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-B.

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The same question with respect to Bringuier Exhibit No. 1.

Mrs. HUNTER. No; not dressed like that--I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 177 and ask if you
recognize anybody in that picture.

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing to a woman that's holding a child.

Mrs. HUNTER. I don't know what she's holding--I can't tell that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Anyway, there is a woman sitting there in a chair?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. As we face the picture, it's on the farthest left, is
that right, and who is that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, that looks like her a little bit--but she's got her
hair fixed still different than she had it in the store that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about the man sitting right next to her, does he
look like the man that was in the store that day?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think he resembles the man that was in the
store?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; that's not him, and that's Mrs. Oswald. That may be
a brother, but that's not him. I never did see his brother because I
didn't watch none of that. I just didn't want to live with it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a picture that has been marked Garner
Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that looks like anybody you have ever seen
before.

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, looking from up this way it could be--from here
up--it could be.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that that resembles the man who was in the
store somewhat?

Mrs. HUNTER. I would say he's kind of built that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C, does that look like
the man who was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it could look like him some, but he was not dressed
that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not sure that that was him?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I wouldn't say it was with him dressed that way
because I didn't have that much hankering to really tell what he
really looked like and it has been so long since I've seen it on the
television that I wouldn't guarantee that--not looking for nothing.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you very much. We will see you on Friday.




TESTIMONY OF EDITH WHITWORTH

The testimony of Edith Whitworth was taken at 5 p.m., on July 22, 1964,
in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan
and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant
counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Would you stand and take the oath, please?

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?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the
staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of
President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the
Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order No.
11130, dated November 29, 1963, and by joint resolution of Congress No.
137.

Under the Commission's rules relating to the taking of testimony by
the Commission, you are entitled to have an attorney present at this
or any other hearing at which you may appear before the Commission
and you are entitled to 3-days' notice of your appearance here. You
are also entitled to exercise the usual privileges with regard to
self incrimination and so forth as far as not answering questions is
concerned. I assume that since you are here without an attorney, that
you do not wish to have your attorney present at the session. In fact,
very few witnesses do have their attorneys present. Am I correct in
that understanding?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I assume that--I don't see any use of me having
one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name for the record?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. My name is Edith Whitworth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I live at 315 South Jefferson, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are married; is that correct?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many children do you have?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I have two.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately how old are they?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. My daughter is 24 years old and my son 19 years old.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were they born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. My daughter was born May 13, 1940, and my son was born
May 20, 1945.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your daughter is also married, is she not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she is.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is her married name?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Her married name--her husband's name is Bobby Gene
Hollaway, and her name is Joyce.

Mr. LIEBELER. It's spelled [spelling] H-o-l-l-a-w-a-y, is that correct?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do they have any children?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They have two children.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are they, and when were they born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The first one--Bryan will be 3 years old the 20th of
October, I think I'm right on that; and the other one was born the 10th
day of last October--he will be 1 year old.

Mr. LIEBELER. The youngest one was born when?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Wait--I said the 20th of October--I believe that oldest
one is the 28th of October--I am sorry.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the name of the older child?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Bryan Douglas.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say he was born on what date?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I believe it was October 28.

Mr. LIEBELER. What year?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. And he will be 3 years old this October--he was 2 last
year--that will be 1961, wouldn't it?

Mr. LIEBELER. The other child's name is what?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Jeffery Lynn. He was born October 10, 1963. You got
me on those birthdays--I have forgotten them. I believe October 28 is
right--I'm not just real sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that you formerly operated a used
furniture store in Irving, Tex.; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I did until about the 25th day of January of this
year.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the name of that store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Furniture Mart.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where was it located?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. 149 East Irving Boulevard.

Mr. LIEBELER. Irving Boulevard runs east and west, does it not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which side of the street is the furniture store on?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That would be on the right-hand side going west.

Mr. LIEBELER. Going away from Dallas or toward Dallas?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Going west.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would be the north side?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The north side; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI has advised us that you have told them that
some time during 1963, you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was in your
furniture store; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell me all the circumstances surrounding that
event, to the best of your recollection?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, as far as the date, I couldn't, you know, say
that it was any day--any special day, but it was along the first of
November. We had, you know, a discussion about the babies--that's the
reason you have that there about my baby--my grandchildren, and their
children. They had the baby with them at that time. We had at one time
had a gun shop in there. We had a gunsmith sign out in front and I
presume he had came up and saw that sign there and he stopped and came
in. We have two doors in this place of business--one was on the west
side and the west end, and one on the east end. He had pulled up there
at the front as well as I remember and he walked around his car and
came into the west door.

Mr. LIEBELER. You saw him drive up in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; because it was all glass in front and I was
sitting at the--well, it's the cash stand--we call it there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which direction was he driving the car at that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He was driving west on a one-way street--that's a one
way there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Running from east to west?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. East to west.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of a car did he have, Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, as far as I can remember--I wouldn't be--I
wouldn't say for sure. All I can say is that I believe, you know, not
paying a lot of attention to the car and the car not meaning anything
at that time, that it was a two-tone blue and white. It was either a
Ford or a Plymouth. Now, I wouldn't swear to that, but it was either
one--the car didn't mean anything to me at that time. Anyway, he came
in and he stood----

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you some questions about the car first--how
many people were in the car when you saw it drive up?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't pay any attention to it--just really when it
drove up out there. When I did pay attention to it was when he got back
in it, you know, and it was faintly, you know. As to them getting back
in it, I wouldn't say that there was anyone else in it--I wouldn't say
that they were the only ones that was in it. They were the only ones
that come in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you notice specifically that Oswald was driving?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't say that he was, and I wouldn't say that
he drove off in the car. I wouldn't say that, because, like I say, it
didn't mean anything to me at that time, just faintly, I would say that
that car was blue and white, two-tone, and that it was either a Ford or
a Plymouth--now, I wouldn't swear to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, he drove up in front of the store and he got out of
the car and came in--which door--did he come in?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He came in the west door.

Mr. LIEBELER. He came in the west door?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. West door; he came in and he stood right in front of
me there, and I arose up out of my chair and asked him, you know, if
I could help him and he asked for something for a gun, and he had
whatever this was wrapped up and it was about so long, as well as I
can remember, not paying too much attention to it at that time, but
we didn't have the gunshop in there then. It had gone out of business
and I told him, no, I didn't have anything there, and whatever he was
looking for--that I didn't have it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you say, "so long," you held your hands up and
how many inches was that--would you hold your hands up again?

Mrs. WHITWORTH [indicating]. I would say it was about like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many inches do you think that is?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I would say about 15 inches.

Mr. LIEBELER. About 15 inches?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's what I would say. You know, just judging it.
It could have been longer and it could have been shorter, but it was
wrapped up, I know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't have occasion to open it up for you while he
was in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did he ask you about a specific part for it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he did. But I don't know what it was because I
didn't pay any attention to it because it was something, you know, for
a gun and I couldn't help him, so I didn't pay any attention to it, you
know, because I never worked in a gunshop anyway and I know nothing
about guns whatever.

Mr. LIEBELER. How come he came into this used furniture shop looking
for a gun part?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I had a sign--I mean, I had had a gun shop in
there, a man had leased part of my store and he had a gunshop in there,
one part of it, but he had been moved for quite a while, but the sign
hadn't been taken down.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, there was still a sign on the front of the building
saying that there was a gunshop there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead and tell me what are the other circumstances?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. And when I told him that I didn't have anything--I
didn't have what he was looking for, but I probably told him where
he could go get it. I don't remember that I did, but I usually would
tell someone where they could go to get such a thing and he turned
around and he looked and he realized, I guess, that it was a furniture
store and he said, "You have furniture in here?" I said, "Yes, I do."
He says, "I'm going to need some in a couple of weeks or so," and I
said, "Well, I'll be glad to show you what I have." I had new and
used furniture and he wanted bedroom furniture, he told me that, and
he turned--he went back to the car and came back in and when he came
back in his wife followed him in with the young baby and the little
girl and we walked straight to the back of the building where I had
the bedroom suites and I showed him the bedroom suites and I told him
about the bedroom suites and I noticed that he would look over to her
and she would never--she never uttered a word and I thought she didn't
like what I had and was uninterested, because I didn't, you know, high
pressure them to sell them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were they interested in new furniture or used furniture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I never did get that far along to find out, you
know, what they wanted, because she acted like she wasn't interested,
you know, and I couldn't talk to him and he was the only one saying
anything, and then we got talking about the babies.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was that conversation about?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, we was comparing the birthdays of the children
and my grandchildren had birthdays kind of similar to theirs, you
know, and so it went even so far as to--I said, "Well, we wanted a
little girl. We wanted one of ours to be a little girl." He said, he
wanted one of his to be a little boy and just jokingly, I said, "Well,
let's just swap then." And, he kind of smiled but she still didn't
say anything, didn't even offer to show us the baby. We didn't know
then, you know, that she couldn't even speak, or probably couldn't
understand what we said, so she walked clear away from us and we walked
back toward the front of the building there and she walked out ahead
of him--the little girl was right in front of her, you know, and this
was the older little girl, and they went on to the car and the little
girl was kind of whining and at one time I thought--well, I'll offer
her a piece of candy. I had candy in there, you know, but I never did,
I never did offer them any candy and they went on off, but it was them
just as sure as I'm sitting here--I'm sure it was him and her too.

Mr. LIEBELER. In this conversation about the babies, did they tell
you--did this man tell you when his little baby had been born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was 2 weeks old.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was 2 weeks old at that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he told you it was 2 weeks old?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you the date on which the baby was born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He probably did at that time, but I don't know--the
date on that kind of corresponded with the date of the birthday of my
oldest grandson there.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection as to whether or not he told
you the date or not; is that correct? Or you just don't remember the
date--do you remember whether he told you or not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I'm sure that he told me. I just don't remember the
date.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you by saying, "Well, the baby is 2 weeks
old," or did he tell you specifically that the baby was born on such
and such a date; do you remember?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I wouldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure he
told me the date at that time but the baby was 2 weeks old and I judge
that he would have been in the store around the 4th, 5th, or 6th of
November, because we were fixing to go to a ball game, this lady and
I, and I have a son that plays football for Irving High School and we
were going on to the football game and that's how come this lady to be
in there. You know, we were planning to go together or get tickets to
the football game and it had to be along in there--the first week in
November.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you remember a specific football game that you
were going to see; is that how you fixed the date as early in November?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us what ball game that would have been?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It probably was Richland Hills that we were going to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Richland Hills was going to play who?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Irving, and we were going to Richland Hills--that's a
Fort Worth team.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you made any efforts, since this question came up,
to find out the exact date on which the Richland Hills team played the
Irving team, did you go back and look it up?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably did at one time, but I couldn't tell you
what the date was now, except that it was a Friday night. It was going
to be on Friday and it was before that Friday. Now, Mrs. Hunter might
be able to tell you that. I didn't go back and try to review anything
before I come over here. At that time, you know, I knew what game it
was, but I haven't reviewed it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did I understand you to say correctly that there was a
friend of yours that was in the store at the time they were there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; Mrs. Hunter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did I also understand you to say correctly that Mrs.
Hunter was there for the purpose of getting tickets to go to the
football game?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. We were planning a trip, you know, to this football
game.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does Mrs. Hunter ordinarily come into the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she did--I had just begun to know her, you know,
and it all come about through school doings and all, and I usually got
her tickets or she got my tickets when we were going to travel to a
game or so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you fix a day of the week any more specifically than
you have as to when this might have occurred?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I couldn't--no; I couldn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mrs. Hunter come in usually on a particular day or
did she just come in from time to time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she said she did--for some reason why or other,
but to me, I couldn't fix any certain day, you know, working in the
public like I did and all that. I couldn't, you know, not meaning
anything at that time--I couldn't put a date on it, you know, what
day she come or anything. Usually, the tickets would go on sale on a
Tuesday or Wednesday, if they were going to travel to play, and I have
my tickets to the home games, you know, and she could say what day it
was, but I couldn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this particular ball game going to be played at
Richland Hills; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you were talking about getting the tickets and were
going on over to Richland Hills?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. To this game.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you said Lee Oswald--the Oswalds were in your store
on the weekend preceding the game?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It wasn't the weekend.

Mr. LIEBELER. During the week?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. During the week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right; during the week preceding the weekend on which
Richland Hills played Irving.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember being interviewed by two agents of the
FBI about the middle of December on this whole question?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. On a Saturday; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; Saturday, December 14, 1963.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I do remember; it was a Saturday that they came out.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you remember the names of the agents?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I don't. They were just two tall fellows and I
don't even know the names--I didn't take them down and I didn't think
it was that important.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling those two men specifically that
when this man's wife came in, when Oswald's wife came in, that Oswald
told you that his youngest child had been born on October 20, 1963?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Probably so--somewhere, you know, it was along that
time, but you know it has been so long now that I have forgotten the
dates.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you remember telling the FBI agents specifically
the date October 20, 1963?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I believe so. Now, like I say, I wouldn't swear to that
but if I told them, that's what he had told me. I haven't reviewed
this, like I say, before I come over here, so I'm just telling you what
I think absolutely is true--the truth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right; and I want to try and find the state of your
recollection as to just what this man told you about the date of birth
of this young child, and if you remember specifically that he told you
that the child was born October 20, 1963, I want you to tell me that,
and if you can't remember that, I want you just to say that and it is
very important that you give me the exact state of your recollection on
that.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Now, I'm not going to say that I remember him telling
me that because it has been too long ago, you know, it has been too
long back to say it was October 20--like when I come over here and you
asked me my grandson's birthday that I had forgotten and there is too
much that goes through my mind in that length of time. We talked about
it and I'm sure he told me the birthdays of the babies, but it has been
too long now and I wouldn't say that he told me October 20, but the
baby was 2 weeks old when he was in the store and it was the first week
in November that he was in the store and I don't know what date that
would have been that he was in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else in the store besides you and Mrs.
Hunter and this man Oswald and the wife and the two little children
during this time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I don't believe there was. There was someone out in
front of the store, you know, there always was. I remember something
about that, but I wouldn't swear that there was anyone out there in
front, any particular person out in front, but there usually was two
or three men that kind of hung around there because that was on the
corner and had been the bus station and, you know, people just walk in
and walk out there, you know, and they ask for information for first
one thing and another, you know, in my store and I was always real good
about giving them information and like I probably told him where he
could go get the gun part he was looking for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether you directed him to another
gunshop or not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Just to be sure about it, I don't know now, but I'm
just almost sure that I did if he asked me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember where you told him to go?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. If I directed him, it would have been east of me,
probably at the Irving Sports Shop or even down on the highway at some
pawnshop or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the man who owns the Irving Sports Shop?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; Woodrow Greener.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you known him?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Oh, I have known Woodrow for about 20 years, I guess.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a good friend of his or close to him at all?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I wouldn't say real close--I just knew him. He had
been in and out of business there for a number of years and I have
lived in Irving all of my life, so I wouldn't say I was a real close
friend to him--I just know him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a young man by the name of Dial Ryder?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't know Dial Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Ryder now; have you met him since that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I haven't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever discussed this series of events with Mr.
Greener?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I did discuss it with Mr. Greener over the
telephone and Woodrow Greener was out of town. He said at that time he
probably was, but he was gone deer hunting, you know, he hunts, and he
and his wife were out of town at that time because we talked about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you talk to Mr. Greener about this; do you
remember?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. When the FBI men came out there and talked to me on the
Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On that same Saturday?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never had any discussion with Mr. Greener at
any time about this at all prior to the time in November when the FBI
talked to you; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Not until the FBI talked to me, you know, I didn't talk
to him or anything, but I called Woodrow on the telephone and told him
and the FBI men were in his store at that time when I called him and
that was the only time he told me, but I don't think I was even in town
at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you read the newspaper, generally speaking?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which newspapers do you read?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I take them all--I read them all. I take the
Dallas Morning News and I take the Times Herald out of Dallas and then
I have the Irving papers too and I read them all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that shortly after the assassination,
around Thanksgiving time, as a matter of fact, there was a story in the
Dallas Times Herald to the effect that Oswald had had some work done on
his rifle in the Irving Sports Shop?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I read that and I also saw it on television.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw that, it was also reported on television; is
that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it sure did. As well as I can remember it, it
showed this Ryder, or whatever his name was, working around there and
talking to the men.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was the first person you ever discussed Oswald's
presence in your store with?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I never discussed it until I saw him on television and
also his wife. First, when I saw him on television I told my husband,
but my husband didn't work in the store, then, he worked at another
furniture store on down on the east end of the road, you know, and I
told him, I said, "Why, I have seen the fellow somewhere before," and
it didn't dawn on me at that minute where. He says, "Well, you have
probably seen him in the store." Just like that. I mean, anybody would
come through Irving and be looking for anything like that would more
than likely stop in my store quicker than they would any other place.

Mr. LIEBELER. Looking for furniture, you mean?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, if he was looking for a gun or anything like that
he would stop in there because this sign was a real good sign, you
know, it was and out there, and also it was a good furniture location.
So he said "You probably have," and we didn't discuss it any more until
we saw her on television, Mrs. Oswald, and she was leaving the jail or
something, with her mother-in-law and had these two babies. I said,
"Oh, yes, I remember them real well," and I discussed it again with him
and I told him about this and I said that those kids are about the age
of Bryan and Jeff and we discussed it again and then I knew definitely
he had been in there and I knew that he was the fellow that I talked
to, and I said, "Well, he seemed to be such a nice man." He even
thanked me for my time when he walked out--you know, he thanked me for
the time I had spent with him, more so than anyone else. I mean, very
few people will thank anyone for their time in a store like that, you
know, but he did. He thanked me for his time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Isn't it a fact that a newspaper reporter came into your
store one day and talked to you about this?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. A lady.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She was before the FBI men came and talked to me and I
don't have her name, but one of the FBI men called me and asked me if I
remembered her name and I don't. The only thing, she came in a little
foreign car and another gentleman was driving the car for her and she
showed me her credentials, just who she was, and she told me she was a
White House correspondent.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember her name if I suggested it to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know whether I would or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about Coleman, does that seem familiar to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Might have been.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when she came by, was that after you had
seen Ryder on television telling about Oswald?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; that was before.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was before?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was before.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you tell this lady reporter the same story you
told us--exactly?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; and she took it down at that time and this
gentleman that was with her, he had a tape recorder and he took down
everything that I said.

Mr. LIEBELER. They took it down on a tape recorder?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he sure did, and she wrote it down in a little
notebook, you know, but she accidentally stopped in the store. I had
never told anyone, you know, had ever made the statement to anybody
that he was in there. Of course, it was discussed, I'm sure, to people
that I knew, you know, I said, "Well, I had seen him," but there are a
lot of people in Irving I'm sure that had seen him and his wife both.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it occur to you after you became aware of the fact
that Oswald had been in your store asking for some repairs about a gun
that you should call the FBI or the Dallas Police Department and tell
them about this?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; it really didn't. I just figured I would wait and
see if anybody got to looking for him. I didn't contact anyone. I
waited until they contacted me. I didn't know where I could be any help
to them at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, the Oswalds walked out of the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then you said Mrs. Oswald, I believe, and the
children went out first; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They were ahead of him.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long was Oswald in the store--how long did he stay in
the store after they left?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, he followed them right on out, but they were in
line. She started out before he did, with the children, and the little
girl--the little 2-year-old, you know, was ahead of all of them and
I had a little stepoff there and the mother kind of waited until she
stepped off of that, but Oswald himself never did help her with the
children or anything like that while she was in the store, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. And during the time they were in the store she didn't say
one word?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She never uttered one word that I knew about. I
caught him at one time looking at her and I kind of felt like they
were exchanging glances or something like that, you know, but she
never uttered one word, either whether she liked it or whether she
didn't like it, and I made the remark after they left, after we talked
about trading the children, you know, jokingly, and I said to Mrs.
Hunter, "Well, I don't think she liked what I said about trading those
children," and she didn't offer to show us the baby.

Mr. LIEBELER. You made quite a fuss over the children, I presume?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I am a great hand to notice children. I just
really am, you know, and I always felt like it was one way to get in
touch with the customer--is to brag on the children, you know. The
closer you get to them the better off you are when you are trying to
sell them something, and really, I was, you know, interested in selling
him furniture when he told me he needed it.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about this little 3-year-old girl, did she seem to be
an ordinarily developed girl---she could walk around and everything?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she was pretty.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she say anything at all?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She mumbled--as she went out of the store she was about
halfway crying, not really crying, but mumbling something. I couldn't
understand her or anything, and that's the reason that at one time
I thought--well, I'll hand her a piece of candy, but then I didn't
because a lot of people don't like you to give their children candy and
the woman hadn't been friendly enough with me to make me really want
to, but I really would have liked to have given the little girl some
candy. She was a beautiful little child.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the little girl say anything you could understand at
all?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; she just kind of whined like, you know, it might
have been that she was a little cowed or something--I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as they walked out of the store, did you see them
get in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably did, but I didn't pay much attention to
them--to remember how they did--I didn't--it was just like anybody
else walking out of the store, you know, I didn't see them get in the
car. I'm sure they got in a car and I just faintly remember that maybe
that that car was a two-tone car and that they got in there and drove
off and like I say, I don't know how they got into the car, because I
didn't pay too much attention to them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see where they went when they got in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't pay too much attention. Mrs. Hunter said they
went back the wrong way down the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't see that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably saw it but I didn't--I wouldn't say that
they did because I don't know. So many people pull that stunt anyway
and it was just everyday, you know, people make mistakes on that street
all the time about going the wrong way and I had seen numbers of them
going the wrong way and if they did go, the wrong way, you know, I
don't remember it.

Mr. LIEBELER. It wasn't such an extraordinary thing to have that happen?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; but what was, you know, out of the ordinary
person--not talking. I'm friendly--I'm just a real friendly person and
going on over the babies--I would have liked to have looked at the
baby and all. That was what stuck with me more than anything else, you
know, the way she acted and him too. He was nothing out of the ordinary
except that he thanked me for his time, you know, that he had taken,
and I suggested furniture to him and tried to find out what kind they
were looking for and they weren't quite ready for it and it was going
to be a couple of weeks before they moved out and he told me that they
were living in an apartment.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he tell you about that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I asked him. So many people would come in the store,
you know, to buy furniture you know, and try to get it as cheap as they
could because they were living in a furnished apartment, so I usually
asked them if they were in apartments or something, and he told me they
were and I know they wanted bedroom furniture, because I took them back
there and showed them bedroom furniture. They also had to have living
room furniture and I asked him what type of furniture and I said,
"So many people are using Early American or Danish Modern." I mean,
young people were using a lot of that Danish Modern and I couldn't
get anything out of her even after suggesting that and I thought if I
suggested that that they would tell me what they were looking for, but
I never did find out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say where they lived?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he said they were living in an apartment?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They were living in an apartment--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did you hear subsequent to that time on television
that Oswald and his wife weren't living together?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I heard, yes; you know--after the assassination, I
mean, but even at that time I never asked him his name or anything
like that. If I had carried out what I usually do, I would have gotten
his name, because if they are looking for anything that I don't
have--didn't have in the store, I would suggest that they let me give
them a card, you know, to go to the wholesale house. Had I given them
a card to the wholesale house, he would have had to give me his name.
You see, I didn't get that far along on it. I mean, you know, and I
just didn't--I wished I had now, but she sure was with him, whether she
knew where she was going or what she was doing or anything, but she
certainly was with him. Even, you know, her dress and all--as far as
telling you what color she had on--I could tell you just about how she
was dressed. She looked clean but she looked like she was a person that
had gotten in the car to come up to town for something and she probably
come out of the house with just the dress she had on and a short coat,
and the little girl had on some kind of a short coat. It wasn't really
cold--it wasn't real cold then and he had on slacks. He didn't have on
what I call really work clothes--he wasn't dressed--but he had on a
pair of slacks.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of shirt did he have on?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It was a sport coat, I think, with the collar turned
back and he had on a sweater, you know, deal. They weren't dressed,
you know, really dressed, but they were dressed good enough to go out,
you know, to kind of casual shop or something like that--that kind of
shopping.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you absolutely sure that they drove up at first in an
automobile and that they went back out and got into an automobile and
drove away?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. The report that I have of the interview you had with the
FBI agents in December indicates that you told them that they went out
of the store and got into the car and made a =U=-turn and drove off
east down Irving Boulevard.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling them that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, where I got that--I wouldn't swear that they
really went down, you know, turned their car there--Mrs. Hunter told me
that they did, you know, and kind of reviewed me at that time, but so
many people did that anyway that they went back down the wrong way.

It has been so long now I have, you know, really forgotten whether they
did or not, but you know, the color of the car and the make of the car
stands out more to me than anything. There was only one correct way for
them to go and that was west.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't at any time see anybody else with them?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't swear to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't see anybody?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't see anyone--no. They didn't get out of the
car, let me put it that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the car close enough at any time to see
whether there was anybody else sitting in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I could have seen it, but I didn't pay any attention to
it. They could have had a driver--I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure it wasn't a station wagon that was sitting
out there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I'm not sure--I'm really not, but it does not seem like
it was. Had I known all this was coming up I would have took it all
down, but you know, people--when you are in business, you don't pay
a lot of attention to that, but there are incidents that happen that
will, you know, be clear in your mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit
No. 453-A, and I ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't--no; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another photograph that has been marked Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-B, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know this one either.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize anybody in there either?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; not as far as I see it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, what about Bringuier Exhibit No. 1, do you see
anybody in there that looks familiar?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I couldn't identify anyone in there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, what about Garner Exhibit No. 1, does that person
look familiar to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. That one does?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And is that the same man that came in the store that day?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he looked younger in the store than he does there.
Of course, there's the shadow that's on him there that causes him to
look that way, but he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like the man that came in the store--do
you have any doubt about it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't have a doubt in the world but what it wasn't
him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I will show you this one--Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Now, that looks more like him--he was more pleasant
looking in the store than he is in these pictures here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a picture that has been marked Commission
Exhibit No. 171, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Huh.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who do you recognize there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Mrs. Oswald is there, I mean, his wife.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that's the woman that was in the store that
day?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; but of course she's not dressed there like she
was, but that's her and that's the little girl and the little girl
wasn't dressed like that either.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I will show you a photograph marked Commission
Exhibit No. 177 and I ask you if you recognize anybody in there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, that's his wife there, isn't it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like the woman that was in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she was attractive even then, I mean, she was a
pretty girl then, of course, when she came in the store she wore her
hair just right back and had it in a pony tail back that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she have short hair or long hair?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She had long hair and had enough that she could tie it
back here.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about that man sitting in the middle there of
Commission Exhibit No. 177, does he look familiar to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, yes; he kind of resembles him--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look something like the man that was in the
store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; the one sitting there with her?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; here is another picture that has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 172, and I ask you if you recognize any of the
people in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's Mrs. Oswald there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about the man? Does that man look like the man that
was there in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, it resembles him. Of course, if I could see
him right in the face, you know, like I looked at him--the features
are---like him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; and in Exhibit No. 177, of course, he does present a
full face.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That looks more like him there, you know, it really
does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, the testimony that you have given to
us about this event is of considerable importance to the Commission for
many reasons that are not, I'm sure, even clear to you at the moment.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you be willing to come back again on Friday morning
and meet with Marina Oswald and the children to see if those really
were the people that were in your store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. This Friday morning?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I like you to put it up early enough--I go to work at
12 on Friday and if you would make it real early, and I have another
appointment real early Friday morning that I could put off, I guess, or
maybe do it in the morning. I have an appointment to get my hair fixed
on Friday and I have that every Friday morning and I go to work at 12
and I would like for this not to interfere any more than is possible,
you know, with my job. I work for J. C. Penney's there in Plymouth Park
and they are real nice. They have given me time off because they had
to, you know, but I would rather it not interfere with that.

Mr. LIEBELER. What time would be convenient for you on Friday
morning--about 9 o'clock?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I would like to meet with her--that would be all right.
Really, I would like to meet with her one time, you know, to--of
course, I have only seen her on television and I saw her there at the
store and I would like for her to tell me that she went into that
store. I believe she would if she's telling what she did--she might not
recognize me now, you know, out of the store, but I believe that woman
would tell you that she went in that store if she saw that store. I
believe she would--that little girl, the oldest one, isn't she a dark
headed girl, and at that time she wore--she had her bangs cut.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know; I have never seen the little girl.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she was real attractive and I am attracted to
little girls, you know, I just love them. Of course, I love little
boys, too, you understand, because I've got one of them, but little
girls--mine--I used to sew for them and I have always wanted another
little girl and I always made over little girls more so than I did
little boys, that that little girl, as well as I remember, she had
straight hair and she had little bangs in the front and she was just a
real cute child, but I would really like to meet with them again and I
would like for her to tell me that she went in that store. She would
remember it; I'm sure that she would remember it. There isn't any doubt
in my mind but that she wasn't in there and him too.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then, we will meet with you again at 9 o'clock on Friday
morning.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. All right.

Mr. LIEBELER. By the way, how long would you say that the husband and
wife were in the store from the time that they came back in the second
time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, 30 or 40 minutes--maybe.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was during the time that they were looking at
furniture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she didn't come in, now, until he went back to the
car.

Mr. LIEBELER. My question is: From the time that he went back out and
she came in, how long were the two of them in the store together?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I'd say 30 or 40 minutes, which is a long time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; and did she seem interested in any of the
furniture--what did she do during this 30 or 40 minute period?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she walked back where we were and I had moved
some beds to show her, pulling them around and showing them to her, and
as well as I remember, I had a little red maple suite back there and
I had some dark walnut suites and I was showing them used furniture
because they looked like people that would buy used furniture and she
stood there and looked and, like I say, the little girl was whining
around and I would see him exchange glances at her, you know, kind of
look up and down but I never did see her--I never did catch her but I
thought they were exchanging glances at one another and she was not
interested and she walked back up and around in the other part of the
store and I stayed back there and I talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have the feeling that there was any hostility
between these two people that they weren't getting along too well?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she just didn't say anything. She wasn't
interested in what he was looking at, didn't look to be, you know,
and if they were--well--I just don't know, or I would say that there
was any misunderstanding--there wasn't any smiles and there wasn't any
jokes and neither one of them exchanged smiles. It wouldn't be like if
I was going out shopping and my husband was going to buy something for
me. I believe I would be more pleasant, but you know, I guess she just
didn't know what he was talking about, but we were looking at furniture
and I believe he went back to the car and told her to get out.

Mr. LIEBELER. She just didn't seem to be very interested in that
furniture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; she didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had any other occasion in the entire time
you have been running a furniture store, when a man and a wife came in
and spent 30 or 40 minutes looking at furniture in a store and they
never exchanged one single word between each other?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; not one single word.

Mr. LIEBELER. That just almost defies ordinary human experience;
doesn't it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Wouldn't you say that--usually?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I never had anything like that. They usually agree
or disagree and they usually exchange a few words.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; they usually exchange a few words.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I never had an occasion like that--that's the
reason it stood out to me like that more than anything else. I have
waited on a lot of people in 10 years and I have had an awful lot of
people come in my store. Some of them I would recognize and some of
them I wouldn't, but that incident just stood out and after all of
this--you just knew it was them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it refresh your recollection if I suggested that
Oswald, or this man that came into the store, was looking for a
plunger--did he tell you what he was looking for, that he was looking
for a plunger?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It might have been a plunger. Like I say, I don't know
a thing in the world about guns. It could have been a plunger. We have
discussed that since then and I have never said what it was that he
was looking for--whatever he had--he had in his hands. I mean, he had
something in his hand.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you standing in the store when he walked out
and they got in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I believe I walked back up to where my cash--in my
cash stand and it hit me about right here and I could lean on it and
my candy stand--I would have had to walk around another bar to have
gotten to the candy because I couldn't reach over and get it and I was
standing right like this and I was looking down on them and this bar
hit me about right here [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. About waist high?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. And I couldn't have went inside unless I had turned and
walked back around and that's as far as I got--was the cash register.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you see the car from where you were standing?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I could have.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you actually see it drive east down Irving Boulevard
against the traffic?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't say that I did see it drive east--I don't
believe--we talked about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who did?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I might have made a statement one time about
that, but right now, I wouldn't say he did. There's too many cars that
drove up there that did go the wrong way, but I would say it was a blue
and white car and I have always said that it was a Ford or Plymouth--it
was something with fins on it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say we discussed it--what do you mean by that--who is
"we"?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Mrs. Hunter and I, you know, now as far as going back
down the wrong way on that street--I wouldn't swear that the man did
and I don't think that I ever made the statement that he drove off,
because I don't know that he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. I quote the FBI report of your interview on December 14,
1963: "On leaving the Furniture Mart (second hand furniture store) the
Oswalds made a =U=-turn and left driving against traffic on East Irving
Boulevard in the direction of a gun repair shop in either a 1956 or
1957 two-tone blue and white Ford or Plymouth." Do you remember telling
the agents that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably did and it might be fresher in my mind at
that time that they did go, but right now--I have talked with Mrs.
Hunter so much, that she was the one actually that said that they went
on the one way street the wrong way. Now, I might have said it at that
time, but right now, you know, it has been a good while since that
happened and not ever thinking anything would come of it--that I could
be more specific on what happened on the inside of the store than what
happened on the outside, because things like that happen every day, you
know, I mean on the outside, but no two people ever come in there and
acted like that for that length of time, you know, that I'm not going
to swear that he went the wrong way and I'm not going to say that he
drove that car off from there. Like I say, it wasn't that important to
me to know that at that time because I didn't know I was going to have
to--if I had--I would have been more specific about it, but I was in
a position where I could have seen it, but we remarked after he left
about what I had said and I got no comment about it from her, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you very much and we will see you Friday
morning.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. All right.




TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD, EDITH WHITWORTH, AND GERTRUDE
HUNTER

The testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, Edith Whitworth, and Gertrude
Hunter was taken at 11 a.m., on July 24, 1964, in the office of the
U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets,
Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the
President's Commission. Present were June Oswald and Rachel Oswald,
children of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; William A. McKenzie and Henry Baer,
counsel for Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; Peter Paul Gregory, interpreter;
and Forrest Sorrels and John Joe Howlett, special agents of the U.S.
Secret Service.

[Note.--The asterisk represents a response by Marina Oswald without
assistance of the interpreter. All other responses shown for Marina
Oswald were through the interpreter.]


Mr. LIEBELER. May the record show, Marina, that you have previously
been sworn as a witness when you appeared before the Commission in
Washington?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you will regard the testimony that you are going to
give here this morning as a continuation of the testimony you gave to
the Commission, and I assume you will regard yourself as being under
oath as you did before the Commission?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that Marina has indicated
she will regard herself as being under a continuing oath?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The basic purpose for your presence here this morning
relates to testimony that has been given by two ladies, Mrs. Whitworth
and Mrs. Hunter, who are outside, that you were in a furniture store
in Irving, Tex., in early November with your two children and with Lee
Harvey Oswald.

Mrs. OSWALD. [No response.]

Mr. LIEBELER. I understand that you had previously testified about this
and have told the Commission that you were not in the store at that
time. We want these two ladies to have an opportunity to see you and
have you see them, to see if your recollection can be refreshed or if
they were mistaken. Is that agreeable with you, Marina?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I can remember--I'm sure, I never forget and the baby
is just 2 weeks. I would like to know under what circumstances these
two ladies saw me at that particular time?

Mr. McKENZIE. And furthermore, where the store is located?

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter
have come into the room [reporter's note: 11:10 a.m.], and let the
record further show that they have both previously testified that
sometime in early November 1963, they saw Marina and the two children
and Lee Oswald in a furniture store located on East Irving Boulevard in
Irving, Tex.

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the name of the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I will ask Mrs. Whitworth, who was the operator
of that store, the address of the store and to describe the store
generally for Marina and its name.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The store was known as the Furniture Mart. The name
was clearly on it, and it was located at 149 East Irving Boulevard.
That's at the corner of Jefferson and Irving Boulevard on the north
side of the street and in the same block with the bank. In fact, the
back of it was up to the Bank & Trust there and it looked like at one
time it might have been a service station and we had changed it into a
furniture store, and they would have seen more used furniture in it,
because we had new and used furniture. This clear enough?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the names of the streets--that wouldn't
be material to me. I wouldn't remember it.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right.

Mr. GREGORY. Would you like for me to give the complete answer of this
lady to her?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That would be the main thoroughfare in Irving.

Mr. GREGORY. That's the street across from the bank?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; it would be in the same block with the Irving Bank
& Trust.

Mrs. OSWALD. The only thing I am interested in is whether Mrs.
Whitworth actually knows me or not, whether this lady actually saw me
or knows me or not. That's what I am interested in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let us ask Mrs. Whitworth to describe briefly the
circumstances under which you say these people came in the store.

Mr. McKENZIE. And the time of the day, establish the time of the day
and the complete circumstances.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, it would be more from the middle of the day
until, you see, say 3 o'clock in the afternoon or maybe 4 o'clock in
the afternoon. When they came in, and drove up to the front, and Mr.
Oswald came in the store first.

He came in and asked, you know, about this part of the gun and then
he went back to the car, and after asking me about, you know, it--I
said I didn't have the part--I didn't have the gun part that he
wanted, he said, "You have furniture in here?" And I said, "Yes." He
said, "I am going to be needing some," and he went back to the car
and took whatever he had back to the car, and then he came back in
and she followed him and she had the baby in her arms. It was a tiny
baby--he told me it was 2 weeks old, and this little girl [indicating
June Oswald] was walking in front of Mrs. Oswald and she was whining
a little bit and Mrs. Oswald was, you know, carrying the baby and we
come back in and went to the extreme back of the store, and I showed
them some bedroom suites and had to pull these beds out and Mrs. Oswald
stood there and she never said anything, but Mr. Oswald and I talked,
you know, about the furniture, and then we talked about the babies,
but she turned and left before he did, you know, because I walked back
up to the front of the store with him, because she was already at the
front of the store by the time we turned and went up there, and it was
a cool day and it was cool enough that you would have on a little wrap
and this little girl, as well as I remember, had on some kind of a
short sweater or coat, and Mrs. Oswald had on a short coat too, and she
had her hair tied back.

She doesn't look like she does today, because her face was fuller then
and it might have been because she just had this baby then and still
hadn't gone back like she was. This baby was just a tiny thing. I
didn't see it, it was wrapped up in some kind of a blanket, but this
little girl--it definitely was her. It seemed like her hair was a
little darker but she did have on some kind of a cap.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you understand this?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I wonder if somebody was in car or not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That, I wouldn't testify that there was anybody in
the car with you, because I observed what happened in the store, you
know. I mean, you impressed me in the store and not out of the store.
I didn't notice, because too many people drove up. I thought your car
was a two-tone car, either a Ford or a Plymouth--now--I don't know. I
thought it was blue and white--I wouldn't, you know, swear to that. I
mean, too many cars drove up out in front like that, but it was what
happened on the inside of the store that I was more impressed with
and remembered, and your actions and his, because she acted like she
wasn't interested in what he said because she didn't exchange words or
anything, but I did talk to him, and I know it was him and I know she
was in there.

She may not remember it, but if I was to see her today and seeing her
that day and I was to meet her on the street, it would be hard for me
to identify her. You know, she still has the features, but her face was
round and she had her hair pulled back [indicating].

Mr. GREGORY. You mean in a pony tail?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. In a pony tail.

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; it wasn't that.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, there was something tied around it--you had
something tied around it, I mean, slicked back from her face.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't wear this.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I called it a pony tail, but it was kind of pulled back
to the back.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I had two pigtails.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she might have--it was tied back and whipped back
from her face. Her face was round then and she was pretty then--I'd say
she was pretty.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The little girl--I tried to talk to her and attract her
attention, but she was whining all the time she was in there and she
was trying to attend to this little girl and had this baby in her arms
and the little girl walked out in front of her, you know, when they
left the store.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Just one time I was in the store? I do not remember that
I was ever in a furniture store. That does not make a difference for
me. I recall the time when I was in a store with Mrs. Ruth Paine.

Mr. GREGORY. Which store was it?

Mrs. OSWALD. In that store they were selling baby things and towels and
I was looking for something for a child.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I didn't sell anything like that--mine was all
furniture.

*Mrs. OSWALD. There was just one store like that.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. But we went to the extreme back of the store and, as
well as I remember, I had a used reddish maple bookcase headboard bed,
you know, I was showing you.

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never in any furniture store.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she didn't act like she was, even that day, you
know, she walked off.

*Mrs. OSWALD. You know, not because I want to say you are wrong, but
I can't remember I was in a furniture store, especially when I talked
with somebody.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Marina, you said you do remember one time that you
were in a store with Mrs. Paine and with Lee and with the children. Do
you remember how long you were in the store that time?

*Mrs. OSWALD. About 30 minutes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And how long, Mrs. Whitworth, was she in the store this
time that you are talking about?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I would say from 30 to 40 minutes.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't remember Marina seeing any furniture in the
store at that time?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; this was a cafe on that side--on the left side and
baby clothes on the right side, and a radio and that's all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what you went to that store for?

*Mrs. OSWALD. To buy Junie pants--rubber pants.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you buy some clothes for June; do you remember ever
seeing these ladies before, Marina?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Just this one [indicating Mrs. Hunter]. Perhaps, now, I
saw her, because there is a woman of that particular type, a lady like
this out in Richardson--I may have seen a lady like this in Richardson.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you do remember seeing a woman that looked something
like Mrs. Hunter, here, Mrs. Hunter being the woman in the blue dress?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think that I saw her, but I saw a woman or women
like her--not one, but many of that type.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Hunter, as you sit here and you look at these
children and you look at Marina, are you sure in your own mind that
these were the people who were in the store that day?

Mrs. HUNTER. I have seen Marina several times before the baby
came--several times. She said she saw me--do you remember talking to a
lady about getting help for you before your baby came?

Mrs. OSWALD. For housework?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; she was talking about the welfare of clothes for the
baby before the baby came, but I don't know who she was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, wait just a minute, Mrs. Hunter, you say you talked
to Marina about this?

Mrs. HUNTER. She was with another woman and this other woman didn't
come around, and I couldn't understand too much of what she said, and
she couldn't understand too much of what I said, and I says, "If you
need help with this baby, we can get you help at Parkland Hospital." Do
you remember that?

Mr. LIEBELER. Just a minute, would you describe the other woman?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, the other woman don't mean a thing to me. All I
know, she was with this other woman, but I live on Second Street and
it was down below me, four or five different streets and this woman,
I believe, was going to see someone about fixing a tire or changing a
tire. Now, I couldn't tell you what the other woman had on because it
was just curiosity to me why--that her couldn't speak like we could and
was in this condition and I kept asking her where her husband was and
I never did make her understand me and I finally asked her if they had
separated [indicating hand signals]--and I did that way--with her, and
she made me understand he was staying over in town, but then, I didn't
know who she was or nothing about her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did all this happen?

Mrs. HUNTER. Let me see, it was in a filling station--how come me at
the station--I don't know whether that's the day that we looked at a
car that this man had for sale at the station or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you think this happened, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. It was on the corner of Sixth and Hastings Street--I
know where the station was--I couldn't even tell you the name of the
station, because we were looking at a car there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, what were the circumstances under which you were in
this station, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, I have never been there but about twice, but at this
particular time, last July until right after Christmas, we were looking
just for a used pickup or a used car for my husband to haul his tools
in. We have a used car at this time there was a car for sale there.

*Mrs. OSWALD. After Christmas?

Mrs. HUNTER. What?

*Mrs. OSWALD. After Christmas?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I said we were looking for used cars, so that's bound
to have been my purpose there because we do not trade with that man.
Do you know a driveway and a filling station and a washateria on Sixth
Street?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't remember Irving.

Mrs. HUNTER. This was before--I would say it was in September or
October. It was before--just a little while, I know, before your baby
came, because I won't tell you the remark I made, but anyhow, I know it
was pretty close--almost due time--you could tell from the way you were
carrying the baby, it was almost time for the baby.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I can't remember her [indicating Mrs. Whitworth].

Mr. LIEBELER. Didn't you see this other woman at all, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; she got out and had her back to me and if I'm not
badly mistaken the woman had on a dark dress, but what the woman looked
like, it wasn't even dawning on me, because I wasn't even interested.
The only thing I seen that she was very uncomfortable and what I
thought she was saying was that she was going to have to have help when
the baby comes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Excuse me, but I would like to ask her a question; may I?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Hunter, what is your full name, please?

Mrs. HUNTER. Gertrude Hunter.

Mr. McKENZIE. What is your husband's name?

Mrs. HUNTER. John T. Hunter.

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you work with Mrs. Whitworth there in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; just visiting her.

Mr. McKENZIE. You were not in the store on this particular occasion
that Mrs. Whitworth has described; is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; I was there.

Mr. McKENZIE. You were there?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. And what were you doing in the store that morning or that
day?

Mrs. HUNTER. We go to football games together and we were down
discussing whether we was going to have, what do you call it, caravan
cars or charter a bus, and it was after 2 o'clock in the afternoon,
because I never did leave the house only after 2. My daughter works at
Commercial Title and she calls me before she goes back off of her lunch
hour at 2 o'clock.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, this was after 2 o'clock and prior to the football
weekend; is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. On Wednesday or Thursday--I won't say just which day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, on that occasion when you were in the store with
Mrs. Whitworth at the Furniture Mart, did Mrs. Oswald or her husband
buy any clothes or anything of the sort?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, she went to talking about the cafe. It used to be
a bus station and it has the counter and the chairs for the cafe. The
only thing she had there was the candy, and there was some used clothes
and a church or welfare or something had had them there, they had their
used clothes there, and there were some shoes there. Now, she might
have thought she was in a cafe or a drygoods store.

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. At that time I'm asking you about, did either Mrs. Oswald
or her husband buy any clothes; do you recall?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; they didn't buy anything.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had seen Mrs. Oswald before; is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but I didn't know who she was until now--I do now--I
would know her eyes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Of course, you have seen many pictures of her since then.

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I'll be honest with you, I have only seen her once
on television and that was in Washington, and day before yesterday I
wanted to be sure that this woman had the long hair, and the way it
looked there. Now, I'm honest with him about that. I didn't watch the
run of it on television.

Mr. McKENZIE. By "him" you are referring to Mr. Liebeler here?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I don't know what his name is.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's right.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, on this occasion when she was in the store with the
two children and her husband, that Mrs. Whitworth has described, did
you notice the automobile that they came in?

Mrs. HUNTER. I sure did.

Mr. McKENZIE. And was it in the same automobile you had seen her in
before at the filling station?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Not the same? Not the same?

Mr. McKENZIE. Did you go outside and see the automobile?

Mrs. HUNTER. I was standing in the side door looking up and down the
street while she had went with them to the back. Now, I didn't hear her
say nothing and I don't know whether she said something to the little
girl, or what she said, but she did go "shhh." She could have said
"shhh" or something, but I remember her making some kind of a remark to
the little girl.

Mr. McKENZIE. To quiet the little girl?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, at that time did you notice the automobile in front?

Mrs. HUNTER. Can I tell him what I told you?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, what I meant--I didn't want to do something that I
shouldn't. I was looking for some friends of mine from Houston that
drove a two-tone blue and white Ford--a 1957--I think it was, and when
this car drove up, I left a note on my mailbox when I left the house
and I told them if they come while I was gone to come down to this
place, because I would be there, or left her telephone number on the
note too, and when they drove up----

Mr. LIEBELER. Who is "they" now?

Mrs. HUNTER. Mr. and Mrs. Dominik from Houston, and when this car drove
up, I thought it was them and I just said, "Well, my company has come,"
and that was it and when I seen he was getting out of the car I just
seen then that it wasn't, and I just sat back down in the platform
rocker there where I was sitting. It was a partition in the front part
of the store and I was sitting right here in platform rocker and there
was some tables and chairs over here and I had opened this side door.
She had it shut and I had opened it.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did your friends from Houston come while they were there?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; they never did come up until later on, and he come up
in a truck--several weeks later.

Mr. McKENZIE. Was there anybody else in the automobile that drove up
that they got out of?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; just her and him and the two children. Now, I wasn't
up close to the car. I was standing in the door and the car was parked
over here something like this, and somebody could have been down in the
floorboard of the car--I wouldn't say they wasn't.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did you see who was driving the automobile?

Mrs. HUNTER. He got under the steering wheel.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Lee?

Mr. LIEBELER. And you saw him drive the car?

Mrs. HUNTER. I seen him at the steering wheel, under the steering
wheel, and if there was someone else, now, in there, you couldn't see
them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in any event, Mr. Oswald got behind the steering
wheel of the car and he drove the car out of the parking lot in front
of the building somewhere; isn't that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen Lee drive the car in my lifetime. Lee
never drove a car with me or the children in it. The only time I saw
him behind the wheel was when Ruth Paine taught him to drive the car,
he was practicing parking the car when Ruth Paine was teaching him to
drive.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that was all in front of Mr. Paine's house; wasn't it?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I'm sure this lady is trying to tell the truth, but
the only possible person who could have driven the car when we were in
that store could have been Mrs. Ruth Paine. She knows all the stores
where we went because we never went there without her.

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, you've got your privileges--you've got your
privileges.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Hunter, back in September or October when you were
in the Shell filling station and Mrs. Oswald and the little girl here,
June, and another lady happened to be there--that was the occasion when
your husband was looking for the pickup truck--did either Mrs. Oswald
get out of the car or did the other lady get out of the automobile?

Mrs. HUNTER. She was standing beside the car, now, I don't even
remember the baby being there--being in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. But Mrs. Oswald was standing beside the car?

Mrs. HUNTER. Standing beside the car.

Mr. McKENZIE. And where was the other lady standing?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, she went either to the restroom or into the filling
station. She wasn't out there--I never did say anything to this woman.

Mr. McKENZIE. The other woman----

Mrs. HUNTER. Do you remember anyone saying anything to you about a
Salvation Army woman?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Salvation Army woman? I don't know what the Salvation
Army is.

Mrs. HUNTER. This woman was dressed and I told her I would get her, I
would get her a contact. She dresses in these regular white uniforms
most of the time?

Mrs. OSWALD. At the time this lady claims that she saw me, I was not
interested in any help or I did not need any help for the baby from the
standpoint of social help, because we already made all the preparations
for the baby.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Hunter, when you say you saw these people at the
service station, you indicated that the other lady got out of the car,
and even though you didn't see her face, you did see her standing in
the area of the service station; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. You see, we had drove up where he had some used cars and
she was there by herself because----

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say "she" you have to say who.

Mrs. HUNTER. Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. HUNTER. And I don't know whether she had got out to go into the
restroom or what, but that's where she seen me instead of in Richardson.

Mr. LIEBELER. My question is, did you see the other lady standing in
the area of the filling station?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I didn't see the other woman--I really couldn't tell
you what she looked like. I just seen a woman go into the filling
station or into the restroom and I presumed it was who she was with,
because she said--she didn't ask for any help and I couldn't understand
her and she couldn't understand me, you see.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Hunter, I want to try and find out--you said
you saw this other woman walk into the restroom?

Mrs. HUNTER. I seen a woman--I don't know whether it was the one that
was driving the car she was in or not, because she was standing beside
the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's what I'm trying to get to--was this a skinny
woman, a fat woman, a tall or short woman--what did she look like as
you saw her walk into the restroom?

Mrs. HUNTER. The woman, I don't believe she was quite as heavy as I am
and a little bit taller.

Mr. LIEBELER. How tall are you?

Mrs. HUNTER. Five feet two.

Mr. LIEBELER. And she's just a little bit taller than you?

Mrs. HUNTER. I would say this woman was taller than I am.

Mr. LIEBELER. How much?

Mrs. HUNTER. About 5 feet 4.

Mr. LIEBELER. About 5 feet 4 or 5 feet 5--how much do you think she
weighed?

Mrs. HUNTER. I would say about 135.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did you see anybody else around the automobile?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of car was it?

Mrs. HUNTER. When we got in our car and left she was still standing
beside the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Oswald was?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of car was it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, I wouldn't say as to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it a convertible, was it a Volkswagen, was it a
station wagon, or was it an ordinary American-type car?

Mrs. HUNTER. It was just a car--but I wouldn't go back to it, because
it didn't dawn on me for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it a station wagon?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you saw Mrs. Oswald, or who you think was Mrs.
Oswald, in the station there that day before you saw her in the
Furniture Mart; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you saw her in the Furniture Mart, did you
recognize her?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; it didn't dawn on me--I didn't think a thing in the
world about it.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me, do you remember how I was dressed and was I
pregnant at that time?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

*Mrs. OSWALD. And what did I have on?

Mrs. HUNTER. All I know is you had on a jacket.

*Mrs. OSWALD. What color?

Mrs. HUNTER. It was pretty chilly--it was a rose or more of a--it
wasn't red.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Was it blue?

Mrs. HUNTER. It was more of a rose.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I had a rose short one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you testified before you had seen Mrs. Oswald
several times.

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but I didn't know who she was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about the other times you saw her.

Mrs. HUNTER. I have seen her in Minyards Grocery Store.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is that?

Mr. McKENZIE. [Spelling] M-i-n-y-a-r-d-s.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is that?

Mrs. HUNTER. On Irving Boulevard.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Grocery store?

Mrs. HUNTER. And this drive-in grocery that I was talking about, if you
remember there--I think I had seen her there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, aside from the gas station and the furniture shop
and the grocery store, did you ever see her any place else?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, just them things, then at once it dawns on me about
her, but she had ribbons in here hair.

*Mrs. OSWALD. What did I have?

Mrs. HUNTER. She was wearing a pigtail or something--her hair was long,
and I remember one side the string was hanging down longer and that was
at the furniture store.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean the pigtail?

Mrs. HUNTER. What I can remember about her was the sad expression in
her face--she had a very, very sad expression in her face.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was anybody else with Mrs. Oswald when you saw her in the
grocery store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I didn't pay no attention to who she was with, or
who was with her or nothing about it. I just remember her.

Mr. LIEBELER. You just remember her?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I never wore any ribbons or bows in the hair. Maybe it
was somebody just like me?

Mr. LIEBELER. How is it you remember seeing Mrs. Oswald when you have
no recollection of who she was with or anything like that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, her eyes--I would know her on the street by her eyes
if I was to meet her.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Everybody knows my eyes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about you, Mrs. Whitworth, do you recognize these
people as the people that were in your store that day?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, like I say, she has changed, but I am definitely
sure they were in there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as you sit here and look at these children who have
been here this morning with Mrs. Oswald, do you recognize them?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They have grown, and according to their ages and
all--they were there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt about that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't have a doubt in the world but that they were
there. I believe it might have been, if she could remember, probably
about her, of course, the first time after she had this new baby over
here, her husband told me--Lee Harvey Oswald told me that the baby was
2 weeks old and we discussed my grandchildren about the same age and
they were boys. She probably didn't understand our discussion but we
discussed these two children and my two grandchildren.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I remember Lee exchanging conversations with a woman, but
she was a younger woman and they were talking about the baby.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That was me, probably, but my hair might not be as gray
as it is today and I probably have changed, too, but we discussed the
babies and trading babies, you know, we was just joking, in fact, in
fact I was, anyway, and he said he had hoped to have had a boy when he
had the two girls, and we were hoping for a little granddaughter. We
talked and she walked off. She never would--she never offered to show
us the baby or anything and that's what impressed me more than anything
else. Otherwise, I probably would have never paid any attention to them
being in the store or anything else, but it was that special talking
to him and I was to expedite just about like he was on television one
time. It was cool that day and you had to have on--it was probably the
4th, 5th, or 6th of November.

*Mrs. OSWALD. That sounds just about like Lee.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Marina made that answer when Mrs. Whitworth remarked
that Lee said that he hoped to have a boy and, isn't that right, Marina?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't hear this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Because he did want that?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, did he do something unusual--did he
drive up at the store and park the car and get out?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't say what he did do, but I saw the car come
up and I think it was his own car, and I think that it was his own car
and I know the door that he came in and I know he went back to the
car and she came in, but she didn't come in the same door as he did.
Whether he drove that car up there, I won't say he didn't and I won't
say he drove it off.

Mr. LIEBELER. You told the FBI that he got into the car and drove it
off going the wrong way down the street, as a matter of fact?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I think, really, that Mrs. Hunter and I had talked
about it, but I'm not going to say that she described the car at all,
but all I want to say is that they were in that store that day, you
know, they've got four of them and I didn't see anyone else in the car
and I didn't think you could do it, and if I did at that time, why it
was maybe because I had talked to Mrs. Hunter previously about that,
because the car did come up there to the gate and they would make a
=U=-turn and go back down the way--back down that one way, and Mrs.
Hunter would notice it, where I wouldn't pay too much attention about
what happened every day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you don't recall whether he drove the car or not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It has been a long time and I don't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell me yesterday or the day before yesterday
that you saw this car drive up in front and the man get out, and did it
appear to you that he was driving the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I saw him get out of the car and come to the west door;
absolutely.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which side of the car did he get out from; do you
remember?

Did you see anybody else in the car at all, besides this woman and the
two children?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't pay any attention at that time that they were
in the car, you know, when they first drove up but I didn't know that
they come in the car and they had to get out of a car to come in there;
they wouldn't have walked up.

Mr. McKENZIE. Why do you say they wouldn't have walked up there, Mrs.
Whitworth?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, they would have had to have lived pretty close
and around there and I had never seen them come in there before.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know where they were living?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, not until after all this happened--the
assassination and everything--and they lived pretty close around there.
I had never seen Mrs. Paine walk by there before.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know where they were living?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I asked them when all this happened and
everything. If they lived out where they did, it would have been too
far from my store to have walked up there.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were under the impression at that time that they were
living together; isn't that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, yes; he told me they were living in an apartment,
and I asked him.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Living in an apartment?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I said, "You are living in an apartment," and
wanting to move out, you know, and he said, "Yes." So, I just assumed
when people come in wanting to buy furniture and they are going to need
some, that they are either in an apartment fixing to move out, or need
some--they are going to need some and they are fixing to move out, but
he wasn't quite ready then--he said.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you specifically ask him or did he specifically tell
you that they were living in an apartment together?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I asked him--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you that they were living in an apartment together?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have learned since that time that they weren't living
together; isn't that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I believe so.

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you recall in talking to this lady if she had a tooth
missing in front? One or two teeth missing?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't recall that--all I noticed--she didn't even
utter a word--I didn't notice it.

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you remember if she had a tooth or two missing?

*Mrs. OSWALD. You know me; you know me?

Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Oswald has indicated to Mrs. Hunter that Mrs. Hunter
had said she remembered talking to Marina. Now, what about you, Mrs.
Hunter; do you remember whether she had any teeth missing?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I don't remember anything about her teeth because
she would have to almost move her lips, you know, if you didn't pay
close attention, now, that was just a very few seconds with her at
this station--very few. The only thing that I caught was right here
[indicating].

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, don't you think you would notice it if somebody had
a tooth out in front of their mouth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Not necessarily, because I don't pay no attention to
nobody--only their eyes and their feet.

Mr. McKENZIE. I don't have any more questions.

Mr. LIEBELER. Marina, did you at any time go with Lee and the children
when Lee had something with him wrapped in a brown sack that he took
into a store?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It would be about this long [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. Indicating about how long?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I would say about 15 or 18 inches.

Mrs. OSWALD. I would have noticed if he had had an object with him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, you testified that when this man
came in the store he did have an object with him about 15 inches long
wrapped in brown paper; isn't that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you also testified that this man asked about a part
for a gun; isn't that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you know he had some part of the gun wrapped in this
package; didn't he?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you also testified that this man asked about a part
for a gun; isn't that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you thought that he had some part of the gun wrapped
in this package; isn't that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you understand that, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. Even if he did, I would not have understood what he was
saying because I simply did not know the language, but I don't recall
him having any object in his hands such as that referred to here.

Mr. LIEBELER. At any time; is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; at no time.

Mr. McKENZIE. She is saying he went back to the car and got this part?

Mr. LIEBELER. What were you saying, Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He went back to the car and took whatever he had in his
hand--he must have put it in the car, because I never noticed any more;
she came in, you know, but he came back in the store before she did,
because she followed him in and in the store--I don't see why that she
couldn't remember it, it's different, you know, from other stores that
you would go in where you bought soft goods.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you say he brought this package into the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. McKenzie, do you wish to inquire as to this package?

Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Whitworth, when this man whom you have identified as
Lee Harvey Oswald, whom you know now was Lee Harvey Oswald, from his
pictures in the paper, came into your store, you stated that he had a
package in his hand about 15 to 18 inches long; is that correct?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I saw him.

Mr. McKENZIE. I say, you had seen that and stated that he had such a
package?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I saw him; yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. How was the package wrapped?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Loosely in brown paper and you know, it didn't have any
strings on it, as far as I remember--it was loosely tied.

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, was it a package in a bag?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he held it with one hand.

Mr. McKENZIE. He held it with one hand?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did it look like a piece of pipe or did it look like a
gun stock, or did it look like a piece of wood or what did it look like
that was in the package?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't see it.

Mr. McKENZIE. How big around was the package?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It wasn't large--I'd say it might have been this big
[indicating].

Mr. McKENZIE. You are making a sign with your hands there, with both
hands----

Mrs. WHITWORTH. What is that--about 2 or 3 inches in diameter?

Mr. McKENZIE. All right.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. And then it was some 15 or 18 inches long.

Mr. McKENZIE. So, the package that he had was 2 or 3 inches in diameter
and approximately 18 inches long; is that right?

Mr. LIEBELER. Fifteen to 18 inches long.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's right.

Mr. McKENZIE. What did he say to you when he came into the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He asked me if I had this particular part, some
particular part, but not knowing about guns, I didn't have it. I don't
remember it, you know, what he asked for.

Mr. McKENZIE. To the best of your recollection, if you will, state for
the purpose of the record here exactly what he said to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, he asked me if I had this part, whatever it was,
pertaining to a gun.

Mr. McKENZIE. And what part was it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know--because I don't know anything about guns.

Mr. McKENZIE. Can you state it in his words?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I cannot.

Mr. McKENZIE. You cannot tell us exactly what he said, but this is just
what your recollection is of what he said?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's right.

Mr. McKENZIE. And what did he say to you then--give us your best
recollection.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask a question, if I may. Mrs. Whitworth, isn't
it a fact that you told a newspaper reporter that came by your store
shortly after this happened what that part was that he was looking for;
a Miss Campbell or Mrs. Campbell?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I didn't. Mrs. Hunter and I discussed it
afterwards, and I think that she might know more about guns and she
said it was a plunger, but I'm not sure--I might have told them that I
thought it was a plunger, but I don't remember.

Mr. McKENZIE. And you did not tell the reporter what you thought it
was; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I didn't--I don't believe I ever made the statement
that I knew exactly what it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you told the reporter that you thought it was a
plunger; isn't that a fact?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I believe Mrs. Hunter said that. She talked to the same
reporter--I don't know what it was, because I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the reporter make a tape recording of the
conversation?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The reporter made a tape recording of my
conversation--part of it, I would say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever give you a copy of that tape recording?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he tell you what the part that he was looking for was
to be used with or for?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; because I didn't ask him.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he tell you that he was looking for a part for a gun?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, it was for a gun, because he asked for it, you
know, that part. He came in because I had a gunsmith sign on the street
and there had been one there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he didn't tell me that.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you know that he came in because you had a
gunsmith sign on the door?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I presume that because he asked for a gun part.

Mr. LIEBELER. And what part did he ask for?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you know it was a part for a gun?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I just knew it was--whatever he asked for was,
you know, pertaining to a gun, but as far as what it was, I don't know.
I didn't pay that much attention to it because I had people coming in
every day asking for something for a gun.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you it was a part for a gun?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I knew that it was at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that it was?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That it was?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he didn't tell me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention guns?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. We didn't talk about it. We didn't talk about it--when
I told him I didn't have the gunsmith, that he had moved, that he was
no longer there and when I told him we no longer had a gunsmith we
didn't talk about what he wanted any more.

Mr. McKENZIE. To the best of your recollection, and that's based on
your conversation with Mrs. Hunter, the part that he asked for was a
plunger?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, to the best of my recollection it was, but I
wouldn't say definitely that he asked for a plunger.

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you recognize that a plunger is a part of a gun?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't unless somebody told me that it was.

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, you say you recognized the part that he asked for
as being a part of a gun?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. He didn't mention to you a gun part at that time, did he,
or did he?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, he asked in such a way that I knew he was seeking
the gun shop and not the furniture store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was the word "gun" ever used?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was, because I told him the gunsmith had moved.

Mr. McKENZIE. And what did he say then, please, ma'am?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He turned around and he looked at me. He was standing
practically in the front or in the middle of the store and he turned
and I had furniture all around me--dinette suites over on this side and
there was living room furniture to this side, and in front of him there
was living room furniture and bedroom furniture and he said, "You have
furniture?" I said, "Yes."

He said, "I'm going to need some in about 2 weeks," and I said, "All
right, I'll be glad to show you some."

He turns and walks out the door that he came in and took whatever he
had in his hand back in the car and that's when Mrs. Oswald followed
him back in and he got back in the store before she did.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did you hear them talking together?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I never did hear her utter one word.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he say anything to her?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He never said anything to her other than he might have
glanced at her and I thought that they were exchanging glances, you
know. She didn't utter a word.

Mr. McKENZIE. And he didn't utter a word to her?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Not to her--but to me.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, he said he was going to need some furniture in
approximately 2 weeks?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. At that time did you ask him where he was living?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I asked him if he was living at an apartment and he
said, "Yes."

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he tell you where?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he tell you where he was moving to?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he hadn't got that place yet.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he ask you if you delivered?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; we didn't get that far along.

Mr. McKENZIE. I see. He didn't like the piece of furniture that you
showed to him, is that it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably didn't have what he was looking for. We
talked about not having it.

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, in any event, he didn't seek to buy any of the
furniture that you showed him?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he state what he was looking for, did he tell you
what he was looking for?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I asked him what kind of furniture that he was looking,
and I suggested furnitures to him if he bought new furniture. I said,
"Do you like Early American, or do you like Danish Modern?" And we
exchanged those words and he never uttered what he liked or anything.
He didn't say what he liked.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, there had been a gun shop in that
particular location before you moved in with your furniture store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I leased one corner of my store to a gunsmith.

Mr. McKENZIE. And what was his name?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. His name was Warren Graves.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he still operate a gun shop?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he doesn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he still live in the Irving area?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He still lives in Irving.

Mr. McKENZIE. Had you had any previous experience with guns?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Other than just seeing guns in that little corner of
the building, it seems like, and you know, hearing conversations on
guns, but I knew nothing about guns.

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, did you know anything about the various
nomenclature or the various parts of a gun?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I didn't.

Mr. McKENZIE. But you did recognize that a plunger was a part of a gun
when this man came in?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, in the way that he asked for it, I knew that it
was a gun part that he wanted because I didn't have it.

Mr. McKENZIE. In what way did he ask for it, explain what you mean by
that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. As well as I can remember, I told him we didn't have a
gunsmith and he asked for this part and I don't remember really just
what he asked for, but whatever it was, it led me to know that he
wanted a gunsmith, which we didn't have.

Mr. McKENZIE. Were you in the front of the store when he came in?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I was in the cash stand.

Mr. McKENZIE. Was Mrs. Hunter still sitting there on the platform chair?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She was sitting there in the front.

Mr. McKENZIE. And how far away was she from you when he came in?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I was behind the stand, which I guess that was probably
4 or 5 feet in squares and I would have had to have gotten out of the
stand and walked clear around and Mrs. Hunter, I imagine, was probably
8 feet from me.

Mr. McKENZIE. Was she as close to you as I am now--just directly
across, I mean?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. About the same distance that we are apart now?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. There was a counter between us.

Mr. McKENZIE. And we are about 8 feet apart now, aren't we?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. When the man came in, was there anyone else in the store
other than Mrs. Hunter and yourself?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't believe there was anyone in the store but Mrs.
Hunter and myself. Now, there was probably someone on the outside.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, if I may direct this question to Mrs. Hunter; Mrs.
Hunter, do you recall any of the conversation that you heard Mrs.
Whitworth testify about this morning?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, when he drove up in the car and I thought it was my
friends from Houston and when I seen it wasn't, I sat back down in the
chair and he went down to the door on that end of the building and went
in and he asked her, he says, "Where is your gunsmith?"

I remember that and he had something--I won't say just what it was,
because I wasn't particularly interested. I wasn't in her being down
there at the time. She told him that the gunsmith was moved--that he
wasn't there, and she showed him down the street where to go to.

Mr. McKENZIE. Where did she tell him to go?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, I don't know, but it was back down east on
Irving Boulevard.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. There was a gunsmith or a sports shop or something back
down there.

Mrs. HUNTER. There was a sport shop down there where she showed him to
go. I remember that much of it.

Mr. McKENZIE. You said this man got out of the car and came to the
other door, the door back to the back?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He came to the west door.

Mrs. HUNTER. I believe if I could draw a picture of it I could explain
it better that way.

[The witness proceeded to draw while testifying.] There's a partition
right here and there are table and chairs right back in here, and over
here is where her telephone is and where her table and there's a little
counter right back in here, right back down this way, and right back
here was the gunsmith where he had that leased, and all of this back
here was furniture and this partition over here--these little tables
and chairs over here--that looked kinda like a cafe where you would
sit, at the tables and all. Over here, all there was was used clothes
and things.

Mr. McKENZIE. Where is the door?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, this is a door where I was sitting in the chair right
here looking out and he come in by this door right over here and come
up to where her counter was. I was sitting right here in the chair and
she comes back out here and looks down this way and showed him which
way to go to where this gunsmith was and when he goes back to the
car and put what he had in his hand--he went back to the car for the
purpose of that, and when he come back in, he come back in this way.
When she got out with the children, she come in this door right here
that I had got up and opened after I sat down there.

Mr. McKENZIE. That would be the east door?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, yes; I guess so, and she walked on around and I just
sat back down and I didn't pay her any attention or anything and they
had gone back into the back here and she walked on along right along in
here and the little girl was pulling, hanging on to her dress tail and
she either told her to be quiet or said "shhh" or something like that,
and that is the only thing that I heard the woman say.

Well, he goes back and goes back and gets in the car and she followed
him out--she put the little girl in the car, then she got in the car,
and he didn't offer to help her no way putting the babies in the car
and he was talking to her and looking back down this way and he turned
and when he pointed, I said, "You can't go back down that way, it's a
one way street. You will have to go up here to the red light and turn
to your left and come back around."

Mr. McKENZIE. When you told him that, where were you standing?

Mrs. HUNTER. I was standing right in this door here.

Mr. McKENZIE. Right at the curb?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; the car was--let's say it was about like this, because
there is a porch or a thing with a top over it, you know, and he
catercornered down this way and I was right over here [indicating].

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, at that time when you were standing in the doorway
and he had gotten in the car and you told him he could not go that way,
where was Mrs. Oswald sitting?

Mrs. HUNTER. She was in the car by him and the little girl was standing
up in the seat between them and she had the tiny baby in her hands.

Mr. McKENZIE. And was it a two-door automobile or a four-door
automobile?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I wouldn't say as to that, but I believe it was a
two-door, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Mr. McKENZIE. And he was behind the wheel?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. And she was sitting next to him?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. With the child between them?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. And there was no one else in the car other than the baby?

Mrs. HUNTER. If it was, they was down in the floorboard of the car and
when he started out, he pulled out back that way, and I said, "Don't
go back that way, it's a one-way street." I said, "Go down to the red
light."

Mr. McKENZIE. What did he say then?

Mrs. HUNTER. He didn't say anything; he didn't thank me nor nothing.

Mr. LIEBELER. But from where you were standing you could see him drive
the automobile out into Irving Boulevard, going down to the next red
light where he made a turn and drove out of sight; isn't that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, he went down Irving Boulevard--I told him to go to
the red light, but she wasn't interested in what he was going to buy at
all.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you saw them drive out of the area?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; I sure did.

Mr. LIEBELER. And they were driving west?

Mrs. HUNTER. I'll stake my life on that, that's how positive I am to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was driving the right way down the street?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could this car have been an Oldsmobile?

Mrs. HUNTER. No, sir; it was a Ford--it was just like the one that my
friends had in Houston.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure it wasn't a foreign car of any kind?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, no; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was a Ford?

Mrs. HUNTER. It was a 1957--I think it was a 1957 Ford instead of a
1958.

Mr. McKENZIE. Blue and white?

Mrs. HUNTER. Blue and white--yes, sir.

Mr. McKENZIE. Blue on the bottom and white on the top?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes, sir; I think I've got a picture of the car that my
friends--the one that I was waiting for. Could I ask her a question?

[Addressing Marina Oswald.] Don't you have a rinse on your hair now?

*Mrs. OSWALD. A rinse--yes. My hair is dark--not too dark.

Mrs. HUNTER. A dirty blonde.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, thank you.

Mrs. HUNTER. Like his [indicating Mr. Liebeler].

Mr. McKENZIE. I don't have any more questions. Mrs. Whitworth, we
certainly do thank you and Mrs. Hunter, we certainly do thank you very
much.

Mrs. HUNTER. How soon are you going to be through with us--the reason
I want to know--I am going to be out of town next week. [Addressing
Marina Oswald.] It's nice I met you in person now and your babies are
very sweet.

(At this point Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter left the hearing room.)

Mr. McKENZIE. Marina, do you remember a blue and white car?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know--what kind of car did Mrs. Paine have?

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you know what kind of car Mr. Paine had?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't.

Mr. McKENZIE. What kind of car did Mrs. Paine have?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know that either, but all the time Mrs. Paine,
she take me to the store.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Gregory, what do you do in Fort Worth?

Mr. GREGORY. I am a petroleum engineer.

Mr. McKENZIE. And are you on your own over there?

Mr. GREGORY. Well, half of my time is my own and the other half of my
time is with a company on salary, and I am chairman of an engineering
committee.

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe you have previously testified, Marina, that
the only time Lee came up to the Paine's, except on the weekends, in
Irving, was on Thursday night, November 21, 1963?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he was all the time there on weekends for the 5th or
the 3d of November or September?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; I was trying to figure out what day in the week
that he was there when you all were supposed to have been in this
store--it would be Wednesday or Thursday, but Lee was never in Irving
on Wednesday or Thursday at any time; is that right.

Mrs. OSWALD. Just one time when he came to see me the night before the
assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are absolutely sure about that?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, sure, if you don't believe me, ask Mrs. Paine. You
know, if he has a job--maybe--he don't have a job then?

Mr. McKENZIE. At the time when he didn't have a job, did he come?

*Mrs. OSWALD. November he had a job.

Mr. McKENZIE. But when he didn't have a job, did he come out there
during the week other than weekends.

*Mrs. OSWALD. He spent 2 days on one occasion during the week when he
had no job.

*Mrs. OSWALD. He had job at that time in November.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, before Rachel was born, did he come during the week?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I remember that only once he came--only once before
Rachel was born during the week.

Mr. McKENZIE. After Rachel was born at Parkland Hospital, did he come
during the week up until the time he got a job?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't come to Irving during the week at any time
after Rachel was born, as a matter of fact, except on Thursday night?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Rachel was born either Saturday night or Sunday.

Mr. LIEBELER. October the 20th?

*Mrs. OSWALD. When Rachel was born?

Mr. GREGORY. She wants to say what day of the week--it was either the
19th or 20th of October, but she wants to know the day of the week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Sunday.

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was at home the weekend before Rachel was born. He
sent me to the hospital Sunday night at 9 o'clock.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, he go working the next morning and he come to see
Ruth Paine and she take him to the hospital to see me and baby and he
spent the night in her house.

Mr. LIEBELER. What day did Lee come to see you in the hospital, do you
remember?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. And on Monday night he stayed at Ruth Paine's house; is
that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then you went home the next morning?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; to Ruth Paine's. Lee was at work and Ruth Paine take
me from the hospital.

Mr. McKENZIE. You were in the hospital Sunday, Monday, and left Tuesday?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I was just Sunday night--I was one and a half
days--34 hours or 36 hours or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that on Monday, October 21, Lee came to Irving after
work?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And came to the hospital to see you with Mrs. Paine?

*Mrs. OSWALD. With Mrs. Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. And stayed at Mrs. Paine's house that night and went back
to work on Tuesday morning?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he did not come to the hospital at any other time or
to take you home; is that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. After Rachel was born and after Lee had been there on
Monday to see you, did he come back to Irving at any time during the
week except the night before the assassination?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; he came to Irving only the weekends--only on weekends.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, before the time that Rachel was born, you said that
he came to Irving during the week and spent 2 days before he got his
job; was that just after he came back from Mexico?

Mrs. OSWALD. He spent 1 day in Irving after he came back from Mexico,
and the following day he went to look for work and he was looking for
work all week long and returned to Irving on Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he come to work during the week at any time after he
got his job and up until Rachel was born, except on weekends?

Mrs. OSWALD. As I remember--not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's take a short recess for lunch, and we will resume
at 1:30 p.m.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the proceeding was recessed.)


TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED

The proceeding was reconvened at 1:50 p.m.

Mr. LIEBELER. You previously told the Commission that Lee Oswald
prepared a notebook in which he kept plans and notes about his attack
on General Walker; is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. I saw this book only after the attempt on Walker's life.
He burned it or disposed of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me when you first saw the notebook?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Three days after this happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. You saw the notebook 3 days after it had happened?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I think so.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you come to see it then?

Mrs. OSWALD. When he was destroying it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the only time you ever saw it?

Mrs. OSWALD. I saw on several occasions that he was writing something
in the book, but he was hiding it from me and he was locking it in his
room.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he actually lock the door to his room when he left
the apartment?

Mrs. OSWALD. The door to his room could be locked only from the inside
and he was locking the door when he was writing in the book, otherwise,
he was hiding it in some secret place and he warned me not to mess
around and look around his things. He asked me not to go into his room
and look around.

Mr. LIEBELER. You saw him writing in this book before the night that he
shot at General Walker?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Not before the night.

Mr. McKENZIE. After?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; not before--1 month before, but not every day, you
know, sometimes. I saw him writing on several occasions in that book
prior to the attempt on Walker's life, only I did not know what he was
writing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Even though you could have gone into this room to look at
the book, you did not do so, because Lee had told you not to; is that
correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he forbade me looking around in his room, and so I
did not see the book or look at it.

Mr. LIEBELER. But 3 days after he shot at General Walker, you saw him
destroy the book; is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did he destroy it?

Mrs. OSWALD. He burned it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where?

Mrs. OSWALD. In the apartment house on Neeley.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where in the apartment?

Mrs. OSWALD. He burned it with matches over a wash bowl in the bathroom.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you first became aware of this when you smelled it
burning; is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. I did not see the book, but I saw him writing in this book
several times, but after he burns the book he told me what was in that
book and he showed me several photographs. Before he burned the book,
he showed me several photographs that were in the book. I asked him
what the pictures were and he said, "Well, this one is the picture of
the house of General Walker's--his residence."

Mr. LIEBELER. And that picture was pasted in the notebook; is that
right?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; it was loose in the book--I really don't remember.

Mr. McKENZIE. Establish what kind of book it was and the size of it.

*Mrs. OSWALD. The size--it looked like this size of paper.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was a book something like the reporter is using?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; a legal size paper--it was a legal size
notebook--this size.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, the notebook was about the same size as a legal size
pad; is that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD [nodding head for an affirmative reply].

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything to Lee when you saw him destroying
this book about why he prepared it and why he left it there in the
apartment when he went to shoot General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I did not. No; I never asked him why he left it in the
apartment, why he left his book in the apartment while he went to shoot
General Walker. I did not ask him why he left it in the apartment. I
asked him what for was he making all these entries in the book and he
answered that he wanted to leave a complete record so that all the
details would be in it. He told me that these entries consisted of
the description of the house of General Walker, the distances, the
location, and the distribution of windows in it.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he want to leave this record for?

Mrs. OSWALD. All these details--all these records, that he was writing
it either for his own use so that he would know what to do when the
time came to shoot General Walker. I am guessing that perhaps he did it
to appear to be a brave man in case he were arrested, but that is my
supposition. I was so afraid after this attempt on Walker's life that
the police might come to the house. I was afraid that there would be
evidence in the house such as this book.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to Lee about that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you say and what did he say?

*Mrs. OSWALD. What did I say?

Mr. LIEBELER. And what did he say?

*Mrs. OSWALD. And what did he say?

Mr. LIEBELER. Both.

Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that it is best not to have this kind of stuff
in the house--this book.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you tell him that?

Mrs. OSWALD. At the time he was destroying it--he showed me this book
after this attempt on Walker's life, and I suggested to him that it
would be awfully bad to keep a thing like that in the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did he first show it to you?

Mrs. OSWALD. Three days after the attempt--3 days after this attempt,
he took the rifle from the house, took it somewhere and buried it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Three days after the attempt?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that he actually took the rifle out of the house and
took it away and hid it somewhere?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. No; the day Lee shot at Walker, he buried the rifle
because when he came home and told me that he shot at General Walker
and I asked him where the rifle was and he said he buried it.

Mr. LIEBELER. He shot at General Walker on April 10, which was on
Wednesday.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Wednesday?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; it was on Wednesday.

Mrs. OSWALD. As I remember, it was the weekend--Saturday or Sunday when
Lee brought the rifle back home.

Mr. LIEBELER. What weekend following the time he shot at General Walker?

*Mrs. OSWALD. The same weekend of the same week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had he destroyed the notebook before he brought the rifle
back?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long after he brought the rifle back did he destroy
he book?

Mrs. OSWALD. He destroyed the book approximately an hour after he
brought the rifle home.

Mr. LIEBELER. After he brought the rifle home, then, he showed you the
book?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you said it was not a good idea to keep this book?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then he burned the book?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ask him why he had not destroyed the book before
he actually went to shoot General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. It never came to me, myself, to ask him that question.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see him take the pictures, the photographs, out
of the book when he destroyed it?

Mrs. OSWALD. When I saw him burning the book--I'm not positive that he
burned the photographs or not with the book. He retained the negatives
and he preserved either the photographs themselves or the negatives. I
know that they have the photographs and I don't know whether they got
the originals or whether they made them from the negatives.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, when you say "they," Marina, who do you mean by
"they?"

Mrs. OSWALD. FBI, Secret Service, and the President's Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 5, which is a copy of
one of the photographs that was found among these effects after the
assassination.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that appear to be one of the photographs about which
you were speaking?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; that's one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you absolutely sure about that?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't remember when Lee showed me the picture that
it was this.

Mrs. OSWALD. When I was first shown this picture, I remember that there
was a license plate number on this car.

Mr. LIEBELER. When Lee showed you the picture, there was a license
plate number on the car?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. As shown in Commission Exhibit No. 5; is that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you look at this picture you see that there is a
black mark on the back of this, do you know what makes that black mark?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; but I think when the Commission showed me this
picture the number was there.

Mr. McKENZIE. License plate?

Mrs. OSWALD. I would have remembered this black spot if it were there
at the time the Commission showed me this, or the FBI. When the FBI
first showed me this photograph I remember that the license plate, the
number of the license plate was on this car, was on the photograph.

*Mrs. OSWALD. It had the white and black numbers. There was no black
spot that I see on it now. When Lee showed me this photograph there
was the number on the license plate on this picture. I would have
remembered it if there were a black spot on the back of the car where
the license plate would be.

Mr. LIEBELER. The original of this picture, the actual photograph, has
a hole through it. That's what makes this black spot.

*Mrs. OSWALD. This is from the negative?

Mr. GREGORY. This picture was made from the original photograph, rather
than from a negative?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; it's simply a picture of a picture.

Mrs. OSWALD. When the FBI and Lee showed me this particular picture----

*Mrs. OSWALD. Not this big size.

Mrs. OSWALD. This photograph--it was a smaller size.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. There was a license plate on this car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that very clearly?

Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee showed it to me, I remember very distinctly that
there was a license plate on this car. When this business about General
Walker came up I would have remembered this black spot.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or the hole?

Mrs. OSWALD. Or the hole in the original--I would have remembered it.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you remember, then, that the license plate was
actually on that car when you saw the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. This black spot is so striking I would have remembered it
if it were on the photograph that Lee showed me or the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's address ourselves also, not just to the black spot
but to the possibility that they may have shown you the actual original
photograph on which there is no black spot, but which has a hole right
through the photograph.

Mrs. OSWALD. There was no hole in the original when they showed it to
me--I'm positive of it.

Mr. McKENZIE. All right, let me ask her a question.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is the first time I saw a black spot or have heard
about a hole in the original photograph.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Why does the Commission not ask me about this?

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, the Commission is asking you about it now, because
Mr. Liebeler represents the Commission.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I know it.

Mr. McKENZIE. Let me ask you--when Lee showed you this picture, which
is Commission Exhibit No. 5, had it been folded over?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. At that time did the car that appears in the picture, did
it have a hole in the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. When the FBI or the Secret Service showed you this
picture, had it been folded?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. Who showed you the picture--the FBI or the Secret Service
or the Commission?

*Mrs. OSWALD. The FBI first and then the Commission.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, at the time the Commission showed you the picture
in Washington, was there a hole shown in the picture where the car's
license plate would be?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know what happened to this picture, because
when the Commission showed me the picture there was not this spot here.

Mrs. OSWALD. If there was a hole, I would have asked them right away
why that hole is there or the black spot.

Mr. McKENZIE. Off the record, please.

(Discussion between Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Liebeler to the effect that
the picture might have been creased in the process of making a print
from the original photograph.)

Mr. McKENZIE. One more question--is this the first time that you
have seen the picture when there was a black spot in the back of the
automobile?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; the first time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a picture like this that had a hole in
it?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think of anything else about this Walker incident
that you haven't already told the Commission that you think we should
know that you can remember?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think I have told all I know about it--I can't remember
anything else now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it seem strange to you at the time, Marina, that
Lee did make these careful plans, take pictures, and write it up in
a notebook, and then when he went out to shoot at General Walker he
left all that incriminating evidence right in the house so that if he
had ever been stopped and questioned and if that notebook had been
found, it would have clearly indicated that he was the one that shot at
General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. He was such a person that nothing seems peculiar to me for
what he did. I had so many surprises from him that nothing surprised
me. He may have wished to appear such a brave man or something.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever have the feeling that he really wanted to be
caught in connection with the Walker affair?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know how to answer that--maybe yes and maybe no. I
couldn't read his mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that the picture that he asked you to take
when he was holding the rifle and the newspapers, and that he then
autographed for June, do you think that was connected with the Walker
thing at all?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think so, because it happened just before he went to
shoot General Walker. Then, I asked him why he was taking this silly
picture and he answered that he simply wanted to send it to the
newspaper.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Militant?

*Mrs. OSWALD. The Militant.

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't attach any significance to what he said at the
time, but he added, "That maybe some day June will remember me." He
must have had something in his mind--some grandiose plans.

Mr. LIEBELER. You told the Commission that in November 1962, you stayed
with Anna Meller and with Mrs. Ford for 2 weeks?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; 1 week.

Mr. LIEBELER. One week with each person?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I think maybe I was 3 days at Anna Meller's house--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long do you think you were with them altogether?

*Mrs. OSWALD. One week or 10 days.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you also told us that you went to Anna Meller's in a
taxicab?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you separated from Lee at any other time in the fall
of 1962 except this time?

Mrs. OSWALD. The only time I was separated from Lee, not because we
quarreled, but because I lived with Elena Hall in Fort Worth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you went to Anna Meller's one night in a taxicab?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you bring any of the things for the baby, the
furniture or your clothes or things like that to Anna Meller's?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. At no time?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I just take baby and bottle.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about the next day, did you get anything over to the
Meller's house the next day?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mrs. OSWALD. No; after a couple of days Anna Meller went and bought
some diapers for the baby, then, I wanted to take my things away from
Lee and George De Mohrenschildt took me in his car and we got the
things from the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you take the things then?

Mrs. OSWALD. To Anna Meller's house.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you stay at Anna Meller's house before
Mohrenschildt brought the things there?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Two or three days.

Mr. LIEBELER. And how long did you stay at Anna Meller's after De
Mohrenschildt brought your things there and before you went to Mrs.
Ford's?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Two more days.

Mr. LIEBELER. When De Mohrenschildt came and took these things, they
filled up his whole car almost, didn't they? There were quite a lot of
things?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you take these things from Anna Meller's over to the
Fords' house?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only the bare necessities.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do with the other things that you had
brought to Anna Meller's?

Mrs. OSWALD. They remained at Anna Meller's.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who took the things from Meller's to Ford's?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it George De Mohrenschildt?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it Mr. Ford or Mrs. Ford?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what day it was that De Mohrenschildt
moved these things for you, what day of the week?

Mrs. OSWALD. The weekend--probably Sunday.

Mr. LIEBELER. What day did you first go to Anna Meller's; do you
remember?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

*Mrs. OSWALD. About 4 days before.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Lee know where you went the night you left him?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did he first find out where you were?

Mrs. OSWALD. George De Mohrenschildt knew that I was at Anna Meller's
and he telephoned Lee, but he did not tell Lee where I was. He asked
him to come to his house where I would also be at the time so that we
could discuss the things.

Mr. LIEBELER. The day you went to take the things to Anna Meller's, De
Mohrenschildt went to your apartment in his car; is that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was with him?

*Mrs. OSWALD. His wife.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you with him?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that you and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt and George De
Mohrenschildt came in the car out to the apartment?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And got these other things?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And left?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Lee there when you came?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened when the three of you came to the apartment?

Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing happened except he was very angry and I took
things.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he say?

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not want me to leave.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he say?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he talk to De Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was collecting things, so I don't know what
transpired--I was busy. Lee was helping me to gather the things,
because he said he didn't want anything--to take the whole works.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that Lee first said that he was going to
tear your dresses up and break all the baby things if you left and went
away?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; maybe that's George De Mohrenschildt's joke.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's what George De Mohrenschildt told the Commission.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I know it.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think he meant it as a joke when he told it.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know.

Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe Lee said that to George De Mohrenschildt. I do not
know whether Lee said that to George De Mohrenschildt or not. I was
busy gathering the things.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did there appear to be an argument or a discussion
between Lee and De Mohrenschildt at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think so--perhaps they were speaking
together--talking English and I didn't understand them.

Mr. LIEBELER. How would they usually talk to each other--in Russian or
in English?

Mrs. OSWALD. Both Russian and English.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did George Bouhe have anything to do with your leaving
Lee this time?

Mrs. OSWALD. George Bouhe told me that if I wanted to leave Lee, he
would help me at first, provided I would not go back to Lee. Bouhe did
not interfere into my and Lee's affairs, but he wanted to know if I
wanted to leave him permanently, he would help me. He told me that if I
wanted to leave him for good, then he would help me out, but not if I
would go back to him because the second time nobody would help me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, in fact, you did later go back to Lee; didn't you?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he's my husband.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it is also a fact that when you did, George Bouhe was
displeased--unhappy?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And in fact he even asked you to give back to him the
dictionary that he had given you; didn't he?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he helped you no more after that?

Mrs. OSWALD. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. George De Mohrenschildt recalls this Sunday morning
differently--he said that he came there with his wife and that you
were still at the apartment with Lee, and that he and his wife came in
and told Lee that they were going to take you away because he had been
beating you in the past, and that he convinced you to leave and that
you all left then that Sunday morning and he took you over to Meller's.
He does not say you had previously gone to Meller's.

Mrs. OSWALD. That's not so. I was not at the apartment with Lee. I
came that Sunday with the De Mohrenschildts to the apartment. I was at
Anna Meller's and George De Mohrenschildt told me to be at his house
at a certain hour, 10 o'clock, or sometime, and that Lee will come to
his house, and Anna Meller took me. George Bouhe came to Anna Meller's
and took me to George De Mohrenschildt's house and Lee came to De
Mohrenschildt's house in a bus. Lee came to De Mohrenschildt's house on
a bus.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this the same Sunday?

Mrs. OSWALD. That same Sunday.

Mr. McKENZIE. Later in the day?

Mrs. OSWALD. Ten o'clock or eleven.

Mr. McKENZIE. And before you went to the apartment?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did Lee and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt and George De
Mohrenschildt go to the apartment together in George De Mohrenschildt's
car?

Mrs. OSWALD. I do not remember right now whether Lee left after this
confrontation at De Mohrenschildt's house, whether Lee left first
or whether we all left De Mohrenschildt's house together, but I do
remember distinctly that I went in the car with George De Mohrenschildt
and his wife. I did not go with Lee and so it is impossible that they
came later.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened at De Mohrenschildt's house this
morning--what was said there?

Mrs. OSWALD. De Mohrenschildt was telling Lee that that was not the way
to treat his wife and Lee begged me to stay with him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was De Mohrenschildt's wife there at this time?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did the meeting at De Mohrenschildt's house end; do
you remember?

Mrs. OSWALD. I did not agree to go back with Lee and either Lee left by
the bus first, or, I don't remember it clearly what happened.

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know what happened--I don't remember if Lee
goes with us or if he goes first.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you do remember that Lee was at the apartment on
Elsbeth Street when you went there to get the clothes and things for
the baby?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you came there, did he just help you load the things
up?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't seem to be angry about anything?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he was angry. That's why he helped me.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you come to go back to Lee, and that was when he
came out to Anna Ray's and met you there?

Mrs. OSWALD. He telephoned me several times begging me to return and he
came to Anna Ray's and he cried and you know a woman's heart--I went
back to him. He said he didn't care to live if I did not return.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who paid the taxi fare when you went over to Anna
Meller's the first time?

*Mrs. OSWALD. The first time--Anna Meller.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has been advised that some time in the
spring of 1963, you, yourself, either threatened to or actually tried
to commit suicide. Can you tell us about that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Do I have the right now not to discuss that?

Mr. LIEBELER. If you don't want to discuss that, certainly, but I
really would like to have Lee's reaction to the whole thing. But if you
don't want to tell us about it--all right.

Mrs. OSWALD. At my attempt at suicide, Lee struck me in the face and
told me to go to bed and that I should never attempt to do that--only
foolish people would do it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell him that you were going to do it, or did you
actually try?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I didn't tell him, but I tried.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't want to discuss it any further?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a copy of Lee's diary?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes;--I have that now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a copy of the diary before it was printed in
the Dallas Morning News?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. You might also ask her if I had a copy of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not Mr. McKenzie had a copy of the
diary?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know--ask him. I don't know what you have in your
office--I'm sorry.

Mr. McKENZIE. Let the record show that Mr. McKenzie does not have a
copy of the diary, and that Mrs. Oswald states she did not have a copy
of the diary prior to its being published by the Dallas Morning News,
and for the purposes of the record the Life magazine and Time, Inc.,
first gave me a copy of the diary, and I in turn furnished a copy of
the diary to Mrs. Oswald from the copy that was given to me by Time,
Inc.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that now, you do have a copy of the diary; is this
correct?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it was given to you by Mr. McKenzie after he got it
from Time-Life, Inc.?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make an arrangement with Life magazine to give
them permission to publish the diary?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; after it has been published in the newspapers. I,
myself, would not have been willing for it to be published in the first
place.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Life magazine pay you anything for the privilege of
publishing the diary?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; $20,000. I would like to know where the Dallas
Morning News got the diary.

Mr. LIEBELER. I can tell you this much, Mrs. Oswald, that the Dallas
Morning News did not get a copy of the diary from the Commission. Other
than that, I can't say anything.

Mrs. OSWALD. If it is possible, I would like to determine where they
got it.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you enter into this arrangement with Life
magazine and how did it come about, Mrs. Oswald; will you tell us?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember what day----

Mr. McKENZIE. It was after it was published in the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in stating that the transaction was
negotiated between representatives of Life magazine and your attorney,
Mr. William A. McKenzie? An attorney here in Dallas?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no more questions.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you.

Mr. McKENZIE. I have a couple of questions. Marina, there is a
difference, is there not, in your mind between a Marxist and a
Communist?

*Mrs. OSWALD. What?

Mrs. OSWALD. I never was interested in this so I don't know--it makes
me no difference.

Mr. McKENZIE. A Communist ordinarily is known as a party member; is
that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. A Communist does not necessarily have to be a member of
the party. People that believe in communism do not necessarily have a
party card. The fact is that a Communist is not necessarily a member of
the party. He may be a Communist by his choice but not necessarily a
member of the party.

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, Lee was a Marxist by his choice; is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know what he thought.

Mr. McKENZIE. That's all.

Mrs. OSWALD. I think he was just a sick person. He didn't know himself
what he was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Oswald, as we discussed this morning, we want to go
out to Irving and all look at the store and see if it refreshes your
recollection as to whether or not you were there, so at this time we
will adjourn the deposition, to be resumed out at the location of this
store in Irving, if that is agreeable with counsel for Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. McKENZIE. It is agreeable.

(At this point the proceedings of this deposition were adjourned and
Messrs. Liebeler and McKenzie, Marina Oswald, the Reporter, Odell
Oliver, and Secret Service Agents John Joe Howlett and Forrest Sorrels
in charge of the Dallas Secret Service office traveled to Irving,
walked through the store heretofore referred to, departed the same and
while standing in front of the store the following proceedings were
had:)

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that we are resuming the deposition
in front of 149 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Tex., and the record
will indicate that Mr. McKenzie and Mrs. Oswald, Mr. Sorrels and Mr.
Howlett, the Court Reporter and I walked inside of the building here
at 149 East Irving Boulevard and walked around inside and outside,
and this is at 3:45 p.m., in an effort to refresh Mrs. Oswald's
recollection as to whether or not she has ever been in this store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you had a chance to go through the store, Marina?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; this is the first time.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the first time you have been here?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have now looked at the outside of the store and
looked through the inside?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are quite sure you have never been here before?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I'm sure I never was here before--I am quite sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure of that in spite of the testimony that you
heard this morning from Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter; is that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; that's right. She told how I was dressed with a rose
jacket--that's true I had a rose jacket.

Mr. LIEBELER. She may have seen you somewhere?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but I never was here--maybe she saw me on the street
somewhere. She said it looked like she saw me someplace else and that's
the reason why I wanted to see this store, but maybe I have forgotten
by now----

Mr. LIEBELER. You are now standing directly in front of the store at
149 East Irving Boulevard, aren't you?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are sure you have never been here before?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have never been here before.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have anything to add, Mr. McKenzie?

Mr. McKENZIE. No.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know if I were inside this store, but I don't
recall it now.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize this store as a place you have ever
been before?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no further questions, and this will adjourn the
deposition.




TESTIMONY OF MAJ. EUGENE D. ANDERSON

The testimony of Maj. Eugene D. Anderson was taken at 4:30 p.m., on
July 24, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs.
J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of
the President's Commission.


Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that this is a deposition proceeding
of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy, and that our witnesses today are Maj. Eugene D. Anderson and
M. Sgt. James A. Zahm of the U.S. Marine Corps who have been asked to
testify about their knowledge of the capabilities of a marksman using a
rifle with a scope.

With that preliminary statement of purpose, would you stand, Major
Anderson and raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that
the testimony you shall give before the President's Commission in this
deposition proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Major ANDERSON. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state you full name for the record please.

Major ANDERSON. Eugene D. Anderson.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your occupation or profession, sir?

Major ANDERSON. I am a major in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been in the Marine Corps.

Major ANDERSON. Twenty-six years 3 months.

Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?

Major ANDERSON. I am assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch,
Headquarters Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. And where is your current duty station?

Major ANDERSON. In Navy Annex, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington,
D.C.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you held that position?

Major ANDERSON. I have been stationed here for 2 years.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline briefly your qualifications, if any, in
marksmanship?

Major ANDERSON. I have been working in marksmanship training for
approximately 18 years. I am a distinguished rifle shot in the Marine
Corps, master rifle shot, National Rifle Association of America.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline briefly the qualifications or tests
which must be achieved in order to qualify as a distinguished shot?

Major ANDERSON. A man must have acquired a minimum of 30 points from
winning medals in certain specified high-caliber matches. To win
these points he must have placed among the top 10 percent of the
nondistinguished shooters participating in the match. By winning a gold
medal he can earn 10 points. By winning a silver medal he can earn
eight points. By winning a bronze medal he can win six points.

Mr. SPECTER. And what qualifications must be displayed to obtain the
classification as master of the National Rifle Association of America?

Major ANDERSON. You have to fire in a minimum number of National Rifle
Association sponsored matches.

(Discussion off the record.)

Major ANDERSON. I want to correct the record.

Mr. SPECTER. Proceed to do so.

Major ANDERSON. I am a master with the pistol in the National Rifle
Association. I am not classified with the rifle.

Mr. SPECTER. And does your classification as a distinguished marksman
apply to the rifle?

Major ANDERSON. To the rifle, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a document which has heretofore been
introduced into evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 239.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask you if you have heretofore had an opportunity to
examine that document?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. And would you describe for the record what that document
is, please?

Major ANDERSON. This is a U.S. rifle, caliber 30, M-1 and U.S. carbine,
caliber 30, M-1-A1 record scorebook that is maintained by a shooter
who is training for firing for qualification or requalification in the
Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that a standard record scorebook which the Marine Corps
makes available to every Marine who shoots under those circumstances?

Major ANDERSON. It was standard at the time of issuance of this
particular book.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was that time?

Major ANDERSON. In December 1956.

Mr. SPECTER. And does the name of any specific Marine appear on the
front page of that document?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER. And are there any initials?

Major ANDERSON. It appears to be "L. H."

Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline the marksmanship training, if any, which
a Marine recruit receives in the normal course of Marine training?

Major ANDERSON. He goes through a very intensive 3 weeks' training
period. During this 3 weeks for the first week he receives a basic
training in the care and cleaning of the weapon. He learns sighting and
aiming. He learns manipulation of the trigger.

He is exposed to various training aids. He goes through a series of
exercises in what we call dry firing in which he assumes all of the
positions that he is going to use in the full firing of the rifle over
the qualification course. Normally in about the middle of the second
week or the latter part of the second week he conducts some firing with
a .22 rifle and .22 pistol to familiarize himself with live ammunition
and to give the coaches an opportunity to check on his previous
training. He then proceeds to the rifle range and he zeros the rifle in
normally at 200 yards.

This consists of a few rounds being fired at a target, and the sights
are changed so that at this particular range, either 200 or 300 yards,
this rifle will strike the bull's-eye at the sight setting so indicated
when there is no wind blowing and all the conditions for firing are
ideal.

Then the following week he goes out to the range and he fires over the
course completely, consisting of firing at 200, 300, and 500 yards. He
will normally fire possibly 60 rounds the first day, which is 10 rounds
over the required amount to fire the course. This firing is normally
done at 200 yards. The following days, possibly the second or third day
he may fire as much as 70 rounds each day, giving him an opportunity to
acquire more practice with the gun, and to get a better opportunity to
find out the zero of his weapon and where the strike of his bullet is
going to be under any given circumstances.

Then on Thursday he will fire preliminary day, in which he will fire
over the course one time under all circumstances exactly as he will do
the following day for record day, except that on preliminary day he is
allowed to have a coach on the range with him on the firing line to
assist him in all phases.

The following day on record day, he fires over the course 50 rounds
for his qualification score record. At this time the coach may give
him any assistance possible as long as he is behind the firing line.
Once he steps onto the firing line, assumes the firing position, then
he is completely on his own. He cannot be helped by any gestures or
comments or in any way given any assistance from anyone whatsoever. He
completes this firing and the score that he attains then becomes his
qualification score.

Mr. SPECTER. Was that training program in effect during 1956?

Major ANDERSON. With some possible minor deviations, yes. Generally
speaking this is exactly what he would have done in 1956.

Mr. SPECTER. Would that training then necessarily have preceded the
compilation of a marksmanship test as is reflected in the document
which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 239?

Major ANDERSON. I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean?

Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps I can rephrase it. Would your presumption be that
L. H. Oswald, whose test score you have before you, would have received
the training such as that which you have just described?

Major ANDERSON. Absolutely. He fired every day according to this. The
only exception might be that if he was required to go to the sick bay
for some minor treatment, and missed maybe an hour a day or some sort
of thing such as that.

Mr. SPECTER. And the basis for your statement on that would be your
conclusion based on the fact that L. H. Oswald had undergone a test
where he completed these documents under the category of "US Marine
Corps Scorebook for US Rifle Caliber .30 M-1 and US Carbine Caliber .30
M-1-A1?"

Major ANDERSON. Yes, sir; this document shows by dates and days as
indicated that he fired daily and sighted in his rifle as prescribed.

Mr. SPECTER. Of course, you didn't know Mr. Oswald personally?

Major ANDERSON. I never knew him whatsoever.

Mr. SPECTER. So that your conclusion as to his training is based upon
the inference which arises from the document which I have presented
to you. That is to say, you know that if a man has one of those
scorebooks, that he must have received that training?

Major ANDERSON. Absolutely. He received this in full.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that document have some record of practicing as well
as actual scoring in it, Major Anderson?

Major ANDERSON. This record shows that on Thursday of the week
preceding the record firing week, he fired approximately 10 rounds
which were not scored, appear to be zeroing in shots. There is no day
here to indicate any firing on Friday. Monday is shown of the following
week with a 10 shot group, and shows that he fires the entire course on
Monday throughout.

Mr. SPECTER. Major Anderson, I now show you a letter which I have
marked for the purpose of this deposition as Anderson Exhibit No. 1,
and ask you for the record to tell us what is the date of that letter,
first of all?

Major ANDERSON. 8 January 1964.

(Major Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SPECTER. To whom is the letter addressed?

Major ANDERSON. Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, President's
Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the letter written?

Major ANDERSON. The signature shows it was from A. G. Folsom, Jr.,
lieutenant colonel, U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity heretofore to examine that
letter?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. And whom does that letter concern itself with?

Major ANDERSON. The letter concerns a Mr. Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER. Lee Harvey Oswald?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that letter contain with it the marksmanship practice
which Mr. Oswald had while in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON. It so indicates; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the procedure of the Marine Corps in retaining
such information on men who were in the Corps and had marksmanship
training?

Major ANDERSON. Any time a man goes through any type of live firing,
the type of firing, the number of rounds he has fired, the course he
has fired is supposed to be and supposedly is entered in his record
book in the spaces provided for his training?

Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by live firing, sir?

Major ANDERSON. By live firing I mean any time a live round of
ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or
heavy firing?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing
in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates that he
is firing the gun.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which
Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON. It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing
and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.

Mr. SPECTER. By "fam" firing, what does that mean?

Major ANDERSON. This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing
and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being
armed with said weapon.

Mr. SPECTER. And on what date was the A course registered?

Major ANDERSON. 21 December 1956.

Mr. SPECTER. And what weapon was used?

Major ANDERSON. The M-1 rifle.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was his final qualification there?

Major ANDERSON. 212.

Mr. SPECTER. And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what
range of rating is that score?

Major ANDERSON. That should have been a sharpshooter.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?

Major ANDERSON. 400 rounds for recruit firing.

Mr. SPECTER. And during what period was that?

Major ANDERSON. That was to be fired within a 2-week period.

Mr. SPECTER. Did he have exposure on another course for M-1 firing at a
later date?

Major ANDERSON. The record shows that 6 May 1959 he fired the B course.

Mr. SPECTER. And what weapon was used at that time?

Major ANDERSON. The M-1 rifle.

Mr. SPECTER. And what score was obtained on that occasion?

Major ANDERSON. 191 for marksman.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?

Major ANDERSON. 200 rounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Would there be any reason why the scores might differ from
212 to 191, based on the layout of the courses or any of the conditions
surrounding those tests, Major Anderson?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; the day the 212 was fired appears to be according
to the record book to have been an ideal day under firing conditions.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say the record book you meant Commission Exhibit
No. 239 that you referred to?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; when he fired that he had just completed a
very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of
an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had
presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have
nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It
might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle--windy, rainy,
dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and
he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer
in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There
is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as
good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing,
because may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it
got banged around in normal usage.

Mr. SPECTER. What are the differences between the A and B courses,
Major Anderson?

Major ANDERSON. The A course is fired at 200, 300, and 500 yards. The B
course is exactly the same course as far as targets, number of rounds
and positions are concerned, but it is fired entirely at 200 yards.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there compensations in the scoring to allow for the
difference in distances?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; there is.

Mr. SPECTER. What other familiarity with weapons did Mr. Oswald possess
according to that document identified as Anderson Exhibit No. 1?

Major ANDERSON. On 17 December 1956 he fired the Browning Automatic
Rifle familiarization 75 rounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any score indicated on that firing?

Major ANDERSON. There will be no scores indicated for familiarization
firing. It is not scored.

Mr. SPECTER. What other familiarization?

Major ANDERSON. On 11 December 1956 he fired the pistol familiarization
100 rounds. On 2 May 1958 he fired the 12-gage riot gun familiarization
10 rounds, again on 7 May 1958 he fired the .45 caliber pistol 100
rounds for familiarization and on 9 March 1959 he fired the 12-gage
riot gun 10 rounds for familiarization.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship
capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you,
Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?

Major ANDERSON. I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving
the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better
than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to
a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be
considered as a good to excellent shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Major Anderson, I now want to show you certain photographs
which have been heretofore identified and introduced into the
Commission's record as a preliminary to asking your opinion on the
difficulty of certain shots which I will identify.

First I show you Commission Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead
photograph of an area known as Dealey Plaza, which the record will
show is the situs of the assassination of President Kennedy. I now
show you Commission Exhibit No. 348 which is a photograph of the Texas
School Book Depository Building with the letter "A" pointing to the
half-opened window, that is the bottom portion of the window which is
half opened, where other witnesses have testified that the assassin
stood. Let me add as a factor for you to assume to be true, this the
record will show is based upon eyewitnesses at the scene, that the
weapon partly protruded from the window identified as letter "A" in
Exhibit No. 348 pointing at an angle which is not completely in a
straight line but very much in a straight line with the angle of the
street being designated as Elm Street, which street runs on a downgrade
of approximately 3°.

I now show you a document identified as Commission Exhibit No. 893,
and a second document identified as Commission Exhibit No. 895, which
depict frame No. 210 and frame No. 225 on photographs in the nature
of moving pictures taken by Abraham Zapruder at the assassination
site which the evidence indicates was the range of the first shot
which struck President Kennedy in the lower portion of his neck, with
that bullet striking at a distance from 176.9 feet to a distance of
190.8 feet. Stated differently, the evidence shows that somewhere
between these two pictures President Kennedy was shot in the neck, and
as the photograph of the rifle scope shows in the left-hand corner
lower picture, that is the view through the telescopic lens which the
marksman had based on onsite tests which were made in Dallas with a
camera mounted looking through the scope on Commission Exhibit No. 139,
which is the weapon identified as the assassination rifle. Now assuming
those factors to be true for purposes of this next question, how
would you characterize the difficulty of a shot at that range, which
would strike the President in the lower portion of his neck at a spot
indicated by a white mark on the back of the stand-in the photograph
marked "Re-enactment"?

My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease
of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?

Major ANDERSON. In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult
shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No.
902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which
struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window
to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle
scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had
of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and
I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that
shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a
marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.

Major ANDERSON. I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot
at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such
a shot.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that we have been off the record
because Mr. Rankin stepped out, but we will proceed now to complete the
deposition since he hasn't returned at this time.

Major Anderson, assume if you will that there were three shots fired by
the assassin with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in a time span of 4.8 to
5.6 seconds. Would that speed of firing be within the capabilities of
Mr. Oswald based upon the information as to his marksmanship ability
from the Marine Corps records?

Major ANDERSON. Yes, sir; it would.

Mr. SPECTER. Major Anderson, are you as familiar with the telescopic
sights as is Master Sergeant Zahm?

Major ANDERSON. No, sir; I am not. Sergeant Zahm is far more familiar
and much more of an expert on telescopic sights than I am.

Mr. SPECTER. Has the testimony which you have provided here today on
the general propositions to which you have testified been within your
sphere of specialization?

Major ANDERSON. Yes, sir; they have.

Mr. SPECTER. That concludes the deposition of you, Major Anderson. We
very much appreciate your coming.

Major ANDERSON. You are quite welcome.




TESTIMONY OF SGT. JAMES A. ZAHM

The testimony of Sgt. James A. Zahm was taken on July 24, 1964,
at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. J. Lee
Rankin, general counsel; and Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the
President's Commission.


Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, will you stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you shall give before
the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?

Sergeant ZAHM. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Sergeant ZAHM. James A. Zahm.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession or occupation, please?

Sergeant ZAHM. Master sergeant.

Mr. SPECTER. And in what branch of the service are you?

Sergeant ZAHM. U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been in the Marine Corps, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Eighteen years.

Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?

Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training
Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training
Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say NCO, what do you mean by that for the record.

Sergeant ZAHM. Noncommissioned officer.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been so occupied in that particular duty?

Sergeant ZAHM. Two years 4 months.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had if any in marksmanship?

Sergeant ZAHM. I became engaged in competitive shooting in 1952, and I
became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches
from 1952 through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won
the President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup
in 1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had with telescopic sights,
Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. One of my additional duties at the present time is the
noncommissioned officer in charge of the long-range team. This consists
of about 40 members of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team, and
I am charged with training, providing weapons, and hand loading the
ammunition for practice and eventual firing at 600 and 1,000 yards in
the interservice match.

Mr. SPECTER. Are telescopic sights used regularly in those activities?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Could you characterize for me in some manner your
experience then with telescopic sights in the number that you have used
or duration of time where you have used telescopic sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, from my own experience, and it is true that the
higher powered telescopes are used in the particular type of firing
we are doing right now, deliberate slow fire at extreme ranges of 600
and 1,000 yards. We use 12-power to 20-power telescopes. These are
unsuitable for moving targets or closer ranges from unsteady positions,
because the power of the telescope tends to magnify the shooter's
movements and makes a hold more difficult.

In the lower-powered telescope such as four-power telescope at closer
ranges ranging from 50 to 200 yards, this is an ideal type of weapon
for moving targets or type of telescope for moving targets, and for the
closer ranges, things being inherent in the focus of the scopes when
you get in too close, the higher power type scopes tend to blur out to
a certain degree.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a
marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron
sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error
in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your
front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an
error in alining the sights, and then you also have the possibility
of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the
sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type
sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to
become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in alining the
sights.

Now this as opposed to telescope of a four-power nature it is a natural
characteristic of a telescope when you are looking for your target, it
is a natural thing to center your target in the view of your telescope,
and in the center view of your telescope is the aiming crosshairs. This
is only one point.

If you get this one point, the crosshairs in the proper relationship to
your target, this is an aid in locating, finding your target, because
you are using the scope in the sense as binoculars. Once you have found
your target, your sights are already alined, and then through good
trigger manipulation the shot should be well on the target.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to rapid-fire shooting, how does the
telescopic sight on a four-power scope work out?

Sergeant ZAHM. Four-power being a reasonably low-power scope, it has
a fairly broad field of view. By this we mean it covers a reasonable
amount of area out at about 100 yards, about I think probably around
30 feet or so. Using the scope, rapidly working a bolt and using the
scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you
locate that target you identify it and the crosshairs are in close
relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor
move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick
squeeze.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you characterize it as easy, difficult, or how would
you characterize it to use a scope, a four-power scope in rapid fire?

Sergeant ZAHM. A real aid, an extreme aid.

Mr. SPECTER. Suppose in focusing in through the four-power scope you do
not get a completely circular view, but instead get a partial view with
a corner of the view being blacked out because you don't have the scope
in direct alinement, but you are still able to see a sufficient amount
of daylight through the scope so that you can see where the crosshairs
line up on target. Is it in sufficient alinement at that juncture to
permit the marksman to shoot accurately?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And how does that work out that the alinement is
sufficient to permit an accurate shot, even though the marksman does
not have a completely clear view through the entire circle of the scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, in the assembly of the telescope, the aiming
reticle or crosshair is so placed in the scope that it is in the same
plane as the focus of the lenses, and regardless of the position of the
eye behind the scope, this makes no apparent or no real movement of the
reticle on the target itself, so if the shooter can look through the
scope and see the juncture of the crosshairs, and it is on his target,
if he properly manipulates the trigger he will get a hit.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents
identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. 1 to Major
Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents,
how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?

Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot,
slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age
throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an
excellent shot.

Mr. SPECTER. How much familiarity would a man with Oswald's
qualifications, obtained in the Marine Corps, require in order to
operate a rifle with a scope such as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a
four-power scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. How much familiarity would he require?

Mr. SPECTER. Let me rephrase the question. Would it be very difficult
for a man with Oswald's capabilities as a marksman to use a rifle with
a four-power scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. No; I feel that the instruction that he had received
qualifies him on the basic fundamentals of marksmanship. There are
just a few refinements in the operation of the bolt rifle and the
scope through a minimum amount of experimenting would make him as
proficient with the bolt and the scope as it did with the weapons he
received instruction on, and if not it would improve his proficiency
actually through the use of the telescope. I feel that this would be an
advantage.

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald
have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power
scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight
manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he
would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10
rounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Would dry runs be an aid to a man like Oswald in learning
how to operate a rifle with a scope on it.

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe for the record what is meant in
marksmanship terms by a dry run?

Sergeant ZAHM. Dry firing is working the bolt and manipulating the
trigger and alining the sights, whether it be scope or iron, without
any ammunition. The advantage in the scope in dry firing is that when
he snaps the trigger or squeezes the trigger, he can see any apparent
error in his trigger manipulation, movement of the piece, by the jump
of the crosshair much easier than he can with iron sights.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the use of a four-power scope be a real advantage to
a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities or of a slight advantage, or
how would you characterize the advantage that he would obtain, if any,
from the use of such a scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it a real advantage, particularly at the
range of 100 yards, in identifying your target. It allows you to see
your target clearly, and it is still of a minimum amount of power that
it doesn't exaggerate your own body movements. It just is an aid in
seeing in the fact that you only have the one element, the crosshair,
in relation to the target as opposed to iron sights with alining the
sights and then alining them on the target. It is a real aid.

Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, I am now going to show you the same
photographs which I showed to Major Anderson in setting the basis for
asking you a hypothetical question on capabilities here. As the record
will show, we have heretofore before the President's Commission entered
into evidence Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead shot of Dealey
Plaza. Commission Exhibit No. 348, which I am now displaying to you, is
a photograph of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence
in the record indicates that the marksman stood at the point designated
"A" with the lower half of the window being raised halfway, and the
gun protruding out of that window pointing down the street called Elm
Street in approximately the angle of my pencil which is virtually
although not exactly straight down the street. Elm Street declines 3°
as it slopes under the triple underpass.

As the evidence will further show, Commission Exhibits Nos. 893 and
895 respectively depict frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film which
is a range of the first shot from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet. In the
lower left-hand corner under designation "Photograph through rifle
scope" there is shown the view of the marksman from the sixth floor of
the depository building as he looked down at President Kennedy with
this picture being taken of a stand-in for President Kennedy, with the
white mark designating the spot on the President where the first bullet
struck him.

Now assuming that the President was struck under those circumstances
at a distance of from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet, using a 6.5 mm
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a four-power scope, would a man with
Oswald's marksmanship capabilities be able to complete such a shot and
strike the target on the white mark there?

Sergeant ZAHM. Very definitely.

Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too
difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?

Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I
consider it a very easy shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Now taking a look at Commission Exhibit No. 902, which as
the record will show, has been introduced into evidence to depict the
shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from the
rifle in the window to the part of the President's body being 265.3
feet. Assuming the same factors about using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
and pointing it down Elm Street as shown on Commission Exhibit No. 347,
would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a
4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head?
Would Mr. Oswald possess the capability to complete such a shot which
did, in this situation, strike the President in the back of the head?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I think that aiming at the mass of what portion
of the President is visible at that distance and with his equipment,
he would very easily have attained a hit, not necessarily aiming and
hitting in the head. This would have been a little more difficult
and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the
President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass to the
center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very
definitely someplace, and the fact that he hit him in the head, but he
could have hit, got a hit.

Mr. SPECTER. So you would have expected a man of Oswald's capabilities
at a distance of 265.3 feet to strike the President someplace aiming at
him under those circumstances?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And within the range of where you would expect him to hit
him, would that include the President's head?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And how would you characterize that shot with respect to
whether it was difficult or not difficult?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SPECTER. Let's go back on the record. May the record show that
Sergeant Zahm has questioned the appearance of the "photograph through
rifle scope" which appear on Exhibits Nos. 895 and 902. And as the
record will show, there are only four photographs on Exhibit No.
895 whereas there are eight on Commission Exhibit No. 902, so that
necessarily the photograph through the rifle scope is much smaller as
it is depicted on Exhibit No. 902, and I want you to bear that in mind,
Sergeant Zahm, in answering the question as to whether you consider the
shot at a distance of 265.3 feet to be difficult or not difficult; or
characterize it for me in your own words.

Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it still an easy shot, a little more
difficult from the President's body position and increase in distance
of approximately 40 feet, but I still consider it an easy shot for a
man with the equipment he had and his ability.

Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that there were three shots fired in a range of
4.8 to 5.6 seconds, would that speed of firing at that range indicated
in the prior questions be within Mr. Oswald's capabilities as a
marksman?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect if any would the alinement of the street have
on the moving vehicle in the way that it is shown on the picture,
Exhibit No. 348?

Sergeant ZAHM. This is a definite advantage to the shooter, the vehicle
moving directly away from him and the downgrade of the street, and he
being in an elevated position made an almost stationary target while he
was aiming in, very little movement if any.

Mr. SPECTER. How would the fact that the street had a 3° decline affect
the difficulty of the shot.

Sergeant ZAHM. It would make it easier because Oswald was in an
elevated position, and therefore if the car was traveling on a level
terrain, it would apparently--he would have to keep adjusting by
holding up a little bit as the car traveled. But by going downgrade
this just straightened out his line of sight that much better.

Mr. SPECTER. So that if the car had been proceeding on a level, the
assassin would have had to have raised his weapon as the distance
between the rifle and the car increased to allow for trajectory?

Sergeant ZAHM. No; just to allow for the movement of the targets, the
travel. Assume that you are aiming standing at ground level and aiming
down a little at somebody walking straight away from you, and you could
hold your finger and point to him and never have to move it. But when
he gets to the bottom of the hill and the ground levels out, then as he
continues on you have to point your finger----

Mr. SPECTER. Raise your finger as you are indicating with your finger
now?

Sergeant ZAHM. Right; you would have to raise your finger to track the
target.

Mr. SPECTER. So that if you were aiming at a man in a moving car
driving on the horizontal, as he got farther away from you, would you
(a) hold your rifle at the same level, (b) lower it, or (c) raise it?

Sergeant ZAHM. If you were in an elevated, a slightly elevated
position, and he was driving on straight level terrain, you would have
to continually track and raise your weapon as he increased his distance
from you.

Mr. SPECTER. And if he was going down in an angle of descent, would
that decrease the necessity for you to raise your rifle in tracking him?

Sergeant ZAHM. Right; it would slow the movement down. There still
might be a slight movement, but it wouldn't be as fast. Therefore, not
affecting the aiming or possibly having to introduce a lead in your
aiming, because the target is staying relatively in the same position
on the line of sight.

Mr. SPECTER. So then it would have been an aid to the assassin to have
had the President's car going on a downgrade because that would have
taken into consideration some of the adjustment necessary by virtue of
the greater distance between the rifle and the victim?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add, Sergeant Zahm, which you
think might be helpful in this analysis?

Sergeant ZAHM. No, sir; I don't think so.

Mr. SPECTER. Thank you very much for appearing before the Commission
today, sir.




TESTIMONY OF C. A. HAMBLEN

The testimony of C. A. Hamblen was taken at 2:50 p.m., on July 23,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. You may remain seated. Will you raise your right hand? Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on
the President's Commission investigating the assassination of
President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony
by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive
Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of
Congress, No. 137. You are entitled under the rules of the Commission
governing the taking of testimony of witnesses to have an attorney
present, should you wish. I understand that you are present pursuant
to a subpena that was served on you some days ago by the U.S. Secret
Service, and I presume since you don't have an attorney with you at
this time, you are prepared to proceed with your testimony without an
attorney?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I don't need an attorney. You might wish to make a little
correction. This should be C. A. Hamblen instead of C. R.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your name is C. A. H-a-m-b-l-e-n?

Mr. HAMBLEN. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are you?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I will be 50 in December.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are employed by the Western Union Telegraph Co.;
isn't that right?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you worked for them?

Mr. HAMBLEN. It will be 38 years the 6th day of August.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to come right to the point in this deposition. I
think you know basically the reason we have asked you to come over.
It is my understanding that you had a conversation with a newspaper
reporter by the name of Bob Fenley shortly after the assassination, in
which you told him, in substance, that you thought that a man who you
thought looked like Lee Oswald had been in your office and had either
sent a telegram or cashed a money order telegram that he had in his
possession; is that correct?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Not exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is it exactly?

Mr. HAMBLEN. During that time, I came in contact with newspaper
correspondents from all over the world. In my years of service to the
company, I have never disclosed the contents of a telegram, who they
were addressed to, who they were from, or anything pertaining to them.

I don't think I told Mr. Fenley that a Lee Oswald had been in there,
because talking with those correspondents, I wouldn't divulge any
patron coming into the telegraph office in search of any of our
services, money orders, telegrams, collateral services, collection
services, anything that we have to offer. I believe there is some
misunderstanding on Mr. Fenley's part there. Perhaps I did tell him
that I thought I had seen someone that looked like the man that I saw
over television.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember----

Mr. HAMBLEN. I thought he was the assassinator.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember talking to Mr. Fenley about this?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I don't remember telling anyone that, of anyone filing
a telegram with us. I remember talking with Fenley, but I wouldn't
disclose any information.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you say to Fenley?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Just in general conversation like I would with Wes Wise or
any of the other reporters that I come in contact with.

Mr. LIEBELER. Didn't you tell Fenley that you thought you had seen
somebody that reminded you of Oswald in your office?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes; I did tell him that I had saw Oswald. I may have
told him that. I don't recall what all was said--as many of those
correspondents that I talked to during that period of time. Then
the employees under me, we never discuss any telegrams unless it is
necessary for them to ask me to pass upon a telegram so it could be
transmitted.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling Fenley that when you saw the
picture of the alleged assassin on television, that he looked very much
like a man that had caused you a hard time on several instances in your
office?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I don't remember telling Fenley anything like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember signing a statement to that effect for
Mr. Wilcox on December 2, 1963, and I show you a copy.

Mr. HAMBLEN. That I told Fenley that I saw that man in there?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. HAMBLEN. I told Wilcox that I thought I saw him, but I don't think
I told Fenley.

Mr. LIEBELER. Read the first paragraph of that statement.

Mr. HAMBLEN (reading). I don't think I told Fenley that. I remember
telling Mr. Wilcox that I thought a party had been in there that
resembled Oswald, on several different occasions.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now the statement that I have shown you here, which
is Wilcox Exhibit No. 3005, is a copy of a statement that you signed on
December 2, 1963, isn't it? That is your signature?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes; that is my signature.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could I have it back, please? Now, that statement says,
and I quote:

"I was in conversation with a reporter at the counter and remarked to
him that I was watching my TV, enjoying the Ernie Ford show, when word
was flashed that the President had been shot and that I thought to
myself what a coincidence it was that I recognized the picture of the
accused gunman when I recognized it when he was slain in jail. He asked
me how I could remember so vividly the photo and my answer to him that
the picture was or was the spit image of a party that had caused me a
hard time on several instances in his transactions of business within
the past several months. (Mr. Bob Fenley was the reporter.)"

Mr. HAMBLEN. Well, now, if I gave Bob any information like that,
I don't recall it now. I might have at the time that I wrote the
statement.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you had several conversations with Mr. Wilcox about
this whole matter over a period of time?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Wilcox and the company conducted a thorough
investigation of the files?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I am sure they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. And tried to find the telegrams that you thought this man
that was in there may have sent; isn't that right?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to find them?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I wasn't able to detect any one.

Mr. LIEBELER. After this investigation was made, Mr. Wilcox showed you
these telegrams that you have associated or thought might be associated
with Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. They were brought to me in the presence of Mr. Wilcox and
the vice president of the company in charge of this investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. You weren't able to identify any of those telegrams as
having been sent by this man you thought looked like Oswald; isn't that
right?

Mr. HAMBLEN. That's right. And I think I am pretty good on recognizing
handwriting after handling as many as I have over those years of time.

Mr. LIEBELER. To the best of your recollection at this time, do you
think that Lee Oswald was ever in your office?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I wouldn't say that it was Lee Oswald. I would say it was
someone that resembled him from the picture that I had seen in the
paper and on TV.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to state positively that it was Lee
Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a photograph that has been marked Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-A, and ask you if you can see anybody in that picture
that you think might have been the man that was in your office that we
have been talking about.

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Bringuier
Exhibit No. 1, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall specifically that Mr. Aubrey Lee Lewis at
one time in the fall of 1963 had some trouble paying somebody a money
order because this fellow expected to get the money order without
proper identification; that you became involved in this and helped Mr.
Lewis handle it?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what the fellow looked like?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No; I can't tell you what he looked like.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if it was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I wouldn't say that it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think he resembled Oswald in any way?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No; I don't. Different ways people dress and everything,
they come in one time and we pay them money orders and the next time
they come in we hardly recognize them. I remember it was a very small
money order, too small to quibble over. I can't remember where it was
from. I know it was under $10, I know that.

Usually I pay people without identification when it is a small money
order, which the clerks are not allowed to do. They have to get my
permission before they can make payment on a money order where a person
is unable to furnish proper identification. But on small amounts, I
take it upon myself to assume the responsibility, hoping that I will
pay the right man.

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture that we have looked at, and
after reviewing your recollection, you are not able to identify any of
the people who you saw in your office during that period as being Lee
Harvey Oswald, isn't that a fact?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in assuming that you are quite certain that
Oswald was not a regular customer, in any event? He was never coming
into your office at regular intervals, is that correct?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Well, I wouldn't say Lee Oswald came in there at regular
intervals. We have patrons that visit us sometimes once a week,
sometimes half a dozen times a week. If it was him, he was very
infrequent. I will say if it was him, he wasn't there over three times,
that I recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. There was a fellow that you thought resembled Oswald to
some extent that did come in on occasion, or at least two or three
times, but you are not able to positively state that it was Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that in your discussions
with Mr. Wilcox and with the other officials of the company, you
did the best that you could to straighten this whole matter out and
determine whether it was Oswald or not?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I certainly did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were unable, after working with Mr. Wilcox, to pin
down any of these telegrams or money orders that would indicate that it
was Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, specifically, I show you a picture marked "Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-C," and ask you if that looks like that man who was in
your office.

Mr. HAMBLEN. No; I wouldn't say that that was the man that was in
there. No resemblance.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to cut your testimony as short as I possibly can,
because you are not feeling well. We appreciate your cooperation in
coming in when you don't feel well like you have.

Mr. HAMBLEN. I appreciate it. I was in the X-ray all morning and
yesterday morning for 2 hours.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamblen, for coming in. I
appreciate it very much.

Mr. HAMBLEN. If I can help you any further, well, you have my address.

Mr. LIEBELER. We will get in touch with you.




TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GENE FENLEY

The testimony of Robert Gene Fenley, was taken at 9:45 a.m., on July
14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex. by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr.,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Sam Kelley, assistant
attorney general of Texas, was present.


Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Robert Gene Fenley. Mr. Fenley,
my name is Leon Hubert. I am a member of the advisory staff of the
general counsel of the President's Commission.

Under the provisions of Executive Order 11130 dated November 29,
1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of
procedure adopted by the President's Commission in conformance with
that Executive order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized
to take a sworn deposition from you. I state to you now that the
general nature of the Commission's inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate
and report upon the facts relevant to the assassination of President
Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In particular as to you, Mr. Fenley, the nature of the inquiry today
is to determine what facts you know about the death of Oswald and any
other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry. Now, I
understand that you are appearing here today by virtue of a letter
request mailed to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the
staff of the President's Commission, which you received about 4 days
ago?

Mr. FENLEY. That is correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you please rise so I may administer the oath? Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?

Mr. FENLEY. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name?

Mr. FENLEY. Robert Gene Fenley.

Mr. HUBERT. G-e-n-e is your middle name?

Mr. FENLEY. Correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Where do you live, sir?

Mr. FENLEY. 3701 Strayhorn Drive, Mesquite, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation, Mr. Fenley?

Mr. FENLEY. Reporter for the Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so employed?

Mr. FENLEY. Nine years.

Mr. HUBERT. How old are you?

Mr. FENLEY. Thirty-six.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you in newspaper work before you joined the Times
Herald?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. With what newspaper?

Mr. FENLEY. Prior to the Times Herald, I was with the Lubbock Avalanche
Journal, the Denton Record Chronicle, and the Pryor, Oklahoma, Times
Democrat.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you go to college, sir?

Mr. FENLEY. I went to Oklahoma University.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you graduate?

Mr. FENLEY. Four years. No; I did not graduate.

Mr. HUBERT. Study journalism?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; part of the time.

Mr. HUBERT. Your whole adult experience, I gather, therefore, has been
in newspaper work?

Mr. FENLEY. That is true.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, do you know a Mr. Hamblen connected with the Western
Union Co. here in Dallas?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I have talked with him on one occasion. I don't know
him personally.

Mr. HUBERT. What was that one occasion?

Mr. FENLEY. The date is rather vague in my mind.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us perhaps the occasion?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I am a stringer.

Mr. HUBERT. A what?

Mr. FENLEY. A stringer. A correspondent for Time magazine, and I had
written a long piece which we transmitted by Western Union, and I had
gone into Western Union to hand this over for transmitting, and I fell
in conversation with Mr. Hamblen.

Mr. HUBERT. Had you known him prior to that time?

Mr. FENLEY. No; I had not.

Mr. HUBERT. Could you tell us about what time of day it was?

Mr. FENLEY. It was at night. I forget the exact time of night, but I
believe I had driven from Mesquite with the story to give it to Western
Union. It might have been 11 or 12 o'clock.

Mr. HUBERT. It happened that Hamblen was the clerk or employee of the
Western Union in service?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us how you came to engage him in conversation?

Mr. FENLEY. He noticed the wire or press message which I had, and it
had to do with the assassination, or Oswald, frankly. I can't remember
the content of the wire, but we sort of chatted there for a moment, and
he recalled that he was certain that Oswald had come into the office on
occasion.

I don't know whether he used the word several. I took it to mean that.
And received some various small amounts of money orders. And certainly
this was interesting to me. We kept chatting and I asked him, now how
big were the amounts of the orders, and he said, "I don't think there
would be anything over $15, $10 or $15." And I asked him, "Now, you
are pretty sure this was Oswald? I mean, the guy you have seen in
the pictures and things like that?" And he replied he was. He said,
"He used to come in and would give the girls a hard time. He was a
cantankerous individual."

Mr. HUBERT. Did he mention what girls?

Mr. FENLEY. No; not by name. So he said, "I believe the last time"--and
he couldn't recall the date or anything--"that he came in, he went
himself to wait on the fellow because he knew that he was sort of
difficult to deal with." Well, this was certainly interesting to me as
a newspaperman.

Mr. HUBERT. Had you heard that story before?

Mr. FENLEY. No; I had not.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, your coming upon this story was something
of a gratuity?

Mr. FENLEY. It certainly was. I was slightly amazed. And the other
thing, there was a marble countertop there in the office, and he
said, or he recalled that Oswald had written in what he described a
curious sort of printing with, as best he could tell, he wrote out some
letters. For instance, an "N" he said as printed by Oswald would have a
high rising right side to it. He said it was a rather curious sort of
printing.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he demonstrate that to you?

Mr. FENLEY. He demonstrated this on the marble.

Mr. HUBERT. Hamblen did so?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he indicate that it was in a foreign alphabet?

Mr. FENLEY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. Just a peculiar art?

Mr. FENLEY. I took it to be certainly the English alphabet, but with a
peculiar sort of printing.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he indicate what was the nature of the difficulty that
he had had on previous occasions with the man he said was Oswald?

Mr. FENLEY. Nothing other than an indication that Oswald was difficult
to deal with.

Mr. HUBERT. But he didn't say how he was difficult to deal with?

Mr. FENLEY. No; not specifically. Well, at this moment I thought, well,
this sounds like quite an interesting story. And Hamblen gave me his
card. So I went home, and the next day----

Mr. HUBERT. How long was the conversation?

Mr. FENLEY. Oh, not over 10 minutes long. I asked him also, which I
failed to mention, how could we get the records, or how could anyone
get the records, and he indicated it would be very difficult.

Of course, this would be very helpful if you would get the names or
the identification of people who had sent any money orders to Oswald,
and he indicated that there were so many of that type of money order
coming in that they just couldn't keep all the records. And I got the
impression that it would be either impossible or almost impossible to
run it down.

Mr. HUBERT. You mentioned, I think, that you were particularly
interested as to the certainty of his identification of Oswald as the
man, and that you made some inquiry along that line?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. What did you do by way of testing him, as it were, on that
identification?

Mr. FENLEY. Well, as I said, I went home that night, and, of course,
we don't have--we are an afternoon newspaper and don't have deadlines
until the morning.

The next morning I went to talk to our police reporter, whose name is
George Carter, and I hold him what Hamblen had told me. I said I am not
too sure of it. I think it needs a double check. And he said, well, I
know the guy.

Mr. HUBERT. Meaning Hamblen?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; he said he knew the fellow over at Western Union, and
he said, "I know he is in at Mike's, which is a little barbecue stand
across from the city hall." Hamblen would come into Mike's on occasion,
and George knew him.

And I said, "George, why don't you go talk to him and see if he will
tell you the same thing?" And George did. When he did, we compared
notes, and he had told George just precisely, as best we knew, the same
content he told me. So George wrote the story.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you yourself make any notes contemporaneously with the
conversation with Hamblen or later?

Mr. FENLEY. No; I may have made some at home, jotted down a couple of
things on a scrap of paper. In fact, I know I did.

Mr. HUBERT. Is that available?

Mr. FENLEY. I doubt it. I am sure I have thrown it away. I was very
interested in the story, but I was sort of afraid to take notes in
front of him, since a lot of people will suddenly freeze up when you
start taking notes.

Mr. HUBERT. But to come back to the question of identification, I think
you mentioned that it struck you that that was the key to the story, as
it were?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you press him in any way about the identification?

Mr. FENLEY. Not a great deal. I really, after asking another question
about it, saying, "Now you really feel like you saw Oswald," then I
didn't press the matter any further, because I was afraid he would
freeze up.

Mr. HUBERT. I understand too that his identification, as he stated it
to you, was based upon comparison of the mental image he had of the
man that had come in with the pictures of Oswald he had seen since the
assassination?

Mr. FENLEY. On television. And frankly, for that reason, I wasn't too
darn sure that he knew what he was talking about. So I mean, you always
have this suspicion that somebody is trying to identify in the case or
something, and this is precisely why I went to Carter and said, "Why
don't you talk to him?"

Mr. HUBERT. In other words even on that day you were wondering whether
this man really had seen Oswald or not?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he mention to you anything about Oswald having come to
collect any money order in company with the person of Spanish or Latin
American appearance?

Mr. FENLEY. No; he did one thing, and I am really squeezing my memory
here. I believe he said he thought he lived at the "Y" on one occasion,
that he came over again--I am not too certain of that because all of
this business is really, there is so much of this jumbled up, but I do
believe he said he thought he was living at the "Y."

Mr. HUBERT. There was no other person present when you spoke to Hamblen?

Mr. FENLEY. There were people in the foyer of the office.

Mr. HUBERT. But no one in this conversation?

Mr. FENLEY. No one immediately.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Hamblen know who you were?

Mr. FENLEY. I think so, being that I did send the telegram addressed to
Time, Inc., and signed Robert Fenley of Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. HUBERT. Did this conversation occur after your story had been
filed, or while it was being filed, or interspersed?

Mr. FENLEY. Interspersed.

Mr. HUBERT. And he volunteered all of this?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. I mean the beginning of it?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I certainly forgot what preceded his volunteering
it, but it was a volunteered thing. Certainly I couldn't have had any
information to question him.

Mr. HUBERT. In fact, you did not have any information about this at all?

Mr. FENLEY. No; it took me rather by surprise.

Mr. HUBERT. Now there is one other matter. You indicated you didn't
know what day this occurred on, and I wonder if there is any way you
could fix it? It would have been, I suppose, after the shooting of
Oswald?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; certainly.

Mr. HUBERT. How long after?

Mr. FENLEY. It wasn't too long after that. Now I remember one other
person who came in, and oddly enough he didn't hear the conversation,
but there is sort of a coincidence that at the door was a fellow by the
name of Marsh Clark who is also a full-time Time man.

Mr. HUBERT. With what?

Mr. FENLEY. I believe he is in Detroit or Chicago.

Mr. HUBERT. With what?

Mr. FENLEY. Time. And also I saw that he had a long thick file, and I
casually inquired who he was with, and it turned out he was with Time
also. Marsh, I don't believe--in fact I am fairly certain--did not hear
what Hamblen had told me.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Marsh Clark come in, or did you see him after your
conversation was over?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I made myself acquainted to him after the conversation
with Hamblen, but he was the only other person that I could identify
as being there. I was trying to think by that--now Marsh was still in
town, so it must not have been--we could go back to the file on this
thing and find that story, and it would have been about 2 days before
that story appeared.

Mr. HUBERT. Let me make this point to you. I notice from the calendar
that I have before me of the year 1963 that November 28 was Thursday
and was Thanksgiving. Could you relate this meeting with Hamblen to
that date?

Mr. FENLEY. It seems to me it might be--my memory on these things
is terrible--but it seems to me that it might have been around
Thanksgiving, now that you mention it.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you say that it was within the week immediately
succeeding the shooting of Oswald?

Mr. FENLEY. I couldn't be positive, but I think it could have been;
yes. This could be checked very easily by going to the newspaper file
and getting the date and then going back a couple of days.

Mr. HUBERT. This Mr. Carter, I think you said, checked with Mr.
Hamblen? That is, he told you he did?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. On the same day that you told him about it, which was the
next day?

Mr. FENLEY. The next day after; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you mentioned that he said that you suggested that
he check it out with Hamblen, and that he did right away, or in a few
hours?

Mr. FENLEY. I would have written the story myself, except I felt
a little dubious, I must say, of it and I wanted George to do the
same thing and see if the story matched. So now, frankly, I am not
too positive when George actually talked to Hamblen, but I believe
the story appeared on a Saturday morning. So if it could have been
Thanksgiving, if Thanksgiving would be on a Thursday, and George talked
to him on Friday, it would appear for the Saturday paper.

Mr. HUBERT. But you have a recollection that Clark spoke to you after
having spoken to Hamblen?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I am certain of that.

Mr. HUBERT. Before the story appeared?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And told you that the story he got from Hamblen was about
the same as what you told him Hamblen told you?

Mr. FENLEY. You mean Carter?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes; George Carter.

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Is there anything else, sir, you would like to comment upon
concerning this matter?

Mr. FENLEY. No; Gee, I wish I--I am still very curious about this, but
what results, if any, this yielded, frankly, I don't mean this for the
record, but I frankly heard that he recanted the tale.

Mr. HUBERT. Let me ask you this. This is a part of the formality of
closing these depositions. I don't think, and I ask you to state
whether you concur, that there has been any conversation between us
this morning other than that which has been recorded in this deposition?

Mr. FENLEY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. You do concur?

Mr. FENLEY. I concur.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. FENLEY. Yes, sir.




TESTIMONY OF AUBREY LEE LEWIS

The testimony of Aubrey Lee Lewis was taken at 11:30 a.m., on July 14,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr.,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Dean Robert G. Story,
special counsel to the attorney general of Texas and Sam Kelley,
assistant attorney general of Texas, were present.


Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Aubrey Lee Lewis. Mr. Lewis,
my name is Leon Hubert. I am a member of the advisory staff of the
general counsel of the President's Commission. Under the provisions
of Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and the joint
resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of procedure adopted by
the President's Commission in conformance with that Executive order
and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn
deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of
the Commission's inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon
the facts relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular as to you,
Mr. Lewis, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine what facts
you know about the death of Oswald and any other pertinent facts you
may know about the general inquiry. Now I understand, Mr. Lewis, that
you appeared here today by virtue of a letter requesting you to do so,
addressed to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff of
the President's Commission.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. When did you receive that?

Mr. LEWIS. It was Friday.

Mr. HUBERT. Friday, the 10th, is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you stand, please, and take the oath? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. LEWIS. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your name?

Mr. LEWIS. Aubrey Lee Lewis.

Mr. HUBERT. Where do you live?

Mr. LEWIS. 2321 Tolosa Drive.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?

Mr. LEWIS. I am an assistant branch manager.

Mr. HUBERT. Of what?

Mr. LEWIS. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Mr. HUBERT. Where?

Mr. LEWIS. 7620 Lemmon Avenue.

Mr. HUBERT. In what city?

Mr. LEWIS. Dallas, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so occupied?

Mr. LEWIS. Five years.

Mr. HUBERT. What was your occupation prior to that time?

Mr. LEWIS. U.S. Navy.

Mr. HUBERT. And prior to that?

Mr. LEWIS. High school.

Mr. HUBERT. How old are you?

Mr. LEWIS. Twenty-six.

Mr. HUBERT. So that all of your adult life you have been employed by
the Western Union?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Have you held the same position all that time?

Mr. LEWIS. No; I have held the same position about the last year and a
half.

Mr. HUBERT. What are your general duties in that capacity?

Mr. LEWIS. I am an operator to receive and send telegrams, and advise
the other personnel, instruct the new personnel about the daily routine
of the office.

Mr. HUBERT. Is that branch number known by a particular designation or
number?

Mr. LEWIS. It is B-2 branch office.

Mr. HUBERT. On Lemmon?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes; 7620 Lemmon Avenue.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know Mr. C. A. Hamblen?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. What is his first name?

Mr. LEWIS. Curtis.

Mr. HUBERT. Is he employed by the Western Union?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Where?

Mr. LEWIS. At 2034 Main, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. That is the downtown office?

Mr. LEWIS. That is the main branch; yes, sir; main office.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you known him?

Mr. LEWIS. I have known him the better part of 5 years. About 4-1/2.

Mr. HUBERT. Have you ever worked with him?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. When?

Mr. LEWIS. You mean what years, or when?

Mr. HUBERT. I have specifically in mind sometime prior to November 26.

Mr. LEWIS. I worked under him nearly 3 years.

Mr. HUBERT. Where was that?

Mr. LEWIS. That was at the main office, 2034 Main. He is the early
night manager.

Mr. HUBERT. At the Main Street branch?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. So that you worked under him at the Main Street branch
until about 2 years ago?

Mr. LEWIS. About a year and a half ago.

Mr. HUBERT. Now were you working with him either at the Main Street
branch or at the other branch that you mentioned sometime during the
fall of 1963?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Where was that? Which one?

Mr. LEWIS. That was at the Main Street; 2034 Main.

Mr. HUBERT. How did you come to be working there?

Mr. LEWIS. I was pulled in from my job because they were short
downtown. People were on vacation.

Mr. HUBERT. How long a period did you work with Mr. Hamblen then at the
Main branch?

Mr. LEWIS. I was down 2 weeks altogether, and he was out the first
week. I relieved him the first week, and then I relieved this other
fellow the second week, and I worked under him the second week I was
there.

Mr. HUBERT. So that you worked under Mr. Hamblen at the Main branch
during the early night shift for 1 week?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Could you place that week?

Mr. LEWIS. It was in October, I believe. I am not for sure.

Mr. HUBERT. Would that be a matter of record on this part?

Mr. LEWIS. It is in the paper there. I don't know exactly what date it
was.

Mr. HUBERT. I now show you a photostatic copy of a document dated
Dallas, Tex., December 4, 1963, addressed to Mr. Wilcox, apparently
signed by Aubrey Lee Lewis, which has heretofore been identified as
follows: "Exhibit No. 3006 in the deposition of Laurance R. Wilcox at
Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964, WJL." I have shown you this photostatic
copy of this document which I have just described, and I now ask you if
that is a photostat of your signature?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Is this document addressed to Mr. Wilcox and identified as
I have stated a moment ago, a correct statement of facts, so far as you
know?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Now I wish you would give us further details concerning the
incident to which reference is made in this Exhibit No. 3006, Wilcox'
deposition, with reference to Hamblen's difficulty with a man named
Oswald?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, as I said, I was working the early night money order
counter, and this party approached me and said he had a money order,
and I asked him for his identification, which he didn't have any at
that time. And I asked him could he obtain some, and he said he guessed
he could if he had to. He left and came back with some identification.
I believe it was a little Navy ID release card. And I paid him on that.
He gave me quite a bit of trouble.

Mr. HUBERT. Of what nature?

Mr. LEWIS. Oh, he was cursing and telling how lousy everything was.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Mr. Hamblen have any part in that matter?

Mr. LEWIS. I beg your pardon?

Mr. HUBERT. Did Mr. Hamblen have any part in this matter?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, yes. When we have difficulty with anybody, he comes up
and helps us.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he come up on this occasion?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he speak to this individual?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us what conversation or statements passed
between Mr. Hamblen and the individual?

Mr. LEWIS. It was just about the identification, about that you have to
have it before you can get your money.

Mr. HUBERT. Prior to the time when the man went off to get the
identification?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How long was Mr. Hamblen with this man?

Mr. LEWIS. I couldn't say for sure. I don't really know.

Mr. HUBERT. How long were you with him on the first occasion?

Mr. LEWIS. The first occasion I would say about 4 to 5 minutes.

Mr. HUBERT. Now how long after having left to get the identification
did he come back with his identification you referred to?

Mr. LEWIS. It wasn't long. I would say about 15 to 30 minutes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Mr. Hamblen see him then?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How do you know that?

Mr. LEWIS. Because he came back up to the counter.

Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Hamblen did?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Why did he do that? Did you ask him to?

Mr. LEWIS. He saw him come in, and he came back and helped me out with
him.

Mr. HUBERT. Was this person disagreeable on the second occasion?

Mr. LEWIS. He was somewhat disagreeable--still in a nasty mood--you
might say.

Mr. HUBERT. When you say nasty mood, could you give us an example of
what physically happened that you characterize as nasty?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, cursing and telling us how lousy we are, and that
he had been paid money orders before and never had to have any
identification. And just generally what everybody else tells us. It is
nothing new. We hear it quite often.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember this person's name?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Mr. Hamblen tell you that he had had difficulty with
this man prior to this occasion?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you that he had ever cashed any money orders
for this person prior to this occasion?

Mr. LEWIS. I don't believe so, no, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you recall any address to the payee?

Mr. LEWIS. The YMCA is the only address that he gave me.

Mr. HUBERT. Was the telegram money order addressed to the YMCA?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir; as far as I can remember, it was.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, now, as I understand it, it must have come in with
the telegram?

Mr. LEWIS. He came in with the check.

Mr. HUBERT. The check?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Your recollection is, the check was addressed to the YMCA,
to an individual at the Y?

Mr. LEWIS. We have a rubber stamp at each branch office which is
stamped at the top of their checks where it was issued, and as I
recall, it was issued at the Cotton Exchange office.

Mr. HUBERT. At the Cotton Exchange office?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Of Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. LEWIS. Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. So that there was someone in Dallas sending a money order
from the Cotton Exchange office?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir. That is where it was addressed, to the Cotton
Exchange. That is where the money order was sent to. I have no idea
where it was sent from.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, what is this part then about, YMCA?

Mr. LEWIS. We have an "Office Issued" and there is a rubber stamp on
the check where it was issued at, but I have no idea or know where it
was coming from. That was where the check was written up at, at the
Cotton Exchange.

Mr. HUBERT. And it was addressed to the payee?

Mr. LEWIS. To the payee at the YMCA.

Mr. HUBERT. How are those checks handled? For instance, when it was
issued by the Cotton Exchange branch, would it have been mailed or
delivered?

Mr. LEWIS. Delivered by boy.

Mr. HUBERT. Delivered by boy?

Mr. LEWIS. To the clerk.

Mr. HUBERT. To the addressee?

Mr. LEWIS. To the clerk at the YMCA. The clerk signs for it and keeps
them there in a little box they have there.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know of your own knowledge whether this was done in
this case? That is to say, that the clerk receipted for it at the YMCA?

Mr. LEWIS. So far as I know, that is how it was handled.

Mr. HUBERT. I mean if you know that absolutely, or are you just
assuming that is the way?

Mr. LEWIS. I am just assuming that is the way it was handled.

Mr. HUBERT. You don't have any particular knowledge on this occasion?

Mr. LEWIS. No; I don't.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you give us a description of this individual?

Mr. LEWIS. The only thing I could remember was that he was of a
feminine, very slender build fellow.

Mr. HUBERT. What do you mean?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, he talked funny and peculiar.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he have an accent?

Mr. LEWIS. No accent. Just the way a person acts.

Mr. HUBERT. What was his mannerism?

Mr. LEWIS. Mannerism was feminine.

Mr. HUBERT. In what way?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I don't know how to describe it.

Mr. HUBERT. Just an overall impression?

Mr. LEWIS. Just an overall impression, of the person. As far as
remembering his weight and height and everything like that, I wouldn't.
I have no idea.

Mr. HUBERT. Was he dark complexioned?

Mr. LEWIS. Dark complexioned.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember the color of his eyes?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Had dark hair?

Mr. LEWIS. That is the only thing I remember.

Mr. HUBERT. How was he dressed?

Mr. LEWIS. I don't recall that either.

Mr. HUBERT. Was he alone?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir. There was a companion with him.

Mr. HUBERT. How did you know that the person with him was with him? In
fact was a companion?

Mr. LEWIS. They were talking. They came together and left together both
times.

Mr. HUBERT. I understand you to say that the companion of the payee
that we have been talking about was of a Latin American or Spanish type?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes; that I do recall.

Mr. HUBERT. By that, you mean what?

Mr. LEWIS. Dark complexioned, and just looked of Spanish descent.

Mr. HUBERT. Latin American?

Mr. LEWIS. Latin American descent.

Mr. HUBERT. They were speaking English?

Mr. LEWIS. Normal speech in English.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you notice any Spanish accent?

Mr. LEWIS. The fellow had a Spanish accent.

Mr. HUBERT. He was accompanied by the boy with a Spanish accent?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you recall anything else that happened?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir; I wasn't paying much attention to him.

Mr. HUBERT. I don't mean the exact conversation, but just the general
situation.

Mr. LEWIS. No; I wouldn't know.

Mr. HUBERT. How would you describe the person of Spanish accent insofar
as build and size and weight?

Mr. LEWIS. He was of short and slender build.

Mr. HUBERT. Shorter than the payee?

Mr. LEWIS. About the same.

Mr. HUBERT. About the same weight?

Mr. LEWIS. Approximately, yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember how he was dressed?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you recall how much the money order was for?

Mr. LEWIS. No; it was for a small amount. I don't recall the exact
amount.

Mr. HUBERT. You had never had any other business with this payee before?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You didn't have any afterward?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. And Hamblen did not mention to you that he had had any
before?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir. The first time I knew about that was when we went
into our district manager's office.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, I show you a picture which I have marked for
identification on the back thereof on the lower right-hand corner the
following words: "Dallas, Tex., July 14, 1964, Exhibit No. 1 of Aubrey
L. Lewis." I ask you if this picture resembles the person that you have
been testifying about as the payee on the occasion you have mentioned?

Mr. LEWIS. I couldn't say if it resembled him.

Mr. HUBERT. You have no recollection whether it looks like him at all?

Mr. LEWIS. I sure don't.

Mr. HUBERT. You said he had dark hair?

Mr. LEWIS. That is true. He had dark hair, but as far as any features,
I don't remember the eyes or nose or anything. I don't recall them.

Mr. HUBERT. You don't recall, as I understand from your statement, that
the man's name was Oswald?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir; I do not recall that.

Mr. HUBERT. You are familiar with the fact that Mr. Hamblen says he was
Oswald?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes; I am familiar with that.

Mr. HUBERT. But you don't remember?

Mr. LEWIS. I don't remember.

Mr. HUBERT. You cannot tell us now whether or not the picture shown in
Exhibit No. 1, which in fact is a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald, was the
man you have been testifying about as the payee of that money order?

Mr. LEWIS. I couldn't say for sure.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you say for sure either way that it was or it was not?

Mr. LEWIS. No; I can't be sure.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, it could be and it could not be?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir; it could be and it couldn't be. I have no way of
knowing.

Mr. HUBERT. You will not say it was not that man?

Mr. LEWIS. I wouldn't say it wasn't, but I wouldn't say it was, because
it could be. I don't know.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you recall making any comments to Mr. Hamblen on the
occasion that you have been testifying about, and after this payee
had left, that you would like to punch the heads of people of this
character?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes; I made that statement.

Mr. HUBERT. You made that statement to Mr. Hamblen?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Why was that?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, he is just a person that kind of gives you a bad time.
You can do without that kind. You don't have time to fool with them.

Mr. HUBERT. Now when did it first come to your attention that it
was possible that the man that had dealings with you, as you have
testified, might be Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Hamblen, after I had gone back on my job quite sometime,
called me at home one night and asked me did I recall when I had paid
that party, and I told him I recalled it.

And he asked me did I recognize him as being Oswald, and I said, "No,
I have never put it together." I just never did. And I still can't
picture the two. I had forgotten all about it.

Mr. HUBERT. When was it that Hamblen approached you, as you say he did,
and asked you about this?

Mr. LEWIS. I don't recall the date, but it was a couple of weeks after
the assassination, after he was killed.

Mr. HUBERT. You say then it was about the first week in December?

Mr. LEWIS. I would say somewhere along in there. I am not for sure, but
it was a short time span.

Mr. HUBERT. Would it thus have been about 2 months after you had had
this episode, that this episode occurred between you and this man?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Then your memory did not associate the payee with Lee
Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. At that time had you been shown or looked at pictures of
Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LEWIS. I had seen him on TV.

Mr. HUBERT. Have you at any time prior to today been shown a picture of
Lee Harvey Oswald as I have shown it to you?

Mr. LEWIS. I don't recall if Mr. Wilcox had one or not. I am not sure.
But I saw it in the newspapers and on TV, and I don't recall seeing one
that day. I could have. He possibly had one.

Mr. HUBERT. What I am talking about is the day that inquiry was focused
upon the possibility of this payee as Lee Harvey Oswald. Were you then
shown a picture and asked if it was that man as I have done today?

Mr. LEWIS. I believe I was. I am not for sure, but I believe Mr. Wilcox
had one at the time.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you have described the identification card which
this payee ultimately produced and which you ultimately recognized?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. I believe you said it was a Navy ID card?

Mr. LEWIS. It was a little release card you get when you get out of the
service.

Mr. HUBERT. Did it have a picture on it?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir. It just had his name and some of them have serial
numbers and some of them don't.

Mr. HUBERT. So the identification established then was that the person
who held the telegram also held a card addressed to the payee of the
telegram?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he have a library card as well?

Mr. LEWIS. I believe it was a library card also.

Mr. HUBERT. That didn't have any picture?

Mr. LEWIS. That didn't have a picture; no. This ID that he had wasn't
very good at all, as far as we considered identification to pay money
orders.

Mr. HUBERT. Why not?

Mr. LEWIS. We like to have pictures on identification and some legal
papers, you might say; insurance and driver's license.

Mr. HUBERT. Driver's license?

Mr. LEWIS. Driver's license; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you ask for that?

Mr. LEWIS. I asked for it, and he didn't have any.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he say he didn't drive?

Mr. LEWIS. He didn't make comment. He said he didn't have any license.

Mr. HUBERT. You think it was about a half hour after the first episode
that he returned with the other identification?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Was the Latin American looking person with him on both
occasions?

Mr. LEWIS. Both occasions; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir, have you anything to add?

Mr. LEWIS. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you made reference to the fact that the check from
the Western Union, which was the subject of this whole episode, had
been purchased by someone and payable to the payee involved at the
Cotton Exchange branch?

Mr. LEWIS. Cotton Exchange branch.

Mr. HUBERT. Is that in Dallas?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir; it is in the Cotton Exchange Building. I think it
is on North Ervay.[F]

Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir, I ask you whether you concur with me that
since I have met you today, which was the first time we ever met, there
has been no conversation between us other than that which has been
covered in the deposition in one way or another, is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS. That's correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir.

    [F] 608 North St. Paul, one block from Ervay and YMCA.




TESTIMONY OF DEAN ADAMS ANDREWS JR.

The testimony of Dean Adams Andrews, Jr., was taken on July 21, 1964,
at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans,
La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.


Dean Andrews, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Andrews, as you know by now, I am an attorney on
the staff of the President's Commission. I have been authorized to
take your deposition pursuant to authority granted to the Commission
by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint
resolution of Congress, No. 137.

I understand that the Secret Service served a subpena on you last
week to be here today, so you have had the requisite notice for the
proceeding.

As you are a member of the bar--as you know, of course, you are
entitled to counsel, but you can probably forego that if you want to.
You also know that you have all the usual privileges not to answer
questions on the grounds of incrimination and whatever other privileges
you might have and want to exercise.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record, please.

Mr. ANDREWS. Dean, and the middle initial is A, A for Adams, Andrews,
Jr.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am correct, am I not, that you are a member of the Bar
of Louisiana?

Mr. ANDREWS. I am a member of the bar of the State of Louisiana.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you regularly practice law in the city of New Orleans?

Mr. ANDREWS. That's my office; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mr. ANDREWS. 207 Metairie Lawn Drive. That's in Metairie, La.

Mr. LIEBELER. Metairie Lawn Drive in Metairie?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you maintain your offices?

Mr. ANDREWS. 627 Maison Blanche Building, New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am advised by the FBI that you told them that Lee
Harvey Oswald came into your office some time during the summer of
1963. Would you tell us in your own words just what happened as far as
that is concerned?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't recall the dates, but briefly, it is this:
Oswald came in the office accompanied by some gay kids. They were
Mexicanos. He wanted to find out what could be done in connection with
a discharge, a yellow paper discharge, so I explained to him he would
have to advance the funds to transcribe whatever records they had up in
the Adjutant General's office. When he brought the money, I would do
the work, and we saw him three or four times subsequent to that, not in
the company of the gay kids. He had this Mexicano with him. I assume he
is a Mex because the Latins do not wear a butch haircut.

Mr. LIEBELER. The first time he came in he was with these Mexicans, and
there were also some gay kids. By that, of course, you mean people that
appeared to you to be homosexuals?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, they swish. What they are, I don't know. We call
them gay kids.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you ever seen any of those kids before?

Mr. ANDREWS. None of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you seen any of them since?

Mr. ANDREWS. Since the first time they came in?

Mr. LIEBELER. Since the first time they came in?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they ever come back with Oswald?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; Mexicanos came back.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you see these gay kids after the first time?

Mr. ANDREWS. First district precinct. Police picked them up for wearing
clothes of the opposite sex.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many of them were there?

Mr. ANDREWS. About 50.

Mr. LIEBELER. They weren't all with Oswald, were they?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; Oswald--you see, they made what they call a scoop and
put them all in the pokey. I went down for the ones I represented. They
were in the holding pavilion. I paroled them and got them out.

Mr. LIEBELER. You do represent from time to time some of these gay
kids, is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that some of the gay kids that you saw at the
time the police arrested this large group of them for wearing clothes
of the opposite sex were the ones that had been with Oswald?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify them by name?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; you see, they just--we don't even open up files on
them. We don't open a file. We mark what we call a working file. We
make a few notes and put it in the general week's work. If you come
back and the office is retained, we make a permanent file and--but
these kids come and go like--you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were these people picked up by the police as you
have told us?

Mr. ANDREWS. Let me think. Some time in May. I went and checked the
records. I couldn't find nothing on it. I believe it's May of 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. They were picked up in May of 1963?

Mr. ANDREWS. On Friday.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was after Oswald had been in your office?

Mr. ANDREWS. After Oswald's initial contact. I think he had come back
with this Mexicano one more time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before these people were arrested?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; then the second time he came back, we talked about
the yellow paper discharge, about his status as a citizen, and about
his wife's status.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now before we get into that, let me try and pin down how
long it was after the first time Oswald came in that these kids all
got arrested. All 50 of them for wearing these clothes?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't know it was 50. That I can't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it a month? Two months? A week?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; it wasn't that. Ten days at the most.

Mr. LIEBELER. I suppose the New Orleans Police Department files would
reflect the dates these people were picked up?

Mr. ANDREWS. I checked the first district's blotter and the people are
there, but I just can't get their names. You see, they wear names just
like you and I wear clothes. Today their name is Candy; tomorrow it is
Butsie; next day it is Mary. You never know what they are. Names are
a very improbable method of identification. More sight. Like you see
a dog. He is black and white. That's your dog. You know them by sight
mostly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what date it was that that large arrest
was made?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; every Friday is arrest day in New Orleans. They clean
them all up. The shotgun squad keeps the riots, the mugging, and all
the humbug out. They have been doing that very effectively. You can
pick just any Friday.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was on a Friday?

Mr. ANDREWS. It had to be a Friday or Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. In May of 1963?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. After you saw these kids at this big pickup on Friday or
Saturday, did you ever see any of them again after that?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; still looking for them. They owe me a fee.

Mr. LIEBELER. They are always the hardest ones to find.

Mr. ANDREWS. They usually pay. They are screwed in.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did Oswald say to you about his own citizenship
status? You say that he mentioned that the second time he came back.
What did he talk to you about in that regard?

Mr. ANDREWS. They came in usually after hours, about 5, 5:15, and as
I recall, he had alleged that he had abandoned his citizenship. He
didn't say how; he didn't say where. I assumed that he was one of the
people who wanted to join The Free World and--I represented one or
two of them. They had belonged to The World Citizenship--I explained
to him there are certain steps he had to do, such as taking an oath
of loyalty to a foreign power, voting in a foreign country election,
or some method that is recognized defectively as loss of citizenship.
Then I told him, "Your presence in the United States is proof you are
a citizen. Otherwise, you would be an alien with an alien registration
with a green card, form 990."

Mr. LIEBELER. Had he told you he had been out of the country?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you where he had gone?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Since he had been out of the country, the fact that he
was back and didn't have an alien card was proof he was a citizen?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember any other part of the conversation?

Mr. ANDREWS. When he asked the questions--I don't know which visit it
was--about citizenship of his wife, I asked the birthplace or origin
cited for citizenship purposes--that's what counts--and he said Russia,
so I just assumed he had met someone somewhere, some place, either in
Russia or in Europe, married them, and brought them over here as a GI,
a GI bride, and wanted to go through the routine of naturalization,
which is 3 years after lawful admission into the United States if you
are married, and five years if you are not, maintain the status here in
the States cumulatively for 5 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate that he wanted to institute citizenship
proceedings for his wife?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I told him to go to Immigration and get the forms.
Cost him $10. All he had to do was execute them. He didn't need a
lawyer. That was the end of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times did he come into your office?

Mr. ANDREWS. Minimum of three, maximum of five, counting initial visit.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you talk about different subjects at different
times? As I understand it, the first time he came there, he was
primarily concerned about his discharge, is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, I may have the subject matter of the visits reversed
because with the company he kept and the conversation--he could talk
fairly well--I figured that this was another one of what we call in my
office free alley clients, so we didn't maintain the normalcy with the
file that--might have scratched a few notes on a piece of pad, and 2
days later threw the whole thing away. Didn't pay too much attention to
him. Only time I really paid attention to this boy, he was in the front
of the Maison Blanche Building giving out these kooky Castro things.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was this, approximately?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't remember. I was coming from the NBC building, and
I walked past him. You know how you see somebody, recognize him. So I
turned around, came back, and asked him what he was doing giving that
junk out. He said it was a job. I reminded him of the $25 he owed the
office. He said he would come over there, but he never did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he was getting paid to hand out this
literature?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how much?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI that he told you that he
was being paid $25 a day for handing out these leaflets?

Mr. ANDREWS. I could have told them that. I know I reminded him of the
$25. I may have it confused, the $25. What I do recall, he said it was
a job. I guess I asked him how much he was making. They were little
square chits a little bit smaller than the picture you have of him over
there [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. He was handing out these leaflets?

Mr. ANDREWS. They were black-and-white pamphlets extolling the virtues
of Castro, which around here doesn't do too good. They have a lot of
guys, Mexicanos and Cubanos, that will tear your head off if they see
you fooling with these things.

Mr. LIEBELER. What were they like?

Mr. ANDREWS. They were pamphlets, single-sheet pamphlets.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just one sheet? It wasn't a booklet?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. What color were the pamphlets? You say it was white paper?

Mr. ANDREWS. White paper offset with black.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could it have been yellow paper?

Mr. ANDREWS. I am totally colorblind. I wouldn't know. But I think it
is black and white.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are colorblind?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Most of them wanted it around there. You give it to
them, the people look at it and they drop it, right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what day of the week this was that you
saw him handing this stuff out?

Mr. ANDREWS. It was in the middle of the week, around Tuesday or
Wednesday.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is the Maison Blanche Building? What street is it
on?

Mr. ANDREWS. 921 Canal Street. It is on this side. It is bounded by
Dauphine and Burgundy.

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is it from the International Trade Mart?

Mr. ANDREWS. It depends on what route you take. If you come up Camp
Street, it would be two blocks to Canal and four blocks toward the
cemetery; so it would be about six blocks. It would be six blocks no
matter which way you went, but you would walk four blocks on Common
Street or Gravier, and then two blocks over the other way.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture
that has been marked as "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you
recognize the individual in that picture and the street scene, if you
are familiar with it.

Mr. ANDREWS. This is Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's the fellow who was in your office?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt about that in your mind?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't believe; no. This is him. I just can't place it.
This isn't where I saw him. This is probably around the vicinity of the
International Trade Mart.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you another picture
that has been marked for identification as "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1,"
and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture and the street
scene.

Mr. ANDREWS. Oswald is marked with an X, and a client of mine is over
here on the right-hand side.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that a a paying client or what?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; paying client [indicating]. And this dress belongs to
a girl friend.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one is your client?

Mr. ANDREWS. It should be three. There's two sisters and this young
lady [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. What's her name?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to the woman that appears on the far
right-hand side of the picture with a handbag on her arm?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you say Oswald is marked with an X, and you identify
that as the man that you saw in your office and the same man you saw
passing out pamphlets?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I call your attention specifically to the second man who
is standing behind Oswald to his right and facing toward the front
wearing a white, short-sleeved shirt and necktie, who also appears to
have some leaflets in his hand. Have you ever seen that man before?

Mr. ANDREWS. The Mexicano that I associate Oswald with is approximately
the same height, with the exception that he has a pronounced short
butch haircut. He is stocky, well built.

Mr. LIEBELER. The fellow that I have indicated to you on "Bringuier
Exhibit No. 1" is too slightly built to be associated with Oswald; is
that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. He is stocky. Has what they call an athletic build.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this other fellow taller than Oswald or shorter than
Oswald?

Mr. ANDREWS. Very close. Not taller. Probably same height; maybe a
little smaller.

Mr. LIEBELER. How much would you say the Mexican weighed, approximately?

Mr. ANDREWS. About 160, 165.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say he was of medium build or heavy build?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, stocky. He could go to "Fist City" pretty good if he
had to.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old would you say he was?

Mr. ANDREWS. About 26. Hard to tell.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what he was wearing when he came into the
office with Oswald on these different occasions?

Mr. ANDREWS. Normally, different colored silk pongee shirts, which are
pretty rare, you know, for the heat, or what appeared to be pongee
material.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to this other fellow?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, he talked Spanish, and all I told him was poco poco.
That was it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you speak Spanish?

Mr. ANDREWS. I can understand a little. I can if you speak it. I can
read it. That's about all.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture which
has been marked "Frank Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C," and ask you if that
is the same man that was in your office and the same man you say was
passing out literature in the street.

Mr. ANDREWS. It appears to be.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you recognize this Mexican again if you saw him?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI that you wouldn't be able
to recognize him again if you saw him?

Mr. ANDREWS. Probably did. Been a long time. There's three people I am
going to find: One of them is the real guy that killed the President;
the Mexican; and Clay Bertrand.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you mean to suggest by that statement that you have
considerable doubt in your mind that Oswald killed the President?

Mr. ANDREWS. I know good and well he did not. With that weapon, he
couldn't have been capable of making three controlled shots in that
short time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are basing your opinion on reports that you have
received over news media as to how many shots were fired in what period
of time; is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. I am basing my opinion on five years as an ordnanceman
in the Navy. You can lean into those things, and with throwing the
bolts--if I couldn't do it myself, 8 hours a day, doing this for a
living, constantly on the range, I know this civilian couldn't do it.
He might have been a sharp marksman at one time, but if you don't lean
into that rifle and don't squeeze and control consistently, your brain
can tell you how to do it, but you don't have the capability.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have used a pronoun in this last series of
statements, the pronoun "it." You are making certain assumptions as to
what actually happened, or you have a certain notion in your mind as to
what happened based on material you read in the newspaper?

Mr. ANDREWS. It doesn't make any difference. What you have to do is
lean into a weapon, and, to fire three shots controlled with accuracy,
this boy couldn't do it. Forget the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. You base that judgment on the fact that, in your own
experience, it is difficult to do that sort of thing?

Mr. ANDREWS. You have to stay with it. You just don't pick up a rifle
or a pistol or whatever weapon you are using and stay proficient with
it. You have to know what you are doing. You have to be a conniver.
This boy could have connived the deal, but I think he is a patsy.
Somebody else pulled the trigger.

Mr. LIEBELER. However, as we have indicated, it is your opinion. You
don't have any evidence other than what you have already told us
about your surmise and opinions about the rifle on which to base that
statement; is that correct? If you do, I want to know what it is.

Mr. ANDREWS. If I did, I would give it to you. It's just taking the
5 years and thinking about it a bit. I have fired as much as 40,000
rounds of ammo a day for 7 days a week. You get pretty good with it as
long as you keep firing. Then I have gone back after 2 weeks. I used to
be able to take a shotgun, go on a skeet, and pop 100 out of 100. After
2 weeks, I could only pop 60 of them. I would have to start shooting
again, same way with the rifle and machineguns. Every other person I
knew, same thing happened to them. You just have to stay at it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did you see Oswald at any time subsequent to that
time you saw him in the street handing out literature?

Mr. ANDREWS. I have never seen him since.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us what month that was, approximately?

Mr. ANDREWS. Summertime. Before July. I think the last time would be
around--the last could have been, I guess, around the 10th of July.

Mr. LIEBELER. Around the 10th of July?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't believe it was after that. It could have been
before, but not after.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you mentioned this Mexican that accompanied Oswald
to your office. Have you seen him at any time subsequent to the last
time Oswald came into your office?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us approximately how long a period of time
elapsed from the last time Oswald came into your office to the last
time you saw him in the street handing out literature?

Mr. ANDREWS. I would say about 6 weeks, just guessing.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have never seen the Mexican at any other time
since then?

Mr. ANDREWS. No. He just couldn't have disappeared because the Mexican
community here is pretty small. You can squeeze it pretty good, the
Latin community. He is not known around here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you made an attempt to find him since the
assassination?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you haven't had any success?

Mr. ANDREWS. No. Not too many places they can go not being noticed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else with Oswald that day you saw him
handing out literature?

Mr. ANDREWS. Oh, people standing there with him. Whether they were with
him or not, I wouldn't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it appear that there was anybody else helping him
hand out literature?

Mr. ANDREWS. There was one person, but they had no literature. They
weren't giving anything out. Let me see that picture of that little
bitty guy, that weasel before.

Mr. LIEBELER. [handing picture to witness]. This is Bringuier Exhibit
No. 1.

Mr. ANDREWS. No; he resembled this boy, but it is not him. It is a pale
face instead of a Latin.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you talked to Oswald on the street that day, did he
give you any idea who was paying him to hand this stuff out?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; he just said, "It's a job."

Mr. LIEBELER. My understanding is, of course, that you are here under
subpena and subpena duces tecum, asking you to bring with you any
records that you might have in your office indicating or reflecting
Oswald's visit, and my understanding is that you indicated that you
were unable to find any such records.

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. My office was rifled shortly after I got out of the
hospital, and I talked with the FBI people. We couldn't find anything
prior to it. Whoever was kind enough to mess my office up, going
through it, we haven't found anything since.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have caused a thorough search to be made of your
office for these records?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You haven't been able to come up with anything?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did there come a time after the assassination when you
had some further involvement with Oswald, or at least an apparent
involvement with Oswald; as I understand it?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; nothing at all with Oswald. I was in Hotel Dieu, and
the phone rang and a voice I recognized as Clay Bertrand asked me if I
would go to Dallas and Houston--I think--Dallas, I guess, wherever it
was that this boy was being held--and defend him. I told him I was sick
in the hospital. If I couldn't go, I would find somebody that could go.

Mr. LIEBELER. You told him you were sick in the hospital and what?

Mr. ANDREWS. That's where I was when the call came through. It came
through the hospital switchboard. I said that I wasn't in shape enough
to go to Dallas and defend him and I would see what I could do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now what can you tell us about this Clay Bertrand? You
met him prior to that time?

Mr. ANDREWS. I had seen Clay Bertrand once some time ago, probably a
couple of years. He's the one who calls in behalf of gay kids normally,
either to obtain bond or parole for them. I would assume that he was
the one that originally sent Oswald and the gay kids, these Mexicanos,
to the office because I had never seen those people before at all. They
were just walk-ins.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that you think you saw Clay Bertrand some time
about 2 years prior to the time you received this telephone call that
you have just told us about?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; he is mostly a voice on the phone.

Mr. LIEBELER. What day did you receive the telephone call from Clay
Bertrand asking you to defend Oswald?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't remember. It was a Friday or a Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately following the assassination?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't know about that. I didn't know. Yes; I did.
I guess I did because I was--they told me I was squirrelly in the
hospital.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had pneumonia; is that right?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And as I understand it, you were under heavy sedation at
that time in connection with your treatment for pneumonia?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; this is what happened: After I got the call, I called
my secretary at her home and asked her if she had remembered Lee Harvey
Oswald's file. Of course, she didn't remember, and I had to tell her
about all the kooky kids. She thought we had a file in the office. I
would assume that he would have called subsequent to this boy's arrest.
I am pretty sure it was before the assassination. I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't mean before the assassination--don't you mean
before Oswald had been shot? After the assassination and before Oswald
had been shot?

Mr. ANDREWS. After Oswald's arrest and prior to his----

Mr. LIEBELER. His death?

Mr. ANDREWS. His death.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now my recollection from reviewing reports from the FBI
is that you first advised the FBI of this, telling them that you recall
that Clay Bertrand had called you at some time between 6 o'clock and
9 o'clock in the evening and spoke to you about this matter. Do you
remember telling the FBI about that?

Mr. ANDREWS. I remember speaking with them. The exact words, I do not,
but that's probably correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what time approximately that Clay
Bertrand did call you?

Mr. ANDREWS. I will tell you: They feed around 4:30. By the time I got
fed, it was about 5 o'clock. They picked the tray up. So that's about
the right time. It's around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you said that after Clay Bertrand called you, you
called your secretary and asked her if she remembered the Oswald file;
is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; she didn't remember Oswald at all. She knows that
occasionally these people walk in and out of the office and she had
remembered something, but nothing of any value.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you remember that after you got out of the
hospital, you discussed with your secretary the telephone call that you
made to her at home?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you recall that she said that she remembered that
you called her at approximately 4 o'clock on the afternoon of November
23, 1963?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now have you--let's take it one step further: Do you
also recall the fact that your private investigator spent most of that
afternoon with you in your hospital room?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; he was there.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was there with you?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; Preston M. Davis.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember approximately what time he left?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been before you called your secretary or
afterwards?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before you called?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; after.

Mr. LIEBELER. After you called your secretary?

Mr. ANDREWS. Let's see. He wasn't there when I made the phone call. He
wasn't there when Clay Bertrand called me, I am pretty sure, because he
would have remembered it if I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You discussed it and he doesn't, in fact, remember that
you received the telephone call from Clay Bertrand?

Mr. ANDREWS. He wasn't there. While he was there, we received no call
from Clay Bertrand or no call concerning the office or business because
I would have talked to him about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that he left before you called your secretary?

Mr. ANDREWS. I think he left around chow time, which, I think, is
around 4 o'clock. I could be wrong.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now after giving this time sequence that we have talked
about here the consideration that I am sure you have after discussing
it with the FBI, have you come up with any solution in your own mind
to the apparent problems that exist here? That is to say, that your
recollection is that you called your secretary after you received the
call from Clay Bertrand and you called your secretary at 4 o'clock,
which would indicate that you must have received the call from Clay
Bertrand prior to 4 o'clock, but you did not receive the call from
Mr. Bertrand while Mr. Davis was there, and he left at approximately
4 o'clock or shortly before you called your secretary, in addition to
which, you first recall receiving the call from Clay Bertrand some time
between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, the time factor I can't help you with. It is
impossible. But I feel this: I wouldn't have called my secretary--if
I couldn't get her to verify it, I would tell you that I was smoking
weed. You know, sailing out on cloud 9.

Mr. LIEBELER. But, in fact, she did verify the fact that you did call
her?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I often thought it was a nightmare or a dream, but
it isn't. It's just that I can't place--other than what I told Regis
Kennedy and John Rice, the exact time I can't help you on. But if it
hadn't been for calling her and asking her----

Mr. LIEBELER. To look up the Oswald file or if she remembered the
Oswald file?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I would just say I have a pretty vivid imagination
and let's just forget it. Anything other than the law practice--I would
say that what Regis suspects is that I was full of that dope, but I
normally take certain steps, and this is the way I would have done it
is what I did. I called her. Had Davis been there when the call came
in, Davis would have been told, and he would have left the hospital,
went down to the office, and shook the office down for the file, and
called me from there before he went home. I know it couldn't have come
in while he was there. The only media of time that I can use is either
medication or food. Of course, being fat, I like food. I wasn't much
interested in food. They weren't feeding me too much, and I am pretty
sure it was after medication and food and the tray had been picked up
that the call came in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of course, they fed you more than once up there?

Mr. ANDREWS. They feed three times a day, but they don't feed you
enough to keep a sparrow alive.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in any event, you are not able to clarify for us
the sequence of what happened?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, the sequence of events had to be this: Davis spent
Saturday afternoon with me. He probably left just before chow, and then
I ate, and the phone call came in some time after chow. I am positive
it wasn't as late as 9 o'clock. I think the latest it could have been
is 6, but Miss Springer says I called her some time around 4, 4:30--I
don't know which.

Mr. LIEBELER. Miss Springer is your secretary?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you recall talking to an FBI agent, Regis L.
Kennedy, and Carl L. Schlaeger on November 25?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't remember--Kennedy, yes; Schlaeger, no. I don't
even know if he was in the same room. I don't think I have even seen
him, much less talk to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Kennedy was; yes?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. They usually go around in pairs?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, they work in teams, so he's got to have been there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now Kennedy came and visited you at the hospital; is that
correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now----

Mr. ANDREWS. I remember that pretty good because I called the Feebees,
and the guy says to put the phone, you know, and nothing happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Feebees?

Mr. ANDREWS. That's what we call the Federal guys. All of a sudden,
like a big hurricane, here they come.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling him at that time that you thought
that Clay Bertrand had come into the office with Oswald when Oswald had
been in the office earlier last spring?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Bertrand ever in the office with Oswald?

Mr. ANDREWS. Not that I remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a picture in your mind of this Clay Bertrand?

Mr. ANDREWS. Oh, I ran up on that rat about 6 weeks ago and he spooked,
ran in the street. I would have beat him with a chain if I had caught
him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you this: When I was down here in April,
before I talked to you about this thing, and I was going to take your
deposition at that time, but we didn't make arrangements, in your
continuing discussions with the FBI, you finally came to the conclusion
that Clay Bertrand was a figment of your imagination?

Mr. ANDREWS. That's what the Feebees put on. I know that the two
Feebees are going to put these people on the street looking, and I
can't find the guy, and I am not going to tie up all the agents on
something that isn't that solid. I told them, "Write what you want,
that I am nuts. I don't care." They were running on the time factor,
and the hills were shook up plenty to get it, get it, get it. I
couldn't give it to them. I have been playing cops and robbers with
them. You can tell when the steam is on. They are on you like the
plague. They never leave. They are like cancer. Eternal.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was the description of the situation?

Mr. ANDREWS. It was my decision if they were to stay there. If I decide
yes, they stay. If I decide no, they go. So I told them, "Close your
file and go some place else." That's the real reason why it was done. I
don't know what they wrote in the report, but that's the real reason.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now subsequent to that time, however, you actually ran
into Clay Bertrand in the street?

Mr. ANDREWS. About 6 weeks ago. I am trying to think of the name of
this bar. That's where this rascal bums out. I was trying to get past
him so I could get a nickel in the phone and call the Feebees or John
Rice, but he saw me and spooked and ran. I haven't seen him since.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him that day?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; if I would have got close enough to talk to him, I
would have grabbed him.

Mr. LIEBELER. What does this guy look like?

Mr. ANDREWS. He is about 5 feet 8 inches. Got sandy hair, blue eyes,
ruddy complexion. Must weigh about 165, 170, 175. He really took off,
that rascal.

Mr. LIEBELER. He recognized you?

Mr. ANDREWS. He had to because if he would have let me get to that
phone and make the call, he would be in custody.

Mr. LIEBELER. You wanted to get hold of this guy and make him available
to the FBI for interview, or Mr. Rice of the Secret Service?

Mr. ANDREWS. What I wanted to do and should have done is crack him in
the head with a bottle, but I figured I would be a good, law-abiding
citizen and call them and let them grab him, but I made the biggest
mistake of the century. I should have grabbed him right there. I
probably will never find him again. He has been bugging me ever since
this happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now before you ran into Clay Bertrand in the street on
this day, did you have a notion in your mind what he looked like?

Mr. ANDREWS. I had seen him before one time to recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw him that day, he appeared to you as he had
before when you recognized him?

Mr. ANDREWS. He hasn't changed any appearance, I don't think. Maybe a
little fatter, maybe a little skinnier.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now I have a rather lengthy report of an interview that
Mr. Kennedy had with you on December 5, 1963, in which he reports you
as stating that you had a mental picture of Clay Bertrand as being
approximately 6 feet 1 inch to 6 feet 2 inches in height, brown hair,
and well dressed.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now this description is different, at least in terms of
height of the man, than the one you have just given us of Clay Bertrand.

Mr. ANDREWS. But, you know, I don't play Boy Scouts and measure them.
I have only seen this fellow twice in my life. I don't think there is
that much in the description. There may be some to some artist, but to
me, there isn't that much difference. Might be for you all.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think you said he was 5 feet 8 inches before.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, I can't give you any better because this time I was
looking for the fellow, he was sitting down. I am just estimating. You
meet a guy 2 years ago, you meet him, period.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which time was he sitting down?

Mr. ANDREWS. He was standing up first time.

Mr. LIEBELER. I thought you met him on the street the second time when
you----

Mr. ANDREWS. No, he was in a barroom.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting in a bar when you saw him 6 weeks ago?

Mr. ANDREWS. A table at the right-hand side. I go there every now and
then spooking for him.

Mr. LIEBELER. What's the name of the bar you saw him in that day, do
you remember?

Mr. ANDREWS. Cosimo's, used to be. Little freaky joint.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, if you didn't see him standing up on that
day----

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that you didn't have any basis on which to change your
mental picture of this man in regard to his height from the first one
that you had?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am at a loss to understand why you told Agent Kennedy
on December 5 that he was 6 feet 1 to 6 feet 2 and now you have told us
that he was 5 feet 8 when at no time did you see the man standing up.

Mr. ANDREWS. Because, I guess, the first time--and I am guessing now----

Mr. LIEBELER. Is this fellow a homosexual, do you say?

Mr. ANDREWS. Bisexual. What they call a swinging cat.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you haven't seen him at any time since that day?

Mr. ANDREWS. I haven't seen him since.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now have you had your office searched for any records
relating to Clay Bertrand?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you found anything?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; nothing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has this fellow Bertrand sent you business in the past?

Mr. ANDREWS. Prior to--I guess the last time would be February of 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. And mostly he refers, I think you said, these gay kids,
is that right?

Mr. ANDREWS. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. In discussing this matter with your private detective,
Mr. Davis, and Miss Springer, your secretary, have you asked them
whether or not they have any recollection of ever having seen Oswald in
the office?

Mr. ANDREWS. Davis does; Springer doesn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Davis does have a recollection?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; he recalls. He usually stays with me until about
closing time. We review whatever he is doing, and he remembers them as
a group.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he was there then the first time they were there? The
only time that he was with a group is the first time, is that right?

Mr. ANDREWS. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed with Miss Springer and Mr. Davis the
whereabouts or any recollection they might have about Clay Bertrand?

Mr. ANDREWS. They weren't with me, I believe, at the time I knew
Bertrand.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed it with them?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; but they weren't employed by me at the time I knew
him.

Mr. LIEBELER. So they have no recollection of Bertrand?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. When Oswald came into your office, of course, he told you
what his name was, didn't he?

Mr. ANDREWS. Lee Oswald. I don't know whether that's his name or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. But that's what he told you?

Mr. ANDREWS. That's what he told me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing or mentioning his name to
Davis at any time prior to November 23, 1963?

Mr. ANDREWS. What the procedure is--I am in a different office now than
I was then, and it was a very small office, and they would come into
it--well, what I would call my office--and they just had the reception
room out in the front, and Davis would go out there, and on those
matters, it's not a matter that he would be discussing, but probably
some words passed as to the swishing and the characteristics that they
had, but other than that in the business, unless something is assigned
to him, he knows nothing in that office unless it is assigned to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you say you probably did not mention Oswald's name to
Davis?

Mr. ANDREWS. I probably did not, other than we commented on the group
in general, but none of the business that was involved or any names.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it an extraordinary thing for a bunch of gay kids to
come into your office like that, or did they come from time to time?

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, let's see. Last week there were six of them in
there. Depends on how bad the police are rousing them. They shoo them
in. My best customers are the police. They shoo them into the office.
God bless the police.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever know a man by the name of Kerry Thornley as
one of these gay kids?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever heard of Thornley?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; I represent them and that's about all there is to it.
When they owe me money, I know where to go grab them, and that's about
as far as if goes. Is he supposed to be down here?

Mr. LIEBELER. Thornley?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I can find out if he ever made the scene here real
easy.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; he is not in New Orleans, I don't think, at the
moment. When Oswald told you about his discharge, did he tell you what
branch of the service he had been in?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you why he got discharged?

Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you what kind of a discharge he had?

Mr. ANDREWS. He told me he was dishonorably discharged. That's what I
call a yellow sheet discharge. I told him I needed his serial number,
the service he was in, the approximate time he got discharged, and, I
think, $15 or $25, I forget which, and to take the service, his rate
or rank, the serial number, and to write to the Adjutant General for
the transcript of the proceedings that washed him out so that they
could be examined and see if there was any method of reopening or
reconsideration on the file.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not tell you any of those things?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; he said he would come back, and he came back, but I
still didn't get his serial number and I still didn't get the money.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember specifically that he stated he had a
dishonorable discharge as opposed to some other kind of discharge? Do
you have a specific recollection on that?

Mr. ANDREWS. We call them in the Navy, B.C.D.'s and I associated that.
He never mentioned the specific type discharge. It was one that was
other than honorable, as we would put it in the legal sense. I just
assumed it was a B.C.D. if he was in the Marines or Navy. If he was in
the Army, it's a yellow discharge.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you if he was working at that time or if he
had a job when he first came into your office?

Mr. ANDREWS. Never asked him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he associate his other than honorable discharge with
difficulty in obtaining employment?

Mr. ANDREWS. I just don't remember. He had a reason why he wanted it
reopened. What, I don't recall. He had a reason. I don't recall. He
mentioned a reason, but I don't recall. I was trying to remember where
they were seated to see if that would help, but no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me approximately how tall Oswald was.

Mr. ANDREWS. Oh, about 5 feet 6 inches, 5 feet 7 inches, I guess.

Mr. LIEBELER. And about how much did he weigh?

Mr. ANDREWS. About 135, 140.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions. Do you have
anything else that you would like to add?

Mr. ANDREWS. I wish I could be more specific, that's all. This is my
impression, for whatever it is worth, of Clay Bertrand: His connections
with Oswald I don't know at all. I think he is a lawyer without a brief
case. That's my opinion. He sends the kids different places. Whether
this boy is associated with Lee Oswald or not, I don't know, but I
would say, when I met him about 6 weeks ago when I ran up on him and he
ran away from me, he could be running because he owes me money, or he
could be running because they have been squeezing the quarter pretty
good looking for him while I was in the hospital, and somebody might
have passed the word he was hot and I was looking for him, but I have
never been able to figure out the reason why he would call me, and
the only other part of this thing that I understand, but apparently I
haven't been able to communicate, is I called Monk Zelden on a Sunday
at the N.O.A.C. and asked Monk if he would go over--be interested in
a retainer and go over to Dallas and see about that boy. I thought
I called Monk once. Monk says we talked twice. I don't remember the
second. It's all one conversation with me. Only thing I do remember
about it, while I was talking with Monk, he said, Don't worry about
it. Your client just got shot. That was the end of the case. Even if
he was a bona fide client, I never did get to him; somebody else got
to him before I did. Other than that, that's the whole thing, but this
boy Bertrand has been bugging me ever since. I will find him sooner or
later.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does Bertrand owe you money?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I ain't looking for him for that. I want to find
out why he called me on behalf of this boy after the President was
assassinated.

Mr. LIEBELER. How come Bertrand owes you money?

Mr. ANDREWS. I have done him some legal work that he has failed to pay
the office for.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that?

Mr. ANDREWS. That's in a period of years that I have--like you are
Bertrand. You call up and ask me to go down and get Mr. X out. If Mr. X
doesn't pay on those kinds of calls, Bertrand has a guarantee for the
payment of appearance. One or two of these kids had skipped. I had to
go pay the penalty, which was a lot of trouble.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were going to hold Bertrand for that?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald appear to you to be gay?

Mr. ANDREWS. You can't tell. I couldn't say. He swang with the kids. He
didn't swish, but birds of a feather flock together. I don't know any
squares that run with them. They may go down to look.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say he didn't swish, what do you mean by that?

Mr. ANDREWS. He is not effeminate; his voice isn't squeaky; he didn't
walk like or talk like a girl; he walks and talks like a man.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you notice anything about the way he walked? Was
there anything striking about the way he carried himself?

Mr. ANDREWS. I never paid attention. I never watched him walk other
than into and out of the office. There's nothing that would draw my
attention to anything out of the ordinary, but I just assumed that he
knew these people and was running with them. They had no reason to
come. The three gay kids he was with, they were ostentatious. They were
what we call swishers. You can just look at them. All they had to do
was open their mouth. That was it. Walk, they can swing better than
Sammy Kaye. They do real good. With those pronounced ones, you never
know what the relationship is with anyone else with them, but I have
no way of telling whether he is gay or not, other than he came in with
what they call here queens. That's about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never seen any of these people since that first
day they came into your office with Oswald, that first day and when you
saw them down at the police station?

Mr. ANDREWS. The three queens? The three gay boys? No; I have never
seen them.

Mr. LIEBELER. There were just three of them?

Mr. ANDREWS. The Latin type. Mexicanos will crop their hair and a Latin
won't, so I assume he is a Mex.

Mr. LIEBELER. So altogether there were five of them that came into the
office?

Mr. ANDREWS. Five. The only other thing that shook me to my toes--you
have the other part--the Secret Service brought me some things. They
don't have the complete photograph. They have another photograph with
the two Realpey sisters. They are actually in the office, and that
shook me down to my toes pretty good.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. The picture you refer to
might be Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B. Is that the one?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, this is it. Victoria Realpey-Plaza and her sister
Marguerite Realpey-Plaza, and I can't recall this young lady's name
here at all [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing to the three women who are standing----

Mr. ANDREWS. The one facing, standing as you look at it.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's the one you can't identify?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I have her file in the office. Uncle is a warden at
the Parish Prison here in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are referring to the three women that are
standing at the right side of Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B?

Mr. ANDREWS. The girl carrying the pocketbook.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's the one whose name you can't remember at the
moment?

Mr. ANDREWS. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now this little fellow standing on the far left side of
the picture, have you ever seen him before? Is he one of those gay boys
who were in the office?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; these were all Americanos, these boys. He may be, but
he is Latin looking.

Mr. LIEBELER. He looks like a Latin?

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. This boy should be able to be found. I wanted to
look for him, but I didn't have a picture of him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who is that?

Mr. ANDREWS. The one you just asked me about. If you put some circulars
around to have the Latin American people squeezed gently, he has got to
be found. They are very clannish. There are only certain places they
go. Somebody has to remember him. He can't just come into New Orleans
and disappear. As long as he walks the street, he has to eat and he
has to have some place to sleep and--but I didn't have a picture of
him, and nobody--you just can't do it. But a lot of water has run under
the stream. He may or may not be here, but it wouldn't be too hard to
locate him, you know, with the proper identification.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, your friends down the street have been trying to
find him and haven't come up with him yet.

Mr. ANDREWS. Debrueys?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Sometimes the stools on that are not too good. They need
Latin stools for that boy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you just indicate that you would like to find Mr.
Bertrand and he did run off? Did you see him run off?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; I chased him, but I couldn't go.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was when you saw him 6 weeks ago?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; this barroom is right adjacent to--the street--as you
go in, there are two entrances, one on the block side and one on the
corner. I had no more idea of finding him than jumping off the bridge.
I went in there hoping, and the hope came through. I was so surprised
to see him there. I kept working my way there to go to the front when
he recognized me and he sprinted out the door on the side of the street
and was gone. I had to go past him to go to the phone. I should have
conked him with the beer bottle.

Mr. LIEBELER. He took off as soon as he saw you?

Mr. ANDREWS. No; but I was moving to go to the phone. He thought I was
moving towards him.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you Pizzo Exhibit No.
453-A, and ask you if you can recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. ANDREWS. The one that has a brief case under his arm, full face
towards the looker, appears to be Lee Oswald. This boy back here
[indicating] appears to be familiar, but I would have to blow his face
up to be sure. He is in between. See, this one here [indicating]? I
have never seen this picture before.

Mr. LIEBELER. Between Oswald, who has the cross mark over his head, and
the man who has the arrow over his head?

Mr. ANDREWS. He is a local boy here, a face I recall. It would take me
a while to place it, but the face appears to be familiar.

Mr. LIEBELER. You haven't seen this picture before, is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't believe.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Secret Service and the FBI have shown you various
pictures, but you don't recall this one?

Mr. ANDREWS. I don't recall seeing that one. There was one of a series
where--one of an attorney in town was there--where we all knew him.
They may have shown me this, but I don't remember. We used to have a
club back in 1946 called Lock (?) Fraternity, and he resembles a boy
that was a member.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions, Mr. Andrews.
I want to thank you very much for coming in and I appreciate the
cooperation you have given us.

Mr. ANDREWS. I only wish I could do better.




TESTIMONY OF EVARISTO RODRIGUEZ

The testimony of Evaristo Rodriguez, was taken on July 21, 1964, at
the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans,
La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission. Special Agent Richard E. Logan, interpreter, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, was present.


Evaristo Rodriguez, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified, through the interpreter, Mr. Logan, as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's
Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have
been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to
authority granted to it by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November
29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

You are entitled under the rules of the Commission to have an attorney
present during your questioning. You are not required to answer
questions that you think might be harmful to yourself to answer. You
may state the reasons why you don't want to answer them if you wish to
do that. You are entitled to 3-days' notice under the rules. I assume
you are prepared to proceed with the testimony at this time since you
are here, and I assume that since you do not have an attorney, you are
prepared to go ahead without one.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am ready to answer all the questions. I have been
advised of my rights as you have stated them to me, and I am ready to
answer any questions that I can help you with.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born, Evaristo?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [writing]. Gibara, Oriente, Cuba. That's the province,
Oriente, and the city is Gibara.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. July 26, 1941.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live now?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. 1239 Chartres Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you still a citizen of Cuba?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you lived in the United States?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I came here in 1962 on a boat. I was first here in 1962.
I was on a boat. And I went to Costa Rica and a few other countries. I
came back here in January of 1963. I have been here since January of
1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you leave Cuba?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. December of 1961.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you come to leave Cuba?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I left Cuba because they were about to put me in the
Armed Forces. I didn't care to. I wasn't in agreement with the present
government, so I took off.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you get out?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. On a boat. I came out on a small boat, a small merchant
ship.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you work on that boat then or where did you go?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I had been working on this boat for about 3 years and 2
months.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the boat that sunk?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It's not the same boat that sunk, but it was a boat of
the same company, Barcelona Co., that sunk.

Mr. LIEBELER. Eventually, one of your boats did sink and you came then
here to New Orleans, is that correct, and that's when you stayed in the
United States?

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. LOGAN. I am going to have to ask him a couple of things on this
because as I get it in my mind, it seems that he was on a boat.

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, I was on this boat called the _Barcelona_
in the Pacific, and this boat sunk, and we were transferred to another
boat, the _San Jose_, that first traveled to some other countries, and
then when I got to New Orleans, this is where I asked for my political
asylum.

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you work?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am a bartender at nights at the Habana Bar at 117
Decatur Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you worked there?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. About 1 year and 3 months. I have worked there about 1
year and 3 months.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Orest Pena?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ruperto Pena?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [answering directly]. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Carlos Bringuier?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ [answering directly]. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. We have information that you saw a man whom you believe
to be Lee Harvey Oswald in the bar some time in 1963. Would you tell us
all about that?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. These men came into the bar, two men came into the
bar, one of them which I learned later through TV and pictures and
newspapers was Oswald. These men came into the bar. One of them spoke
Spanish and the one who spoke Spanish ordered the tequila, so I told
him that the price of the tequila was 50 cents. I brought him the
tequila and a little water. The man protested at the price, thought it
was too high, and he made some statement to the effect that he was a
Cuban, but an American citizen, and that surely--words to the effect
that surely the owner of this bar must be a capitalist, and we had a
little debate about the price, but that passed over. Then the man who I
later learned was Oswald ordered a lemonade. Now I didn't know what to
give him because we don't have lemonades in the bar. So I asked Orest
Pena how I should fix a lemonade. Orest told me to take a little of
this lemon flavoring, squirt in some water, and charge him 25 cents for
the lemonade, and that's the incident surrounding that situation.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not know the names of these men at that time, did
you?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't know the names of them then; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did both of the men speak Spanish or just one of them?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Only the man that appeared to be a Latin or Cuban spoke
Spanish.

Mr. LIEBELER. So the man who you later thought to be Oswald did not
speak Spanish; is that right?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No; the man I later learned to be Oswald did not speak
Spanish.

Mr. LIEBELER. What time of the day did this happen?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. This happened about 2:30 or between 2:30 and 3 o'clock
in the morning. I am not certain of the exact hour, but that's the best
of my recollection.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were either of these men drunk?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The man I later learned to be Oswald had his arm around
the Latin-appearing man, and Oswald appeared to be somewhat drunk.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned previously that someone was a Cuban but an
American citizen. Were you referring to the man that was with Oswald,
or Orest Pena, the owner of the bar?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What I did was, the Latin-appearing man asked me if the
owner of the bar was a Cuban, and I told him that he was a Cuban, but
an American citizen. That's the way that was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you able to say the nationality of the man that was
with Oswald?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not able to state what his exact nationality was,
but he appeared to be a Latin, and that's about as far as I can go.
He could have been a Mexican; he could have been a Cuban, but at this
point, I don't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did this man look like?

Mr. LOGAN. You want a description of him?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; how old?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He was a man about 28 years old, very hairy arms, dark
hair on his arms.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how tall was he?

Mr. LOGAN. He says he was about my height. That's about 5 feet 8. He is
about the same build of man as I am, short and rather stocky, wide. He
was a stocky man with broad shoulders, about 5 feet 8 inches.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know how much he weighed approximately?

Mr. LOGAN. He probably hit around 155. He doesn't remember the exact
weight, but he would guess around the same weight as I appear to be.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he weighed about 155 pounds or so?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was he taller or shorter than Oswald?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Just a little taller than Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was he heavier than Oswald or lighter?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He was huskier and appeared to weigh more than Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what color his hair was?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He had a high forehead, you might say. He had this back
here, the hairline was right back in here like this [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. He had a receding hairline in the front?

Mr. LOGAN. He says it's not like yours and mine; it's rather receding
on the sides toward--at the front.

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Now how tall would you estimate Oswald was?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't get a good look of Oswald standing up straight
because Oswald was drunk and he was more or less in a sagging position
most of the time. Therefore, I wasn't able to get a good look, but he
was a little shorter than 5 feet 8, the height of the other man. He was
a little shorter than that, maybe 5 feet 7 or 5 feet 6, but I couldn't
tell for sure because Oswald wasn't standing up too straight at the
time. In fact, Oswald came in and draped over the table after he sat
down.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald become sick?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He became sick on the table and on the floor.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then did he go in the street and continue being sick?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The Latin-appearing man helped him to the street where
he continued to be sick.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was Oswald wearing?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oswald as I recall, had on a dark pair of pants and a
short-sleeved white shirt.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he have a tie on?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Oswald had what appeared to be a small bow tie.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But the thing is, Oswald's collar was open and this
thing was hanging from one side of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was a clip-on bow tie?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It was a clip-on thing as I recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did this happen; what month?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I can't remember exactly, but I know it was just about 1
year ago, and I presume it was in August.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when Orest Pena went to Puerto Rico?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember when Orest went to Puerto Rico. I don't
recall when Orest went to Puerto Rico.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald in the bar before Orest went to Puerto Rico or
afterward or while he was gone? Do you remember specifically? Do you
remember that he did go to Puerto Rico?

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Orest just said he was going on vacation and didn't tell
me where he was going.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when he went on vacation? Think of it
in comparison to the time that Oswald was in the bar. Was Oswald in
the bar before Orest went on vacation or afterward or while he was on
vacation.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Orest was in the bar when Oswald was there.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he couldn't have been on vacation at the time?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Orest was in the bar when Oswald was because at that
time, I recall I had to ask Orest how to make the lemonade for Oswald,
so----

Mr. LIEBELER. Now think again, and think if this was before Orest went
on vacation or afterward.

Mr. LOGAN. The incident, you mean, in the bar?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember whether it was before or after.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when Carlos Bringuier was arrested and
went to jail?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I remember him being arrested, but I don't remember--I
remember when Carlos Bringuier was arrested, but--I was on the street
and I saw Carlos. I saw Carlos Bringuier talking to the policeman at
the time that he was arrested, but I didn't see him get into the
police car because I took off. I left because I thought I might be
following the same path.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you walking when you saw Carlos arrested?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I was in a car passing in the street when I saw Carlos
talking with the police.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was with you in the car?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Orest Pena had driven me to the doctor, and this is
how we happened to be in the car together when we passed going to the
Habana Bar when we saw Carlos.

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Orest see Bringuier that day?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know whether Orest saw him or not. Orest was
doing the driving. I am not sure whether he saw him or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald in the bar before or after you saw Carlos in
the street with the policeman?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am not sure, but it was either a couple of days before
Oswald was in the bar or a couple of days after, but I can't remember
well enough to be exact.

Mr. LIEBELER. But it was about that time that you saw Oswald in the
bar; is that right?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes; it was about the same time, same time in relation
to days, you know, that same period.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Do you remember whether you and Orest saw Carlos in
the street before Orest went on vacation or afterward?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember whether it was before Orest went on
vacation or after that I saw Carlos in the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Orest was in the bar when Oswald was there? That's right,
is it not?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. He was in the bar when Oswald was there.

Mr. LOGAN. He says he is trying to remember the best he can.

Mr. LIEBELER. He is doing very well.

Mr. LOGAN. He is saying that the time passes and it is hard for him to
remember everything, but he is trying to remember the best he can.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Orest see Oswald?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't see, I don't believe, that Orest saw Oswald.
Orest was in the back part of the bar near the telephone, and Oswald
and his friend were sitting at a table near the cigarette machine,
which is in the right-hand side of the front part of the bar, and
Oswald's back was to the place where Orest was at the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Orest come up and talk to them when you had this
argument about the lemonade and tequila?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No; Orest never talked to Oswald or the other man during
this altercation about the tequila.

Mr. LIEBELER. To the best of your knowledge, Orest never came up or
looked at them or saw them while they were there?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. To the best of my recollection, Orest Pena never saw
these two men up close, and, as a matter of fact, Orest was talking on
the telephone, and when I asked him about the lemonade, he just told me
what to do and didn't pay any more attention to it than that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see anybody else with Carlos and the policeman at
the time you saw Carlos on the street with the policeman as you have
already told us?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. At the time I saw Carlos Bringuier on the street with
the police, I didn't see anybody being put into the police car, but
I remember slightly that there were probably three other people in
the police car at the time, but I don't know who they were, and I was
passing in a car, of course, and didn't have an opportunity to pay any
attention to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't see Oswald there?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I didn't see Oswald at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Celso Hernandez?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know him. I am acquainted with Bringuier.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first think that the man you saw in the bar,
as you have told us, was Oswald?

Mr. LOGAN. I am going to have to break this down for him.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he say so far?

Mr. LOGAN. He is answering an entirely different question, something
about Bringuier.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think we should put this on the record.

Mr. LOGAN. Let me find out if he understood the question first because
the thing is, I think he has got something else in mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that is the problem.

Mr. LOGAN. I will get that out of him, too, the part you want.

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. LOGAN. No, no. He doesn't get the message, and I am sure I am
saying it plain enough.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become aware of the name of this man?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The first time that I knew that the man in the bar was
Oswald was--the first time that I realized that the man in the bar was
Oswald was after President Kennedy had been assassinated and I saw
Oswald's picture in the paper with his name and so forth, and that's
how I first became aware or first came to realize that the man who had
been in the bar with the Latin-appearing man was the same person as
Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss this with Orest Pena after you became
aware that the man in the bar was the same man as the man whom we think
shot President Kennedy? And specifically, I want to ask you if Orest
Pena recognized Oswald's picture independently from you or if he only
became aware that it was Oswald that was in the bar after you called it
to his attention.

Mr. LOGAN. All right. I will ask him the first one and then I will ask
him the second one.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The first question is that I actually heard the news of
the President's death on the radio, and they still hadn't given out the
name of the assassin, who they thought it was. So later on when it came
out in the newspaper, I saw the picture in the newspaper of Oswald, and
then I pointed out to Orest that this was the fellow who was in the bar
and had the argument about the lemonade or about the tequila, rather,
and not in the bar at the time because the other fellow argued about
the tequila.

Mr. LOGAN. Now what was that number two again?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Orest mention it to you first by himself? Did he know
that that man had been in the bar, or did he only come to think that
after you had pointed out to him it was the same man that you thought
had bought the lemonade?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No; Orest had never seen this man whose picture was in
the paper that I recognized as being the man in the bar and who the
paper described as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever tell Bringuier that the man that was in the
bar with Oswald was being sought by the FBI, being looked for by the
FBI?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I told Bringuier that Oswald had been in the bar. This
is after, of course, I discovered that it was Oswald. But I don't
remember ever telling Bringuier that the FBI was looking for these
people or either one of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. So to the best of your recollection, you did not tell
Bringuier that the FBI was looking for this man that was with Oswald?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I never told Bringuier that the FBI was looking for the
man that was with Oswald. I only mentioned to Bringuier that Oswald was
the same one that had been in there that had been drinking lemonade in
that bar previously.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in saying that the only times that you have
been in New Orleans are, one, the period of time beginning in January
of 1963 to the present time, and once before at one prior time, the
exact date of which I do not recall, but you tell me. Those two times.
Are there any other times you have been in New Orleans? Let me rephrase
the question: You came to New Orleans in January of 1963 and have been
here ever since, and you were in New Orleans at least once prior to
that time. Tell me when that was.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I got on a boat in Cuba. We went to Mexico. Then we went
to New York with sugar. Then we went to Norfolk, and from Norfolk, we
went to Bermuda, and then to the Dominican Republic.

Mr. LOGAN. Unless you want that. I just told him that whole route was
not important if he could come down to the exact month he was in New
Orleans. Here's the thing: He says now that the very first time he was
ever in New Orleans was on a boat that came from Cuba in April of 1959.
He was working on a boat that landed in New Orleans in April of 1959.
Now he doesn't remember the exact month in 1961 that he was in New
Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you ever in New Orleans in 1962?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. To the best of my recollection, I was here in May of
1962 where I caught the ship _Barcelona_.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know Orest Pena at that time?

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. LOGAN. As I get it, he knew Orest not well, but he knew him. Had
seen him at the bar, around the bars.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember talking to him in May of 1962 in his bar
here in New Orleans?

Mr. LOGAN. He remembers probably he talked to Orest during May of 1962.
I asked him what they talked about. He said, "Like small talk about
boats, about this, about that. Nothing in particular."

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you in the bar in May of 1962 with Orest Pena at any
time when Orest Pena got into a fight or big argument with another man?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember Orest being in a fight with anybody in
the bar in 1962, in May of 1962.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Orest Pena ever say to you in words or in substance
that Castro should have been notified about something as soon as
possible, and particularly, in May of 1962?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember him saying anything like that.

Mr. LOGAN. What he was telling me in all this flurry was that Orest,
as far as political situations, is happy with his life here in the
United States, and I have asked him three times if he remembers Orest
making any statement like that, that Castro should have been notified
immediately, and he says he has never heard him say anything like that.
He doesn't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you don't remember any fight that Orest got into with
another man?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't remember anything about a fight or a discussion.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right [handing picture to witness]. I show you a
picture that has been marked "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if
you can identify anybody in that picture.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I identify Oswald as the man with the X on him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Anybody else?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I draw your attention particularly to the man standing
to Oswald's right, and the second man behind him, who appears to have
leaflets in his hand, wearing a tie and short-sleeved white shirt, and
facing directly into the camera.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The only one that I am able to identify in that picture
is Oswald himself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the man that was in the bar?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The same man that was in the bar as previously mentioned.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any question about that in your mind?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am positive of this.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a photograph that
has been marked "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize
that man.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The man appears to be Oswald, but the first picture is
a much better photograph in my mind for identifying Oswald. In other
words, I was able to tell in the first photograph that the man was
Oswald. In this photograph, the second photograph that I have been
shown----

Mr. LIEBELER. "Garner Exhibit No. 1."

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The man appears to be Oswald, but----

Mr. LIEBELER. The witness indicates that he is clear in his mind that
the man with the X in "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1" is the man who was
in the bar and who he identifies as Lee Harvey Oswald more than he is
about the man shown in Garner Exhibit No. 1.

Do you have any question that that man was in your bar, referring to
the man portrayed in "Garner Exhibit No. 1?"

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As far as this "Exhibit No. 1," a man appears to be
Oswald as I recognize him from newspaper pictures of Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Referring to "Garner Exhibit No. 1." But the man in
"Bringuier Exhibit No. 1" looks more like the man who was in the bar?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The man in "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1" I have identified
as the man who I learned later was Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture which
has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C," and ask you if that looks
like the man who was in the bar.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. This appears to me that this is the man. It looks
somewhat like the man that was in the bar with Oswald, but----

Mr. LIEBELER. Like the man that was in the bar with Oswald?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's what he said?

Mr. LOGAN. Now he says no. He says that this--how do you want to call
it?

Mr. LIEBELER. "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C."

Mr. LOGAN. "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C" does not appear like the man in
bar. The other man was more of a Latin-appearing man.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, have you ever seen this man, set forth in
"Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C," in the bar at all; at any time?

Mr. LIEBELER. What is he saying?

Mr. LOGAN. He is saying that this reminds him of Oswald because of
these--the eye part here [indicating], the sagging eyes, like, you
know--I don't know how you want to say that--like he has puffy eyelids.

Mr. LIEBELER. He has an area around the eyes----

Mr. LOGAN. That reminds him of Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he identify this man as Oswald?

Mr. LOGAN. He says that the man in this exhibit appears to him to be
Oswald, but, of course, he says it has been a long time since he saw
him and he is not ready to be positive on that. That's as close as you
can come to it, I guess.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not sure that this was the man that was in the
bar?

Mr. LOGAN. Now he says it is him.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is or isn't?

Mr. LOGAN. In his mind, "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1" which has the man
with the X on him is the man who was in the bar and who he later
learned was Oswald. This picture stands out in his mind the best,
reminds him of the man the best; this one----

Mr. LIEBELER. "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C."

Mr. LOGAN. Appears to him to be Oswald, but he still says that the
other photograph is the one that he can best identify him as the man
who was in the bar. What we have got going here is the fact that this
looks like Oswald, but he is--probably since the other photograph
reminds him distinctly of the fact that that was the man that was in
the bar, he is a little reluctant to say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Thank you very much.




TESTIMONY OF OREST PENA

The testimony of Orest Pena was taken on July 21, 1964, at the Old
Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by
Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Orest Pena, having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record.

Mr. PENA. Orest Pena.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's O-r-e-s-t P-e-n-a; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. PENA. 117 Decatur.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that your place of business or is that your residence?

Mr. PENA. No; that's my place of business. On the ground floor is my
place of business. On the second floor, in the rear of the second floor
I live.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am an attorney for the President's Commission. I
understand that the Secret Service served a subpena on you last week
and you are here under that subpena at this time. The rules of the
Commission entitle you to have your lawyer present if you wish.

Mr. PENA. I don't think I need him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have the right under our rules not to answer
any question that you don't want to answer in the first instance,
specifying the reasons if you do refuse to answer any questions.

I am here under the authority granted to the Commission by Executive
Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of
Congress No. 137. I understand that attached to the subpena are copies
of the Executive order that I have referred to and rules of the
Commission; is that correct?

(The witness handed document to counsel.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; they are attached.

Where were you born, Mr. Pena?

Mr. PENA. In Colon, Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. When?

Mr. PENA. August 15, 1923.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a citizen of the United States?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you become a citizen?

Mr. PENA. I became a citizen May 5, 1956.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you became a citizen through naturalization; is that
correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The place of business that you have at 117 Decatur Street
is a bar and lounge?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the name of it?

Mr. PENA. Habana Bar and Lounge.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that you have a brother by
the name of Ruperto Pena?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he work with you in the bar and lounge?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I also correct in understanding that one of the
bartenders is named Evaristo Rodriguez?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Carlos Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is Mr. Bringuier connected with a clothing store located
close to your bar and lounge?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first meet Mr. Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. When he came to the--if I am not wrong, I believe I met him
when he started the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately how long ago was it that you met Mr.
Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly. Might be a year and a half or 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Bringuier is active in anti-Castro Cuban affairs; is
that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had any connection with Cuban politics?

Mr. PENA. Not with him, but with something else here in New Orleans, an
organization, about 4 years ago, more or less.

Mr. LIEBELER. What organization was that?

Mr. PENA. I don't know. The FBI know very well because a person from
the FBI was there all the time. I don't remember exactly the name of
the organization right now, but the organization was in the Balter
Building, I think, in the second floor.

Mr. LIEBELER. Whatever the organization's name was, was it an
anti-Castro Cuban organization?

Mr. PENA. It was in the Balter Building, the only one there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the organization sometimes known as Jure, J-u-r-e?

Mr. PENA. I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. _Junta Revolucionaria_ Cubana?

Mr. PENA. The chief or the boss of that organization, who was in Miami,
Barrona. He was the boss of that organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. Barrona?

Mr. PENA. Yes. He was the boss of that organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you leave Cuba?

Mr. PENA. I left Cuba in September 1946.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you been back to Cuba since that time?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us when?

Mr. PENA. Oh, many times I went to Cuba. My last time I went to Cuba
was about 8 months, I believe, after Castro took over, but before, I
used to go very often because all my family is in Cuba, my mother, my
father--before my father died, I used to go to Cuba many times. I was a
seaman, too. I used to ship out with the United Fruit Co. and the Lykes
Brothers Co. That's before Castro took over.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you stop working as a seaman?

Mr. PENA. Just before I went in business, in--I went in business 1958.
I stop in 1957.

Mr. LIEBELER. You stopped working as a seaman in 1957?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you in Cuba in April or May of 1959?

Mr. PENA. I think that's the last time I was in Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the purpose of your trip to Cuba at that time?

Mr. PENA. I went to Cuba--I don't know. I went to have an operation.
Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. While you were in Cuba, did you have any contact with any
officials in the Castro government?

Mr. PENA. No; not any.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever expressed a favorable attitude toward the
Castro regime?

Mr. PENA. No; I never was for--I was against Batista, but I never was
even--I didn't even know Castro.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had nothing to do with Castro?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now after you came back to the United States from Cuba in
1959----

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you go directly back to the United States?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you go anywhere else----

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Except to Cuba on that trip?

Mr. PENA. No; I came back to--I went from here to--directly from here
to Havana and from Havana to New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. After your trip to Cuba in 1959, when was the next time
that you were out of the United States?

Mr. PENA. It was last summer. I went on vacation to Mexico.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long were you there?

Mr. PENA. Nine days. I plan 2 weeks, but I got sick to my stomach, so I
came back.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that strictly a vacation trip?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. It had nothing to do with politics or anything like that?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have your passport here, Mr. Pena?

Mr. PENA. Yes [handing document to counsel].

Mr. LIEBELER. The witness has handed me his passport, which is numbered
D-0092577, and issued on June 25, 1963. It carries the name of Orest
Pena and indicates a birth date of August 15, 1923, that the birthplace
is Cuba, that he is 5 feet 8 inches tall, has black hair and brown eyes.

After you went to Mexico in May of 1963, when did you next leave the
United States?

Mr. PENA. About 1 or 2 months after that vacation I went to Puerto Rico
for 1 week and to the Dominican Republic for 1 week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us exactly when it was that you left New
Orleans at that time to go to Puerto Rico?

Mr. PENA. I don't remember, but you have it there, the date I entered
the Dominican Republic. I went 1 week before that by Delta Co.,
directly from New Orleans to San Juan, P.R., by Delta Airlines.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you indicating a visa stamp on page 6 of the
passport, which is difficult to read?

Mr. PENA. The 22d of August; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. August 22?

Mr. PENA. But then I got to Puerto Rico about the 14th.

Mr. LIEBELER. Fourteenth or fifteenth of August?

Mr. PENA. Fourteenth or fifteenth, something like that, of August.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you leave New Orleans?

Mr. PENA. You leave New Orleans around 12 o'clock. About 3 hours later
you are in San Juan, P.R.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been August 13 or 14?

Mr. PENA. The 13th or 14th of August I left New Orleans. Then, after I
got to Puerto Rico, 1 week after that I went to the Dominican Republic.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Pena, I would like to make arrangements with the
Secret Service agent who is here to make photographic copies of this
passport and to mark it in connection with our deposition. Would it be
agreeable with you to deliver it to him now?

Mr. PENA. Yes. You can get the exact date by Delta Airlines I went to
Puerto Rico.

Mr. LIEBELER. It seems from the visa that if you went to Puerto Rico a
week before you went to the Dominican Republic, the stamp here shows
it would have been around the 13th or 14th of August 1963, and that's
close enough.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)


TESTIMONY OF OREST PENA RESUMED

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the purpose of your trip to Puerto Rico and the
Dominican Republic in August?

Mr. PENA. Just a vacation.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not go to Cuba at that time?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any contact with any representatives of
the Cuban Government while you were in Puerto Rico or the Dominican
Republic?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you had any contact with any such representatives at
any time during 1963?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, in May of 1964, you took a trip to Europe; is that
correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You then went to London?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Paris?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Madrid?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Rome?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Munich?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Berlin?

Mr. PENA. No; I did not go to Munich.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not go to Munich?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your plane land in Munich on the way to Berlin?

Mr. PENA. No. From Rome, I went to Frankfurt, Germany, and I stayed
there about--I think about an hour and a half, something like that,
to make connections on the next plane to Berlin, and then coming back
from Berlin, fly from Berlin to Frankfurt again, from Frankfurt took
Lufthansa, and directly to New York, and from New York, I wait about
3 hours and took the Eastern Airlines, a night trip, to New Orleans
straight again.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the purpose of that trip?

Mr. PENA. Just a vacation.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no contact with any agents of any foreign
government at any time other than the custom officials and that sort of
thing?

Mr. PENA. Oh, when I went to Berlin; I went for--when I was in Berlin,
I took a tour for 4 hours to East Berlin.

Mr. LIEBELER. On December 5, 1963, you were interviewed by two agents
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Steinmeyer and Mr. Logan.
Do you remember that?

Mr. PENA. I have been interviewed by the FBI so many times I don't
remember. Something. But it might be true. You tell me about what to
refresh my mind, and I can tell you about whether that is true or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, let me come back to that in just a moment. Do you
remember being interviewed by two FBI agents on June 9, 1964, when you
and Mr. Tamberella went to the FBI office here in New Orleans?

Mr. PENA. That's about 2 weeks ago?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember generally what you told them at that time?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us?

Mr. PENA. What, approximately, I can remember?

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us now what you told them at that time?

Mr. PENA. Well, they asked me in connection with the--Mr. Kennedy, the
late President Kennedy's assassination, and also if I know anything
about it. I told them I didn't know anything about it. They asked me if
I saw Oswald; so I said I saw him once. He went to my place of business
with one or two friends. I don't know exactly. My bar is a very long
bar, so to me it looked like he was with two friends. My bartender,
Evaristo Rodriguez, said he was with only one man, so I don't know
exactly. It was something that happened in my place of business; a
customer asking for a lemonade; a man. They don't usually do that. That
was the first time in 7 years I have been in business that a customer
asked for a lemonade. So my bartender--he learned to be a bartender at
my place of business; he was a seaman before--he came to me and said,
"The customer wants a lemonade. Do we do that?" I said, "Sure." He
didn't know how to make it, so I said, "Take a glass of water, couple
of spoons of sugar, some lemon." He say, "How much should I charge?"
I said, "Twenty-five cents." He went back and made a lemonade and put
it to Oswald. Then Oswald got mad. Said 25 cents was too much for the
lemonade, and then he asked for a tequila for his friend.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald ask for the tequila or did his friend?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly. I was away from there. I didn't pay
any attention. They got mad about the 25 cents for the lemonade and
50 cents for the tequila, so they asked my bartender, Evaristo, why
I charge so much for the drinks and I was a capitalist charging too
much for the drinks. He went and came to me and told me about it. I
said, "Don't worry about it. They pay you already?" "Yes." "Don't worry
about it." If you are going to worry about all the customers, you are
going to go crazy. Then I don't know whether he left or something,
but he vomited after that; Oswald did. I don't know anything but
they walked away; that's all. When the assassination happened, they
put the pictures over on the television, so I saw Oswald and I said,
"That's the man who came to my place one time, the man who ordered
the lemonade." Evaristo came and said, "Look! That's the man that
assassinated Mr. Kennedy is the one that was here one time."

Mr. LIEBELER. You told this to Rodriguez?

Mr. PENA. No; he told me. I identified to him by the television. I saw
him that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You recognized Oswald yourself even before Rodriguez came
to you and told you about that; is that right?

Mr. PENA. Yes. When he told me about the lemonade, I took a look at
the customer; took a look and forget about it. No sense in going about
there and discuss with him, and then all of that was forgotten. After
the assassination, we were speaking about that man was here one time.
We used to go to Bringuier's place about the incident that we got with
Oswald, and Bringuier is very much interested. He called--my brother
called Bringuier. We didn't pay any attention until the FBI came one
time and asked me.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI did come and ask you about this?

Mr. PENA. Yes; so when the----

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that shortly after the assassination?

Mr. PENA. Yes. So I told him just like I tell you. Then they start
coming, and over and over and over, and then I told the same thing what
I knew about, and that's all I know about.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did you ever see Oswald at any other time?

Mr. PENA. No; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see the man who was with him at any other
time?

Mr. PENA. The man that was with him looked Spanish; more Cuban than
anything else. You are American. You might know your people. I am
Cuban. I can sight them. I don't think I am being mistaken about him,
about Cuban people. I can spot them when I see them that they might be
a Cuban.

Mr. LIEBELER. You thought this man might be a Cuban?

Mr. PENA. To me, I thought he was a Cuban. I can tell that is true. I
wasn't even too close to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were never too close to this man?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Oswald clearly enough to be absolutely sure
in your mind that it was Oswald in the bar?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see this Cuban-looking man that was with him
at any other time or any other place?

Mr. PENA. No. See, after--that was before the assassination of Mr.
Kennedy--there was an incident in my place. Two guys came. They said
they were Mexican. They didn't look like Mexicans. They looked more
like Cubans. They came to my place. I got a bongo with a chain. I got
two bongoes for the people to play that with the music. I got a chain
because I lose one of them one time. Maybe some guy was drunk. That's
why I put a chain on it so they can't take it away. I was fixing the
bongo on that day and they came in. They came to see me. They said,
"That's what you have to have here in this country, a chain?" I was mad
because one of the customers broke the bongo. I said, "What you mean
by that?" When I got mad, I got a little bit--I don't know--aggressive
by the way I speak. So I told them, "What you mean by that?" They
said, "Well, in this country you have to put a chain?" I said, "That's
so they don't take the bongo away." They said, "This is a democratic
country?" I said, "Where you come from?" He said, "I come from Mexico."
I said, "Don't tell me about Mexico; you take a car to Mexico, they
steal the four wheels away." So right away they saw me mad, so they
left, so I called the--I think I called the FBI and told them about
it. I told them where they walk, which way they walked. They say, "If
they come back to your place, call us again." I just forgot about it. I
never saw them no more.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you call the FBI yourself, do you remember that?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why did you call the FBI about these men?

Mr. PENA. I don't like it, the way they were, the way they spoke about
the country here, so--I didn't like it, so I called the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the FBI told you if they came back----

Mr. PENA. If they came back, to please call them back.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember who you talked to at the FBI?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly. See, I used to call De Brueys. You are
from Washington, huh?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. I am going to talk to you about De Brueys and the FBI agency
in New Orleans, in Louisiana.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think you talked to De Brueys at this time?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly. Sometimes you call there and they tell
you he is not in there and you talk to somebody else if you want to
give the message in the FBI, see, because De Brueys isn't there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, these two Mexicans that came into your bar and with
whom you had the discussion about the bongo drums, were they the same
men or the same man that was with Oswald when he was in the bar?

Mr. PENA. No; I don't believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they appear to you to have been entirely different
people?

Mr. PENA. Well, I know it was not Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald there at the time you had the argument with
the men about the bongo drums?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not either of the men who argued
with you about the bongo drums had been with Oswald when he was in the
bar?

Mr. PENA. See, the man was over--I can't identify him. I can't. Oswald
I did because of the lemonade. I looked to him, that's all, but the
other guy I can't identify. He looked like a Cuban, but I can't say
that exactly. Maybe if I would see him again I would say, "Well, that's
the man."

Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to say whether the two men who argued
with you about the bongo drums had any connection with Oswald or had
been with Oswald when he was in the bar?

Mr. PENA. I can't say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't recognize either of these two men that argued
with you about the bongo drums as the men that had been with Oswald
before?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you ever seen these Mexicans before they argued with
you about the bongo drums?

Mr. PENA. I don't think they were Mexicans. They speak very, very
different, and they looked like Cubans. They spoke something like
Cubans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see them again after that time?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never saw them before that time, to the best of your
knowledge?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is this the story that you told to the FBI after the
assassination, that you had seen Oswald in the bar and Rodriguez had
seen him in the bar?

Mr. PENA. More or less.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you talked to the FBI 2 weeks ago, did they ask you
about this again?

Mr. PENA. Yes; they asked me about this more than a dozen times.

Mr. LIEBELER. They asked you more than a dozen times about this?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did they come to your bar to ask you about this?

Mr. PENA. They come to my bar. They been calling me to come to the FBI
office. That's why sometimes--one time I went down and got a lawyer. I
don't need a lawyer about for this. I just tell you the truth. When I
finish with him--you are from Washington. I tell you, Bringuier hates
the United States as much as he hates Russia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Bringuier does?

Mr. PENA. The day Mr. Kennedy put a blockade in Cuba--you remember,
about a year and a half, more or less--Mr. Carlos Bringuier was telling
me--excuse me--(obscenity) in Spanish more than a dozen times, and I
couldn't stand that. I have never done anything against the United
States. I said, "No." Anyway, anything you want to ask me--and you can
ask Mr. Bringuier is that true or not, and let him and me take a lie
detector test to see who is right on it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that you have never done anything against the
interests of the United States?

Mr. PENA. No; I have not ever.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I have no reason whatsoever not to believe that
statement, Mr. Pena.

Mr. PENA. Okay.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why do you say that Mr. Bringuier hates the United States
more than he does Russia?

Mr. PENA. Because he does as much.

Mr. LIEBELER. As much?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why does he dislike the United States? Has he ever told
you?

Mr. PENA. No; but the way he talks, that the United States didn't help
to overthrow Castro, and he can go over there and take over.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the basis for Mr. Bringuier's bad feeling towards
the United States, that we haven't done anything to overcome the Castro
regime?

Mr. PENA. Well, the way he talks to me, he hates the United States
as much as he hates Russia. That's what I told you, what he said,
more than a dozen times. And if that is not true, let him take a lie
detector test and find out whether that is true or not true.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Mr. Bringuier about having seen Oswald in
the bar?

Mr. PENA. Yes; we was talking about that day. You see, I did like very,
very much Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did or did not?

Mr. PENA. I did. Very, very much. So I was hurt when he got killed. So
when I saw the man there--I saw the man--so I went around and told most
of my customers that I saw Oswald came to my place.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you talked to the FBI on June 9, 1964, you told
them, did you not, that you had never told anybody that Oswald had been
in the bar?

Mr. PENA. That I never told anybody?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. That's not true.

Mr. LIEBELER. Didn't you tell that to the FBI?

Mr. PENA. I don't think that's so. That I never told anybody?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. I didn't told anybody before?

Mr. LIEBELER. I have a report before me, Mr. Pena, of an interview of
you in the presence of your attorney, Mr. Tamberella, which was made
by Mr. De Brueys and Mr. Wall. That was in the FBI office on June 9,
and on page 2 of this particular report, which is page 14 of the larger
report, it says, and I quote: "Orest Pena specifically stated he had
never told anyone, including Carlos Bringuier, that Oswald had been in
the Habana Bar with a Mexican prior to the assassination of President
Kennedy. He also said he never heard his brother, Ruperto Pena, say
that Oswald had been in the bar with a Mexican. He also stated that he
had no information that the FBI was ever looking for a Mexican who had
ever patronized his bar." Did you tell the FBI that?

Mr. PENA. I don't think so.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, you did tell Bringuier that you had seen Oswald
in the bar?

Mr. PENA. When we were talking after the assassination, we were talking
about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell the FBI agents back in December that Oswald
had been in the bar and that you had seen him?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that Rodriguez had seen him there, too?

Mr. PENA. Yes; that's the first time they interviewed me about Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. On December 5, as far as I can tell. I have only two
reports.

Mr. PENA. Last year, you mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. In 1963. I have a report dated December 5, 1963, of an
interview with you in which you told the FBI that you had seen Oswald
in the bar and then I have a report of the interview on June 9, 1964,
a month ago, which says that you told them that you never told anybody
that Oswald had been in the bar and, of course, that's one of the
reasons why we called you in and wanted to talk to you because there is
an apparent conflict between the two FBI reports that we have on that
question. Now let me ask you this: You have a good deal of hostility
toward the FBI, do you not?

Mr. PENA. We got to talk about something else before I tell about the
FBI in New Orleans, so you let me know so I tell about the FBI, what I
think about it, if I can express myself well enough to put my point of
view about some of the agents of the FBI in New Orleans. Anyway, I will
tell you. See if you can understand my view.

Mr. LIEBELER. Very well. Let's get to that later. Regardless of what it
says in this FBI report, the fact is, you did see Oswald in the bar and
you did tell Bringuier, didn't you?

Mr. PENA. We was talking about--I know we was talking about it with
so many people around there, I can't tell you exactly. I know he knew
because we was talking about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right. Did you actually see the man who ordered the
lemonade in the bar?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell me approximately when it was that you saw
Oswald in the bar? Now in this connection, let me help your thinking
about it by reminding you that you went to Puerto Rico on about August
13 or 14, 1963. Was it before that or after that that you saw Oswald?

Mr. PENA. I don't remember exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't remember?

Mr. PENA. No; it wasn't easy then. There was nothing in the incident.
He had money to pay for it and we just forgot about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't remember whether it was before you went to
Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic or afterward?

Mr. PENA. No; I can't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your brother, Ruperto, ever tell you that the two men
who had given you a hard time about the bongo drums had come back to
the bar?

Mr. PENA. He told me something about that he saw the men passing by in
a car and he called Bringuier and so Bringuier called the FBI, so they
said that they called the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Ruperto in the bar when you had the argument with the
fellow about the bongo drums?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you say that Ruperto saw these two men later on
driving past the bar; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. I wasn't there that date. I wasn't around there that date. He
saw the two men and the FBI told me if I see them coming to my place,
to call them. He saw the two men sitting in a car and--I don't know
exactly. He went to Bringuier and told Bringuier, so Bringuier called
the FBI. That's what they said. I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no personal knowledge of any of that?

Mr. PENA. No. I believe my brother told me he saw the men or something,
but I didn't pay no attention about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. There's no connection between these two men that your
brother, Ruperto, saw and the man who was in the bar with Oswald as far
as you know?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether Ruperto was in the bar when
Oswald was there?

Mr. PENA. I don't believe he was there. I don't believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Evaristo Rodriguez there?

Mr. PENA. When Oswald was there?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. He was the one who was serving Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture that
has previously been marked as "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and I ask you
if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. PENA. Yes, Oswald; I recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one is Oswald?

Mr. PENA. Oswald is marked in some way.

Mr. LIEBELER. He has an "X" on him, is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize the place where this picture was taken?

Mr. PENA. I know about it now because I seen in the FBI. They have a
place. Put it on the television. That's the International Trade Mart, I
believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI put this picture on television?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly if that picture or another picture, but
they got Oswald and a group--I don't know if this group--handing out
propaganda to other people. I got in an argument with the FBI about
that, too. I told them if they had that propaganda paper, why don't
they find out the printing, where they printing that propaganda, and
that would be easy to find the other people. See, I----

Mr. LIEBELER. Why, because if they found the place where the propaganda
was printed, they would----

Mr. PENA. Yes. Those people might know Oswald and many other people in
connection with Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it surprise you if I told you we do know who
printed the handbills?

Mr. PENA. Well--you say you do know?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. Okay. I took two courses in investigation work, one from the
International Detective School, and one from the Applied Sciences of
Chicago. The big man there is an ex-FBI man, Mr. Dickerson Cook. So I
took that course, too. After I finished, he sent me a letter. I like
investigation very much.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me point out to you a young man in this picture. He
is the second man to Oswald's right and behind. He is standing there
with some leaflets in his hand. He has a white, short-sleeved shirt on
and a tie, and he appears to be handing out leaflets. Did you ever see
that man before?

Mr. PENA. I don't believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could he have been the man who was with Oswald in the bar?

Mr. PENA. I couldn't say.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize anybody else in that picture except
Oswald, is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture which
has been previously identified as "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A," and ask
you if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. PENA. I recognize Oswald there [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. He has a green "X" line over his head?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anyone else in the picture?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I ask you the same question
with respect to "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B."

Mr. PENA. I recognize him [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. With the green marking over his head?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And no one else?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture which
has been previously identified as "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you
if you recognize that man.

Mr. PENA. Yes; that's Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize him as the same man who was in the bar?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER [handing picture to witness]. I show you a picture that
has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C," and ask you if you can
identify that man.

Mr. PENA. Yes; that's Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's the same man who was in your bar?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt in your mind that it was Oswald who
was in your bar?

Mr. PENA. He was there.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was there?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in my understanding of your previous
testimony that after you saw the picture of Oswald on television after
the assassination, you, yourself, recognized that as the man that had
been in the bar, even before Rodriguez mentioned it to you?

Mr. PENA. Well, I seen it and I came down. I was talking about it, and
I recognized him right away.

Mr. LIEBELER. Even before Rodriguez spoke to you about it, or was it
after Rodriguez spoke to you about it?

Mr. PENA. I was talking about it, and the man was in my place, you
know. Then Rodriguez came over and said, "You remember that man who was
drinking that lemonade?" Then my mind got clear. He just run from his
house to my house to tell me about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had seen Oswald on television before Rodriguez told
you about it and you thought you recognized him as having been in the
place?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then Rodriguez reminded you of the lemonade and then it
became clear in your mind that Oswald was the man who had ordered the
lemonade and had been in your place?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Rodriguez told the FBI that shortly after Oswald had been
in the bar, after the lemonade incident, that he went to a doctor's
office with you and this was just before you went to Puerto Rico and
the Dominican Republic. Do you have any recollection of that?

Mr. PENA. We went to a doctor's office?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. To be more specific, Rodriguez said that while he
was riding back in the car with you, he saw Bringuier in the street
with some policemen. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. PENA. Oh, yes. They got some kind of trouble. I went out. Yes. And
they got some group, or two or three people was giving propaganda away,
and Bringuier and one or two more guys went and started an argument
with the guy who was giving the propaganda away in Canal Street. Then
the police came down and they arrested him. Bringuier, and one or
two more Cubans, and one more guy. I don't know the guy. I have seen
him, but I don't know the guy. And they put them in jail in the first
district, and they was calling Bringuier's brother-in-law. His name
is--it is----

Mr. LIEBELER. Hernandez? Is that Celso Hernandez?

Mr. PENA. No. They called me up there. I say, "Well--" so I went over
there and put a bond, $20, so they can come out.

Mr. LIEBELER. You actually went to the police station and put up bond
for Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was so that Bringuier could get out?

Mr. PENA. Yes. One or two more guys.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember seeing the incident in the street as you
drove by?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Rodriguez tell you about it later on? He told you
that he had seen it?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that when he was with you at that time?
Did he mention it after the doctor's appointment where you had been
together?

Mr. PENA. What you mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Rodriguez tell you that he had seen Bringuier in the
street on the way back from the doctor's appointment when he was with
you?

Mr. PENA. I don't remember that.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you, yourself, did not see Bringuier in the
street with the policemen at that time, and later on, after Bringuier
had been arrested, you went over to the police station and put the bond
up for Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. His brother-in-law in the store told me about it. He say, "I
can't leave the store by myself." I said, "How much would the bond be?"
Then I said, "Okay, I put the bond. Then you give it back to me."

Mr. LIEBELER. Now that was shortly before you went to Puerto Rico; is
that correct?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether the incident with regard to the
bond was about the time that Oswald was in the bar and ordered the
lemonade, or was it not about at that time? Do you remember?

Mr. PENA. I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember one time about in May or so of 1962 that
you got into a fight in your bar with some man who was standing there
listening to you talk to some of your friends?

Mr. PENA. I got so many fights in my place I don't know which one it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a man by the name of Garcia?

Mr. PENA. I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Hector José Garcia?

Mr. PENA. Hector José Garcia?

Mr. LIEBELER. We have a report that there was a man in your bar who
heard you talking to two merchant seamen, and you are reported to
have said: "Castro should have been notified about that as soon as
possible." Do you remember saying anything about that?

Mr. PENA. That Castro should be notified about it?

Mr. LIEBELER. That Castro should have been notified about that as soon
as possible.

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had anything to do with Castro?

Mr. PENA. No; not ever.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that Rodriguez had worked as a merchant seaman
prior to the time he went to work as a bartender, is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. About what time did he start working as a bartender?

Mr. PENA. When he came. His ship sunk and--somewhere in Costa Rica--and
they was transferred to New Orleans, and the company--agency that
he worked for bring him to New Orleans, bring a whole bunch to New
Orleans. They know I got room up in the house on the third floor. They
ask me if I got rooms, so I rent rooms to those guys, so--Evaristo,
too--so in that time, I put Evaristo to work for me.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how long ago was that?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly. I know it's over a year.

Mr. LIEBELER. Over a year?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You do have a lot of fights and difficulties in your bar,
is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes. Arguments. You know, a barroom.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was the anti-Castro organization that you worked with
called the Cuban Revolutionary Council?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was the name of it?

Mr. PENA. And the delegate here was Serrgio Arcacha. He was the boss of
the organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember having your picture in the paper at one
time----

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In connection with this, on the front page?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been some time in late December of 1960
approximately?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that when you talked to the FBI just last
month, they asked you when you went to Puerto Rico and the Dominican
Republic in August of 1963, and they asked you the days?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you subsequently discuss that with your attorney,
Mr. Tamberella?

Mr. PENA. Yes. Well, see, why, the reason I took Tamberella with me
was because from my point of view, the FBI of New Orleans ask me about
the same things so many times that somehow I was mad, so I said--about
10, 15 times they ask me the same thing over and over and over, and
Tamberella is my lawyer, so I went to Tamberella and said, "Look! They
look silly to me." They say the same thing so much, so I want to see if
I can't stop this. If they come around asking me something else, that's
okay, but for the same thing, I can't tell no more about that. He said,
"Okay, I go with you."

Mr. LIEBELER. Now my reports indicate that Mr. Tamberella called the
FBI office back after your interview and told the FBI that you had left
for Puerto Rico on August 8, 1963.

Mr. PENA. August 8?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. That you were not able to tell them the exact date
at the time of the interview, but later, Mr. Tamberella told them that.
That does not appear to be correct, does it?

Mr. PENA. I don't know exactly. It wasn't in the passport, the date?

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the date was August 22 in the passport.

Mr. PENA. The date in the passport was the date I came out of the
Dominican Republic, the 22d. I came back on my way back to New Orleans
the 22d of August.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you this----

Mr. PENA. Yes; might be the day I came out of the Dominican Republic.
I don't know exactly. Might be the 8th because I spent 1 week--if that
date, August 22, is the date I left the Dominican Republic, might be
the 8th because I spent 2 weeks between the two places. Delta Airlines
can give you the date of the flight to Puerto Rico exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. The only way that you and Mr. Tamberella were able to fix
the date was by looking at the stamp on the passport; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. If the visa stamp is the date that you left the Dominican
Republic----

Mr. PENA. It would be 14 days before that. I went 1 week in Puerto Rico
and 1 week in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. LIEBELER. If the date on the stamp was the day you went into the
Dominican Republic----

Mr. PENA. It would be 7 days before.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are absolutely clear in your mind, however, that you
were here in New Orleans on the day that Bringuier was arrested in
connection with the propaganda demonstration on the street because you
put up the bond to get him out. If I told you that that happened on
August 9, 1963, that would indicate that you were here in New Orleans
at that time and that you must have left some time subsequent to August
9, 1963?

Mr. PENA. I don't know. It might be another time, but the time I placed
the bond for him, I was here because I was the one went up to the first
precinct to give the money.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was the time Bringuier had gotten into a fight with
this man over distributing propaganda leaflets?

Mr. PENA. I didn't see the fight.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he told you about it?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how this fight came about?

Mr. PENA. Some other Cuban, a friend of Bringuier's, one of the Cubans
I placed the bond for, came to Bringuier's store--that's what they told
me about it, what I hear--and told Bringuier, "Look, Bringuier, there
is a man there giving propaganda against the Cuban Society in favor
of Castro." So Bringuier came out, but the two men got away, and how
they--I don't know what happened, what was the argument, but they got
arrested by the policemen.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was the time when you put up the bond to get him out?

Mr. PENA. Yes; if that's the same time. I don't know if he got in some
other trouble like that a different time. I don't know. I put bond for
him one time. I don't know if it was--I don't remember exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the description of the incident that you have given
us about the propaganda sounds very much like the one that occurred on
August 9, and the man who was handing out the literature was Oswald,
and Bringuier was arrested along with two other men along with Oswald.
That would seem to place you here in the United States at that time.
We can always check what the procedure is on that visa stamp so we can
figure out when you left the United States.

Mr. PENA. You don't need a visa to go to Puerto Rico when you are an
American citizen, but the Delta Airlines, if they keep records, can
give you the exact date and the hour I left New Orleans to go to San
Juan, P.R., last summer. I know it was in August because in August is
my birthday.

Mr. LIEBELER. You went to Puerto Rico on your birthday?

Mr. PENA. Well, I stay there on my birthday.

Mr. LIEBELER. When is your birthday?

Mr. PENA. August 15.

Mr. LIEBELER. August 16?

Mr. PENA. Fifteen.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photographic copy of a passport application
dated June 24, 1963, and ask you if that is a copy of the passport
application that you filled out on or about that day [handing document
to witness].

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is a copy of your passport application, is it?

Mr. PENA. I believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would like to mark that as "Orest Pena Exhibit No. 1,"
and I will just write it on here if I may.

(Whereupon, the document offered by counsel was duly marked for
identification as "Orest Pena Exhibit No. 1.")

Mr. LIEBELER. I have marked this "Orest Pena Exhibit No. 1," New
Orleans, July 21, 1964, and I have placed my initials on it. Would you
initial it below my initials just so we know we are talking about the
same document.

Mr. PENA. Over here [indicating]?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; just put your initials on it.

(Witness complying.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Now this application also has a part 2, which is required
to be filled out by naturalized citizens. That is also a part of your
application; is it not? [Handing document to witness.] Is that a part
of your application, too, Mr. Pena?

Mr. PENA. I don't know. Might be. Something wrong here. How--went to
Mexico? I don't know exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. What's the problem?

Mr. PENA. I don't know. Says here I was in Mexico. I don't know when
I went to Mexico. When I got my passport, I don't remember exactly. I
believe I got my passport--when I went to Mexico? How come it says here
I went to Mexico?

Mr. LIEBELER. You told us you went to Mexico in May of 1963, if I am
not mistaken. Is that right?

Mr. PENA. I know I went to Mexico last year.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, this passport application, the one that we have
already marked, is dated June 24, and the part, the supplement to it,
or what purports to be a supplement to it indicates that you went to
Mexico for 8 days in May of 1963. Now this part that we are looking at
is not signed by you at any point.

Mr. PENA. You mean that's when I applied for my passport?

Mr. LIEBELER. No; you applied for your passport on June 24, 1963. That
was after you came back from Mexico. You didn't need your passport to
go to Mexico. I don't think you did, anyway.

Mr. PENA. Yes; I believe so. I got my citizen papers; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. But the information that is set forth on this second part
of the application, to the extent that it indicates that you went to
Cuba in 1959 in May and April, is correct, is it not?

Mr. PENA. Well, I don't know the exact date, but it was around there,
somewhere around there.

Mr. LIEBELER. The information that you came to the United States in
October of 1946 is correct, is it not? That's correct approximately?

Mr. PENA. Yes; around.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you lived at 223 West 105th Street in New York City,
did you not, for a time?

Mr. PENA. Yes; I lived in that place.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now on the application, the original application that we
have marked as "Exhibit No. 1," which you signed, it indicates, does it
not, that you were going to go to Spain and that you planned to go to
Spain for a vacation trip of approximately 2 weeks.

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now in fact, you didn't go to Spain at that time; is that
right?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You went to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What made you change your mind about that?

Mr. PENA. I don't know; I just changed my mind. I postponed the trip to
Europe for this year.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall that you did plan to go to Spain on
vacation?

Mr. PENA. What?

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall that you did plan to go to Spain on
vacation?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir. That's where I did take my passport. You also use a
passport.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you fill this application out?

Mr. PENA. Right here in New Orleans at 701 Loyola Street, if I am not
wrong, the new Federal building.

Mr. LIEBELER. At 701 Loyola Street, the new Federal building?

Mr. PENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald at the passport office on
the day you applied for this passport?

Mr. PENA. I don't believe he was there.

Mr. LIEBELER. He applied for a passport on the same day.

Mr. PENA. He applied for the passport on the same day?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. I don't remember seeing him there. I remember the day I
applied for my passport there were a lot of people from--I don't know
from where, India or Africa. You know, colored people. There were some
people there. They were seamen or something, and one American girl got
all of those colored people. She was helping all of them that day. A
bunch of people there, colored people.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of seeing Oswald there at that
time?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you know, you never saw Oswald at any time
other than that time you saw him in your bar?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. He never had any conversation with you; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Not that I recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have any other Federal agencies besides the FBI
interviewed you?

Mr. PENA. You see, before, they used to go there and say, "We are from
the Federal Bureau," and would just talk to them. I didn't know what
agency. I never took no one's name or anything until later my lawyer
told me, "Every time you talk to one of these men, get their name,
where they come from." That was very, very much later. Before, they
would just come around and tell me that they are asking me many things
about people that was for Castro. When you got a barroom, especially in
Spanish like I got--most of my customers are Spanish seamen, foreign
seamen--you hear the way they talk, and before, as I was against
Batista--most of the people here for Castro, really for Castro--they
was going to my place. So when I joined the organization against Castro
in New Orleans, one of the agents of the FBI, De Brueys, started going
to my place very, very often asking me about many different people,
Spanish people, what I knew, what I thought. I told him what I knew;
that some people was for Castro and some people was against. I told him
what I saw. I never did ask him what he found out about those people.

Mr. LIEBELER. Sometimes you would call the FBI and give them
information, too; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Information that you picked up from conversations that
took place at your bar and listening to those seamen?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now I have been provided with what are supposed to be all
of the FBI reports about their conversations relating to the Oswald
case, and as far as I can tell, the only time the FBI has spoken to you
about that was back in December 1963, shortly after the assassination,
and then again in June 1964 just a short time ago; when they came to
question you again at my request after I had----

Mr. PENA. Just those two times?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; just twice.

Mr. PENA. I believe it's very many more times than that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think it is more times than that?

Mr. PENA. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure these were FBI men?

Mr. PENA. I don't know because, as I told you before, I didn't used to
get the names until my lawyer told me, "Look! Every time you talk to
one of those people, you better get the name and write it down so you
know who you are talking about."

Mr. LIEBELER. You wanted to tell me something about the FBI in New
Orleans. Why don't you do that now.

Mr. PENA. You see, I started--like I told you, when that organization
moved in New Orleans----

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the anti-Castro organization?

Mr. PENA. Yes. So I went down there and joined the organization. In
1959 when I went to Cuba, my mother told me how everything was going;
so she says, "He is even worse than Batista." So when I came back, I
joined the organization a little bit after that, the organization here
in New Orleans. So I went and joined them and started working for the
organization collecting money at my place of business and giving my
own money for many things to the organization, you know, a dollar, two
dollars. Then De Brueys came to the organization. Maybe--I don't know
if sent by the Government or how, but he went to the organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. He joined it?

Mr. PENA. No; he didn't join it, but he was sticking with the
organization very, very close.

Mr. LIEBELER. They knew he was an FBI agent?

Mr. PENA. Yes; we knew he was an FBI agent. So from time to time he
called me at my place. He went to my place and was asking me about this
guy and that guy, different people here in New Orleans. So I told him
what I thought about the men. I tell you that and then you find out if
I am right or if I am wrong. I never did ask if I was right or wrong.
I told him about people that I am for sure they are for Castro here
in New Orleans. So one way or the other, he was interfering with me
somehow, Mr. De Brueys, so----

Mr. LIEBELER. De Brueys was interfering with you?

Mr. PENA. Yes. Somehow. So one day I went to the FBI. They called me to
the FBI. I don't remember exactly for what they called me. So I told
De Brueys'--I told De Brueys' or somebody else that I talked to--De
Brueys' boss--I didn't ask them who it was. They was FBI. They was in
the FBI office--I told the agency there I don't talk to De Brueys. I
don't trust him as an American.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell them any reasons why you didn't?

Mr. PENA. Because he was interfering very close with the organization
against Castro. So since that day--we got in a little bit of argument
there. We was talking about somebody. The FBI asked me about a man that
had been in the group before, about somebody--if I knew somebody--if I
knew his way for signing. So I asked De Brueys, "Did I told you about
this man?" He said, "No." I got mad. I said, "If you said I didn't
told you about that man, I don't trust you as an American, to be for
an American." So 2 days later he went to my place of business. He said
to me at the table, "I want to talk to you." I said, "Okay, let's go."
He said not to talk about him any more because what he could do is get
me in big trouble. He said, "I am an FBI man. I can get you in big
trouble." But he made a mistake. I had a girl that was with me that was
here when he was discussing me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Somebody else was there and heard it?

Mr. PENA. Yes. He was discussing me not to talk about it. He was an
FBI man and he could get me in big trouble. So I talked to my girl
friend and said, "Look, I better pull out of this thing. What the FBI
wants me is to pull away from that organization and just keep away from
those things, politics," so I pull away, and I never did heard from the
FBI any more until Mr. Kennedy got assassinated. They left me alone
completely. They never asked me after I pulled out of the organization.
After that, I never listened to anybody talking about politics in the
place. I tried to keep out of it the most I could. They never did call
me any more until Oswald got--and then they started coming here talking
to me because we was talking about the incident.

Mr. LIEBELER. So your complaints about the FBI here in New Orleans
relate basically to the anti-Castro proposition and not to the
investigation of the assassination; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. No, no. That was way before.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any criticism of the FBI as far as the
investigation of the Kennedy assassination was concerned except that
you just don't like to talk to the FBI any more; is that right?

Mr. PENA. You mean after the assassination?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PENA. After the assassination, they came and asked me so many times
about the same thing, lemonade, it just looked silly to me. They came
over so many times, I said, I better do something about it. I called
my lawyer and said, "Look! I don't know anything else about this. I
want you to go with me there and put it clear that that's what I know
about it and I don't want no more part of that." The thing--I got in an
argument with one of the men there, the same thing I told you about the
printing and the propaganda. I told him how I feel about that. I don't
know whether I was right or wrong. He told me that the United States is
a big country and it was hard to find. I told him, "I don't agree with
you." I told him that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who?

Mr. PENA. I talked to the agency about if that propaganda, where they
was printing that propaganda, and I said, "Why can't you find that
place?" He said, "Because the United States is a big country." I said,
"It doesn't matter. Each printing has their own type or letter that can
be found somehow."

Mr. LIEBELER. So you told this FBI agent that they should find where
the propaganda literature had been printed?

Mr. PENA. The propaganda that Oswald was giving away. They put that on
television about 4 or 5 days after the assassination--Oswald giving
that propaganda. They knew that Oswald was giving that propaganda away
before Mr. Kennedy was killed. They got all of that propaganda and all
of that film taken of Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think they should find where those leaflets were
printed? This is what you told them?

Mr. PENA. The little bit I know about the investigation, they even--let
me see how to say it. Let me see--they even keep Oswald from killing
Mr. Kennedy. From my point of view as an investigator, if they went all
the way from that propaganda, from where it was printed, maybe they can
put Oswald in jail. Maybe the President not be killed. That was before
Mr. Kennedy was killed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you this: Do you have any evidence or do
you know of any evidence that would link Oswald to anybody else in a
conspiracy to assassinate the President?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any information or knowledge that Oswald was
involved with pro-Castro people in connection with the assassination?

Mr. PENA. No; I can't tell you that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any information that this was a pro-Castro or
a Castro plot to assassinate President Kennedy?

Mr. PENA. No; I can't say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether anybody else in New Orleans has any
information like that?

Mr. PENA. No; I can't say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. What I think about Bringuier? He is just trying to get big
name, collecting big name to make himself big when he come back to
Cuba. Be one of the bosses. That's my point of view. I told you he
don't like the United States and what I told you about; you can bring
him here and tell him that Orest Pena told you that. I will stand a
lie-detector test and invite him to take one, and I invite De Brueys,
too, to ask De Brueys if that's true or not true he went to my place
and tried to intimidate me. If he say no, I take a lie-detector test
and he take a lie-detector test and maybe you will find one Communist
in the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that Bringuier is using his association with
Oswald to give himself a big name in connection with that?

Mr. PENA. That's what it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you know, Bringuier doesn't have any evidence
that there was a pro-Castro plot to assassinate the President.

Mr. PENA. No; I don't know. See, Bringuier know Oswald very well. He
told me one time--I don't know if that is true or not--he said that
Oswald brought him some kind of manual or a book. I believe he still
have the book. And Bringuier has his own organization here. They call
it----

Mr. LIEBELER. DRE?

Mr. PENA. Cuban something.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the DRE?

Mr. PENA. Yes; something.

Mr. LIEBELER. Cuban Students Directory?

Mr. PENA. He said Oswald came to infiltrate in his organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that Oswald came to his store?

Mr. PENA. Yes. That's what he told me. Before, I used to talk to him,
go there or he came to my place.

Mr. LIEBELER. You and Mr. Bringuier are not too good friends any more;
is that right?

Mr. PENA. We was quite close until--when they started the blockade in
Cuba, the way he spoke about President Kennedy. And I pulled a little
bit out. I even used to give him sometimes more than $2. I don't know.
He collected to send to Miami, if he don't send it somewhere else.
That's what he said.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have anything else that you want to tell us at
this time, Mr. Pena, that I haven't asked you about that you think we
should know about?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't think of anything?

Mr. PENA. I tell you, Bringuier don't do many things that he will tell
you. He don't like America. Time will tell. He is one of the guys
that--do you remember when they were saying, "Yankee, go home," in
Cuba? He was in Cuba at that time. He was calling, "Yankee, go home."

Mr. LIEBELER. Has he ever favored Castro that you know of?

Mr. PENA. Oh, of course.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who, Bringuier?

Mr. PENA. Yes. He said not?

Mr. LIEBELER. I am asking you did he ever favor Castro.

Mr. PENA. I was in Cuba. I left Cuba very long time ago. I never was
involved in any kind of politics. I didn't like Batista, but I wasn't
in any organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't know of any.

Mr. PENA. What I know about people, what I hear in my place, or what I
hear other people talking, and what I hear about Bringuier was, when
Castro started with his revolution of Cuba, he was one of the Cubans in
the revolution calling, "Yankee, go home."

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think that Bringuier is in favor of Castro at
this time?

Mr. PENA. He? No, no. He hate Castro and he hate Russia, but he hates
America as much, too. He just want to go back to Cuba and be one of the
bosses.

Mr. LIEBELER. Be a big man?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, Mr. Pena. I want to thank you very much for
coming in.

Mr. PENA. I want you to know something: I love the United States more
than many people that are born in this country and I got a place of
business and I hear--they don't talk much now. They are very scared,
but before, when Castro was started, I learn many people, how much they
was against this country, people that was born in this country. I love
this country, believe me. Maybe you don't believe me or have a bad
report about me, but nobody make me a Communist. Believe that. Believe
it or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Thank you very much.




TESTIMONY OF RUPERTO PENA

The testimony of Ruperto Pena was taken on July 21, 1964, at the Old
Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by
Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Ruperto Pena, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified,
through the interpreter, as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. First, let the record show that this testimony is being
taken through an interpreter in the person of Special Agent Richard E.
Logan of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Pena, I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission
investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I have
been authorized to take your testimony pursuant to certain regulations
and orders that President Johnson has issued, including Executive Order
No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress
No. 137.

You are entitled to have an attorney. You do not have to answer the
questions if you have any objections to them, and you are entitled to 3
days' notice of the hearing.

Mr. LOGAN. I have already explained to him that you are an attorney and
about the Commission and authorization. Now I will just tell him about
these rights that he has.

(Discussion between witness and interpreter).

Mr. LOGAN. He says as long as he can answer them, that he will.

Mr. LIEBELER. I assume that he will be willing to proceed without an
attorney?

Mr. LOGAN. No; he doesn't care.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born, Mr. Pena?

Mr. PENA. Mantanza--that's the province--Colón--that's the city--Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. When?

Mr. PENA. March 5, 1927.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are still a citizen of Cuba?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you work?

Mr. PENA. With my brother at the--I help my brother run the bar, the
Habana Bar, 117 Decatur Street. The Habana Bar it is called.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Carlos Bringuier?

Mr. PENA (answering directly). Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are the brother of Orest Pena; is that correct?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Evaristo Rodriguez?

Mr. PENA (answering directly). Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed with your brother an incident in the
bar where a man ordered a lemonade?

Mr. PENA. I didn't talk with my brother about it. I have discussed it
with the bartender.

Mr. LIEBELER. Rodriguez?

Mr. LOGAN. Because his brother, apparently--he wasn't there when the
incident happened either. He didn't discuss it with his brother and the
bartender. Apparently, he just heard it through talk in the bar about
the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were not there at the time this happened?

Mr. PENA. No; I wasn't there.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture which
has been marked "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize
that man.

Mr. PENA. I know him from the newspapers, but I have never seen him in
person.

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. LOGAN. He knows. Just can't get it out right now. He doesn't
remember his name. He knows his face because he has seen it in a lot of
photographs and pictures in the newspaper. Never saw him in person, but
he knows the photograph of the man from pictures on TV and newspapers.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you know him as the man who assassinated President
Kennedy?

Mr. PENA. Yes; I do. I don't right at this second remember his name.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald?

Mr. PENA. Oswald is the man.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that
has been marked "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you have
ever seen any of the men in this picture, specifically that man who
is handing out leaflets slightly to Oswald's right, the man I point
to with my pencil, and, for the purposes of the record, it is the man
who stands behind Oswald to his right, and he is the second man from
Oswald. He wears a short-sleeved shirt with a tie.

Mr. PENA. I don't know anybody in there. I don't recognize anybody in
there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever tell Carlos Bringuier that you had seen
Oswald anywhere?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you in the bar, the Habana Bar, at the time when
your brother got into an argument with two Mexicans or Cubans about the
bongo drums?

Mr. PENA. It was me that had the argument with them. I had an argument
with a couple of them over there over the problem of Cuba, but I was
not there when the incident that your question specifically asked about
took place.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you did have an argument with two Mexicans about
Cuba; is that right?

Mr. PENA. The problems of Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you call the FBI?

Mr. PENA. Bringuier did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Bringuier called the FBI?

Mr. PENA. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times did you see these men?

Mr. PENA. The first time I saw them was in the bar, the two of them. It
was in the evening we were having this discussion over the problems of
Cuba. The second time was 2 or 3 days later--I am not positive about
that--when I saw them pass the bar in a little car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ask Bringuier to call the FBI?

Mr. PENA. Yes. What I did was, when I saw them passing in the
car--these two men that I mentioned, passing in a car--I went out and
took the license number and I gave this to Bringuier, Carlos Bringuier,
and I asked Bringuier to call the FBI because I wasn't able to speak
English well enough, and that's it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you, yourself, ever called the FBI or any other
Government agency about these two men before you told Bringuier to call
them?

Mr. PENA. I didn't call anybody before I told Bringuier to call them,
the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure?

Mr. PENA. I am sure. I gave Bringuier the number and told him to call
the FBI because I couldn't speak English well enough.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you remember discussing this question with Mr.
Logan back in May, and Mr. Logan asked you this question at that time,
and don't you remember that you told Mr. Logan that you had called the
FBI or the Immigration and Naturalization Service?

Mr. PENA. No; I didn't, but at that time, I just have said that I
called one because it mentions there about the telephone. I just can't
remember it now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why did you ask Bringuier to call the FBI, when you saw
these men in the car?

Mr. PENA. The night that I had the discussion with these two men, I got
the impression that they were pro-Castro and probably Communists, so
that's why, when I saw them go by in the car a couple of days later, I
asked Bringuier to call the FBI to denounce them, to turn them in or
denounce them, or to let them know that they were about.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why didn't you call the FBI when you talked to them the
first time?

Mr. PENA. The first reason I did not call the FBI the first time was
because this discussion took place at night and that, as soon as the
discussion was terminated, these two men left, and so it just sort of
ended right there. Then, when I saw them again, I got Bringuier to try
to call them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Bringuier tell you that he did call the FBI?

Mr. PENA. He called the FBI right in front of me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there when Bringuier called the FBI?

Mr. PENA. Yes. I was right there when he was supposed to have called
them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did Bringuier call them from?

Mr. PENA. Called them from Bringuier's store. That's the Casa Rocca.
That's right down the street from me. It's 107 Decatur. It's the Casa
Rocca. It's a store. That's where the call was made from.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Bringuier tell you who he talked to at the FBI?

Mr. PENA. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did these two men have anything to do with Oswald, as far
as you know?

Mr. PENA. As far as I know, no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen them again after you saw them in the
car?

Mr. PENA. No; never saw them since.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever been in favor of Fidel Castro in the early
times?

Mr. PENA. I have never been friendly toward Castro. I am more or less
pro-Batista.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any information as to where these two men
could be found now?

Mr. PENA. No; I don't have any information. I am under the impression
that one was a Cuban and one was a Mexican because of their method
of speaking Spanish, which varies from each Spanish country, like a
Cuban speaking can recognize a Mexican by his language rather than his
appearance.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the answer to the question?

Mr. PENA. The answer to the question is that I do not have any
information as to where these two men can be found now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you give Bringuier the license number of the
automobile?

Mr. PENA. Yes; I gave it to Bringuier.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Bringuier give it to the FBI?

Mr. PENA. Bringuier gave it to them, the FBI, over the telephone.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure that you were present when Bringuier talked
to the FBI?

Mr. PENA. The thing is, I was there when Bringuier made a call
supposedly to the FBI, but I can't say and won't say that I know
Bringuier was talking to the FBI. Actually, as a matter of fact, he
could have been talking to just anybody. That's what he just said.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had that problem because of your difficulty
understanding the English language?

Mr. PENA. The idea is that I was there when the call was made, but I
don't know. As far as I am concerned, Bringuier was talking to the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. It says here in this report that you weren't even there.

(Discussion between witness and interpreter.)

Mr. LOGAN. He is telling me now about all the people that are exiles
that are in Cuba. They hollered, "Yankee, no." But that's not
pertinent. You want me to ask him again about his being present and see
if we can make him remember?

Mr. LIEBELER. Why does he mention this thing about Cuba? He is not one
of them?

Mr. LOGAN. I dare say it is part of his nature. He is telling me that
we have to be careful of all of these people, which we already know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Pena, did you tell Mr. Logan and Agent De Brueys
that you were not present when Carlos called the FBI?

Mr. PENA. I don't know that I remember telling you that, but I say now
that I was present when that call was made.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now Mr. Bringuier said that you told him that one of the
two Mexicans had been in the bar with Oswald. Is that correct?

Mr. PENA. I never told Bringuier that.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you couldn't have told Bringuier that because you
weren't even in the bar when Oswald was there and you never saw the man
who was with Oswald?

Mr. PENA. That's right. I wasn't in the bar when----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any knowledge that Oswald was connected in
any way with any conspiracy to assassinate the President?

Mr. PENA. I have no information that Oswald was ever connected with any
organization or conspiracy to assassinate the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there anything else that you would like to tell us
about this whole affair?

Mr. PENA. I have no further information outside of what I have already
said regarding the two Mexicans.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Thank you very much.




TESTIMONY OF SYLVIA ODIO

The testimony of Sylvia Odio was taken at 9 a.m., on July 22, 1964,
in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan
and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant
counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Would you please rise and take the oath? 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?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an
attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the
assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take
your testimony by the Commission, pursuant to authority granted to the
Commission by Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and joint
resolution of Congress No. 137.

Under the rules of the Commission, you are entitled to have an attorney
present, if you wish one. You are also entitled to 3 days' notice of
the hearing, and you are not required to answer any question that you
think might incriminate you or might violate some other privilege
you may have. I think the Secret Service did call you, or Martha Joe
Stroud, here in the U.S. attorney's office, called you and gave you
notice.

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you wish to have an attorney present?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I don't think so.

Mr. LIEBELER. We want to ask you some questions about the possibility
that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mrs. ODIO. Before you start, let me give you a letter of my father's
which he wrote me from prison. You can have it. It was very funny,
because at the time he wrote it, the FBI incident happened a week
later. I told my father this man had been in my house and he introduced
himself as your friend; and he wrote me back in December telling me
that such people were not his friends, and he said not to receive
anybody in my house, and not any of them were his friends, and he
didn't know those people. At the time I did give the names of one or
two, and he wrote back, "I actually don't know who they are."

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's come to this during the course of the questioning,
but I am glad you brought it up. I do want to get to it, because it may
help us determine who these people were.

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. First of all, would you tell us where you were born?

Mrs. ODIO. In Havana, Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately when?

Mrs. ODIO. 1937.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you live in Cuba?

Mrs. ODIO. Until, well, I studied in the United States, so I mean--you
mean my whole life until--it was 1960.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1960?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you left Cuba and came to the United States, is that
correct?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you come to in the United States?

Mrs. ODIO. We first came to Miami, and we stayed there just a few days
and left for Ponce, Puerto Rico, and we stayed there 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then from Ponce, did you come to Dallas?

Mrs. ODIO. From Ponce, I came straight to Dallas last year, March of
last year.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that you have been in Dallas since March of 1963, is
that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicated that you had gone to school in the United
States. Where?

Mrs. ODIO. Eden Hall Convent of The Sacred Heart, in Philadelphia.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you go to school there?

Mrs. ODIO. Three years.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is what, high school?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right. From 1951 to 1954.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that period of 3 years the only time you were in the
United States prior to the time that you came to Dallas in March of
1963? The only time in the United States over any extended period of
time?

Mrs. ODIO. Excuse me, when I got married in 1957, I stayed 8 months--9
months in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that you lived in the United States for 9 months in
1956?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had been in Philadelphia for 3 years from 1954 on, is
that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. No; from 1951 to 1954, when I graduated.

Mr. LIEBELER. And for the period in New Orleans and when you came to
the United States finally?

Mrs. ODIO. In 1960, December 25, 1960.

Mr. LIEBELER. So after you came in December of 1960, you went to Puerto
Rico and lived in Puerto Rico for 2 years, and you came to Dallas in
1963 and you have been here ever since?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us briefly what your educational
background is, Mrs. Odio?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, I had grammar school in Cuba. I started high school in
Cuba and then I was sent to the Sacred Heart and I applied for college,
and went back and studied law in the University of Villanova. I did
not finish because my career was interrupted because of Castro, and I
didn't finish law.

Mr. LIEBELER. How much training did you have in law?

Mrs. ODIO. I had almost 3 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of law study in Cuba?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. My record indicates that on December 18, 1963, you were
interviewed by two agents of the FBI, Mr. James P. Hosty and Bardwell
D. Odum. Do you remember that?

Mrs. ODIO. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that they interviewed you at your
place of work, is that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember approximately what they asked you and
what you told them?

Mrs. ODIO. I think I remember. Not exactly, but I think I can recall
the conversation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you give us the content of that conversation, as
best you can recall it?

Mrs. ODIO. They told me they were coming because of the assassination
of President Kennedy, that they had news that I knew or I had known
Lee Harvey Oswald. And I told them that I had not known him as Lee
Harvey Oswald, but that he was introduced to me as Leon Oswald. And
they showed me a picture of Oswald and a picture of Ruby. I did not
know Ruby, but I did recall Oswald. They asked me about my activities
in JURE. That is the Junta Revolutionary, and it is led by Manolo Ray.
I told him that I did belong to this organization because my father
and mother had belonged in Cuba, and I had seen him (Ray) in Puerto
recently, and that I knew him personally, and that I did belong to
JURE. They asked me about the members here in Dallas, and I told him
a few names of the Cubans here. They asked me to tell the story about
what happened in my house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was it that you had seen in Puerto Rico?

Mrs. ODIO. Mr. Ray, I had seen. He was a very close friend of my father
and mother. He hid in my house several times in Cuba.

So they asked me to tell him how I came to know Oswald, and I told
them that it was something very brief and I could not recall the time,
exact date. I still can't. We more or less have established that it was
the end of September. And, of course, my sister had recognized him at
the same time I did, but I did not say anything to her. She came very
excited one day and said, "That is the man that was in my house." And I
said, "Yes; I remember."

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us all the circumstances surrounding the event when
Oswald came to your house.

Mrs. ODIO. Well, I had been having little groups of Cubans coming to
my house who have been asking me to help them in JURE. They were going
to open a revolutionary paper here in Dallas. And I told them at the
time I was very busy with my four children, and I would help, in other
things like selling bonus to help buy arms for Cuba. And I said I would
help as much as I could.

Those are my activities before Oswald came. Of course, all the Cubans
knew that I was involved in JURE, but it did not have a lot of
sympathy in Dallas and I was criticized because of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Because of what now?

Mrs. ODIO. Because I was sympathetic with Ray and this movement. Ray
has always had the propaganda that he is a leftist and that he is
Castro without Castro. So at that time I was planning to move over to
Oak Cliff because it was much nearer to my work in Irving. So we were
all involved in this moving business, and my sister Annie, who at the
time was staying with some American friends, had come over that weekend
to babysit for me.

It either was a Thursday or a Friday. It must have been either one of
those days, in the last days of September. And I was getting dressed to
go out to a friend's house, and she was staying to babysit.

Like I said, the doorbell rang and she went over--she had a housecoat
on--she wasn't dressed properly--and came back and said, "Sylvia, there
are three men at the door, and one seems to be an American, the other
two seem to be Cubans. Do you know them?" So I put a housecoat on and
stood at the door. I never opened my door unless I know who they are,
because I have had occasions where Cubans have introduced themselves as
having arrived from Cuba and known my family, and I never know.

So I went to the door, and he said, "Are you Sarita Odio?" And I said,
"I am not. That is my sister studying at the University of Dallas. I am
Sylvia." Then he said, "Is she the oldest?" And I said, "No; I am the
oldest." And he said, "It is you we are looking for." So he said, "We
are members of JURE."

This at the time struck me funny, because their faces did not seem
familiar, and I asked them for their names. One of them said his name
was Leopoldo. He said that was his war name. In all this underground,
everybody has a war name. This was done for safety in Cuba. So when
everybody came to exile, everyone was known by their war names.

And the other one did give me his name, but I can't recall. I have been
trying to recall. It was something like Angelo. I have never been able
to remember, and I couldn't be exact on this name, but the other one I
am exact on; I remember perfectly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you this before you go ahead with the story.
Which one of the men told you that they were members of JURE and did
most of the talking? Was it the American?

Mrs. ODIO. The American had not said a word yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one of the Cubans?

Mrs. ODIO. The American was in the middle. They were leaning against
the staircase. There was a tall one. Let me tell you, they both looked
very greasy like the kind of low Cubans, not educated at all. And one
was on the heavier side and had black hair. I recall one of them had
glasses, if I remember. We have been trying to establish, my sister and
I, the identity of this man. And one of them, the tall one, was the one
called Leopoldo.

Mr. LIEBELER. He did most of the talking?

Mrs. ODIO. He did most of the talking. The other one kept quiet, and
the American, we will call him Leon, said just a few little words in
Spanish, trying to be cute, but very few, like "Hola," like that in
Spanish.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a chain on the door, or was the door
completely opened?

Mrs. ODIO. I had a chain.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was the chain fastened?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I unfastened it after a little while when they told
me they were members of JURE, and were trying to let me have them
come into the house. When I said no, one of them said, "We are very
good friends of your father." This struck me, because I didn't think
my father could have such kind of friends, unless he knew them from
anti-Castro activities. He gave me so many details about where they saw
my father and what activities he was in. I mean, they gave me almost
incredible details about things that somebody who knows him really
would or that somebody informed well knows. And after a little while,
after they mentioned my father, they started talking about the American.

He said, "You are working in the underground." And I said, "No, I am
sorry to say I am not working in the underground." And he said, "We
wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated
it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door.
She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an
American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause. And let me
see, if I recall exactly what they said about him. I don't recall at
the time I was at the door things about him.

I recall a telephone call that I had the next day from the so-called
Leopoldo, so I cannot remember the conversation at the door about this
American.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is
true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name
very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.

Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?

Mrs. ODIO. No; she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This
I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which
is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just
casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he
knows any of them." But I forgot about them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men?

Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time?

Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just
had to know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television,
she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I
learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so
obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald
the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind
of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like
if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind
of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other
ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved
shirt.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of shirt was it, a white shirt?

Mrs. ODIO. No; it was either green or blue, and he had it rolled up to
here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Almost to his elbows?

Mrs. ODIO. No; less than that, just the ends of the sleeves.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he have a tie?

Mrs. ODIO. No tie.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it a sport shirt, or working shirt?

Mrs. ODIO. He had it open. I don't know if he had a collar or not, but
it was open. And the other one had a white undershirt. One of them was
very hairy. Where was I? I just want to remember everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on
television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you
know, as the man that had been in the apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said "Yes," and
she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it
couldn't be so, could it?"

That was our first interview. We were very much concerned after that.
We were concerned and very scared, because I mean, it was such a shock.

This man, the other one, the second Cuban, took out a letter written
in Spanish, and the content was something like we represent the
revolutionary counsel, and we are making a big movement to buy arms
for Cuba and to help overthrow the dictator Castro, and we want you to
translate this letter and write it in English and send a whole lot of
them to different industries to see if we can get some results.

This same petition had been asked of me by Alentado who was one of
the leaders of JURE, here in Dallas. He had made this petition to me,
"Sylvia, let's write letters to different industries to see if we can
raise some money." I had told him too, I was very busy. So I asked and
I said, "Are you sent by Alentado? Is this a petition?"

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned this Alentado who was one of the JURE
representatives here in Dallas. Is that his full name?

Mrs. ODIO. His name is Antonio.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a man by the name of George Rodriguez
Alvareda?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who is he?

Mrs. ODIO. He is another member of JURE. And at the time, a little
after that, after December, I was more in contact with him, and I
will tell you why later. They are all members of JURE here in Dallas,
working hard.

And so I asked him if they were sent by him, and he said, "No". And I
said, "Do you know Eugenio?" This is the war name for ----. That is his
war name and everybody underground knows him as Eugenio. So I didn't
mention his real name. He didn't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who did you ask this?

Mrs. ODIO. I asked these men when they came to the door--I asked if
they had been sent by Alentado, because I explained to them that he had
already asked me to do the letters and he said no. And I said, "Were
you sent by Eugenio," and he said no. And I said, "Were you sent by
Ray," and he said no. And I said, "Well, is this on your own?"

And he said, "We have just come from New Orleans and we have been
trying to get this organized, this movement organized down there, and
this is on our own, but we think we could do some kind of work." This
was all talked very fast, not as slow as I am saying it now. You know
how fast Cubans talk. And he put the letter back in his pocket when I
said no. And then I think I asked something to the American, trying to
be nice, "Have you ever been to Cuba?" And he said, "No, I have never
been to Cuba."

And I said, "Are you interested in our movement?" And he said, "Yes."

This I had not remembered until lately. I had not spoken much to him
and I said, "If you will excuse me, I have to leave," and I repeated,
"I am going to write to my father and tell him you have come to visit
me."

And he said, "Is he still in the Isle of Pines?" And I think that was
the extent of the conversation. They left, and I saw them through the
window leaving in a car. I can't recall the car. I have been trying to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know which one of the men was driving?

Mrs. ODIO. The tall one, Leopoldo.

Mr. LIEBELER. Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; oh, excuse me, I forgot something very important. They
kept mentioning that they had come to visit me at such a time of night,
it was almost 9 o'clock, because they were leaving for a trip. And two
or three times they said the same thing.

They said, "We may stay until tomorrow, or we might leave tomorrow
night, but please excuse us for the hour." And he mentioned two or
three times they were leaving for a trip. I didn't ask where, and I had
the feeling they were leaving for Puerto Rico or Miami.

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did not indicate where they were going?

Mrs. ODIO. The next day Leopoldo called me. I had gotten home from
work, so I imagine it must have been Friday. And they had come on
Thursday. I have been trying to establish that. He was trying to get
fresh with me that night. He was trying to be too nice, telling me that
I was pretty, and he started like that. That is the way he started the
conversation. Then he said, "What do you think of the American?" And I
said, "I didn't think anything."

And he said, "You know our idea is to introduce him to the underground
in Cuba, because he is great, he is kind of nuts." This was more or
less--I can't repeat the exact words, because he was kind of nuts. He
told us we don't have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy
should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs, and some Cubans
should have done that, because he was the one that was holding the
freedom of Cuba actually. And I started getting a little upset with the
conversation.

And he said, "It is so easy to do it." He has told us. And he
(Leopoldo) used two or three bad words, and I wouldn't repeat it in
Spanish. And he repeated again they were leaving for a trip and they
would like very much to see me on their return to Dallas. Then he
mentioned something more about Oswald. They called him Leon. He never
mentioned the name Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. He never mentioned the name of Oswald on the telephone?

Mrs. ODIO. He never mentioned his last name. He always referred to the
American or Leon.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention his last name the night before?

Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned
their names again.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or
an American. He said he had been a Marine and he was so interested in
helping the Cubans, and he was terrific. That is the words he more or
less used, in Spanish, that he was terrific. And I don't remember what
else he said, or something that he was coming back or something, and he
would see me. It's been a long time and I don't remember too well, that
is more or less what he said.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have an opinion at that time as to why Leopoldo
called you back? What was his purpose in calling you back?

Mrs. ODIO. At first, I thought he was just trying to get fresh with
me. The second time, it never occurred to me until I went to my
psychiatrist.

I used to go to see Dr. Einspruch in the Southwestern Medical School,
and I used to tell him all the events that happened to me during the
week. And he relates that I mentioned to him the fact that these men
had been at my door, and the fact that these Cubans were trying to get
in the underground, and thought I was a good contact for it, they were
simply trying to introduce him. Anyhow, I did not know for what purpose.

My father and mother are prisoners, and you never know if they can
blackmail you or they are going to get them out of there, if you give
them a certain amount of money. You never know what to expect. I expect
anything. Later on I did establish opinions, because you can't help but
establish opinions.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you establish that opinion after the assassination or
before the assassination?

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I
did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it;
except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned
the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And
later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he
writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved
with any of them."

Mr. LIEBELER. You have already given us a copy of the letter that you
received from your father in which he told you that these people were
not his friends, and told you not to get involved with them?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell your father the names of these men when you
wrote to him?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your father did not, however, mention their names in his
letter, did he?

Mrs. ODIO. He mentioned their war names, because this was the only
thing I knew. I probably put an Americano came too, two Cubans with an
American, and I gave the names of the Cubans.

Mr. LIEBELER. The copy of the letter that you gave to me this morning,
we will mark as Odio Exhibit No. 1.

Mrs. ODIO. He mentioned in the second paragraph, "You are very alone
there in Dallas. You don't have anybody, so please do not open your
door to anybody that calls themselves my friends."

Mr. LIEBELER. I have initialed the letter and I would like to have you
put your initials under my initials for the purpose of identifying the
exhibit.

Mrs. ODIO. Yes, okay.

Mr. LIEBELER. The letter is in Spanish, and you have underlined certain
parts of it about three-quarters of the way down, in Spanish. Would you
read that translation to us?

Mrs. ODIO. "Please tell me again who it is that calls himself my
friend. Be careful. I do not have any friends that have been near me
lately, not even in Dallas. So do not establish any friendships until
you give me their full names again."

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he say their "full names" in there?

Mrs. ODIO. Their full names again, which means I had given their war
names.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you must have given the name Leopold?

Mrs. ODIO. He says, "You are very alone with no man to protect you, and
you can be easily fooled." That is more or less what he says. We are 10
brothers and sisters, a big family, and this has been very sad for both
of them.

I have little brothers in Dallas in an orphanage. We have been, were a
very united family, and he is always worried about us being alone after
I divorced. He is still more worried, and he was always thinking that
somebody could come in my door. He also had a thought that somebody
could come by demanding money or something like that. You can probably
have somebody who knows Spanish do a better translation.

Mr. LIEBELER. This letter is dated December 25, 1963, is that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it is dated Nueva Gerona. Where is that?

Mrs. ODIO. The capital of Isle of Pines.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your father is a prisoner there?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are the prisoners permitted to write letters back and
forth?

Mrs. ODIO. One letter a month, on one side.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would presume that the letters are read by Castro's men?

Mrs. ODIO. They are all read. That is why I did not given him a lot
of details. I managed to write very small so they would have a time
reading it, like he does. You can see how perfectly he writes a letter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, let me ask you how you managed to establish that
these men came in late September. You previously stated that you
couldn't remember the date exactly, but you had managed to establish it
as being in late September. Would you tell me the procedure that you
went through to establish that date in your mind?

Mrs. ODIO. I told you my sister Annie was staying with some American
friends. She did not live with me. She had gone to live with the
Madlock's. And I called her many times to come and babysit for me
during certain weekends, and she would come either on a Thursday or
Friday, depending on when I called her.

I told her that day that I was going out, but I wanted her to start
packing for me because we were moving over to Oak Cliff. It must have
been the last days of September, because we had already packages in the
living room. We had already started to pack to go, and we had to move
by the first of October since my rent was due that day, you see.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you did move?

Mrs. ODIO. We did move the first of October to Oak Cliff.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the address of the apartment in which you lived
before you moved to Oak Cliff?

Mrs. ODIO. Over in, it was, I am almost sure of the number--1024
Magellan Circle. It is the Crestwood Apartments. I am not sure of the
number; I think it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you were living at the Crestwood Apartments
at the time these men came to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right. The Crestwood Apartments are full of Cubans.

Mr. LIEBELER. You left the Crestwood Apartments as of the first of
October and moved to Oak Cliff?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you are absolutely sure that these men came to your
apartment before the first of October?

Mrs. ODIO. Before the first of October.

Mr. LIEBELER. It would have been sometime toward the end of September,
because you recall that you had already started to pack to move from
the Crestwood Apartments to Oak Cliff?

Mrs. ODIO. The packages were in the living room, and Annie was helping
me. She was actually taking things out of the closet when they came.
It took a long time to be sure of that, but I am certain of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with your sister, Annie?

Mrs. ODIO. We had to, yes, sir; and she was convinced it was in late
September. Because she had not come the previous week. For 2 weeks, she
had not come, but had come the last week to help me pack and move.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a lease on your apartment, at the Crestwood
Apartments?

Mrs. ODIO. No; they don't take you by lease. You give a deposit, and
you lose it if you move before 6 months.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you lived at the Crestwood Apartments 6 months?

Mrs. ODIO. No. I have told you I moved several times, and it is because
of reasons of my work, and because my children at the time were in
Puerto Rico, and I went down to get them in Puerto Rico June 29th.

That was exactly the day that I saw Ray again. We had been trying to
establish a contact in Dallas with Mr. Johnny Martin, who is from
Uruguay. He is from there, and he had heard that I was involved in this
movement. And he said that he had a lot of contacts in Latin America to
buy arms, particularly in Brazil, and that if he were in contact with
one of our chief leaders of the underground, he would be able to sell
him second-hand arms that we could use in our revolution.

I don't know if this is legal or illegal, I have no idea. But when he
mentioned this fact, I jumped at the possibility that something could
be done, because you kind of get desperate when you see your father and
mother in prison, and you want to do something for them. So I called
Eugenio long distance from Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that, approximately? Shortly after you came back
from Puerto Rico?

Mrs. ODIO. I think I can give you the exact date. This was before I
left for Puerto Rico. June 28, Eugenio arrived from Miami to see Johnny
Martin.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you say that on June 28 Eugenio arrived from Miami, is
that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. He was supposed to have arrived June 14, but he never did,
and I called two times to make another appointment with Johnny, and he
just arrived in time for me to see him. Then it was a time when we met,
not Alentado, the other one, Alvareda--Rodriguez Alvareda.

So they went to my house. Now, I was living at the time at 6140 Oram
Street, the day they arrived. But when I went back to Puerto Rico, the
same day, June 29, I saw Ray, and I explained to him what Johnny Martin
here in Dallas was up to, and then he said that he was planning a trip
also to see if something could be worked out. Mr. Ray himself was
planning a trip in connection with that. He was going to Washington to
be interviewed by some high official.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he was going to come by Dallas first?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. So I went to Ponce, Puerto Rico, to get my children,
which were four of them, and I brought them back to Dallas. And this is
when I moved to Magellan Circle to a bigger apartment, to the Crestwood
Apartments.

Mr. LIEBELER. You moved there, after you came back from Puerto Rico
with your children?

Mrs. ODIO. I moved there exactly the end of July, the end of the month,
because I know when I moved, and then it was in August--let's see, I
lived there July, August, and to the last day of September in this
Magellan Circle, and then I moved to Oak Cliff.

Mr. LIEBELER. You actually did meet with Eugenio here in Dallas before
you went to Puerto Rico?

Mrs. ODIO. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Eugenio come to Dallas at any other time after that
to meet you?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you met with Eugenio here in Dallas?

Mrs. ODIO. Once.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was in June of 1963?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it was not Eugenio who was with Leon when those men
came to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I would have known Eugenio. He was a very close friend
of my family and he did underground activity with my mother and father.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever tell anybody that it was Eugenio who had
come to the apartment with Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Father McKann?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that he called you on the telephone?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; he did call me on the telephone.

Mr. LIEBELER. On April 30, 1964?

Mrs. ODIO. The date, I don't recall. Probably.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was approximately the end of April or early May of
1964 when he called you from New Orleans?

Mrs. ODIO. From New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing this whole question with him
at that time?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. He asked me if I was withholding evidence of any kind.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you tell him?

Mrs. ODIO. I told him that everything that I knew I had already told
him, and that I didn't know anything else that I could recall that
could be important to you.

Mr. LIEBELER. The only time that you were ever interviewed by anybody
in connection with this was when Agent Hosty came to your place of work
that day, isn't that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. That's correct. But three times I noticed a car standing
in front of my door where I live on Lovers Lane. I don't know if it
belonged to the Secret Service or the FBI, but I was kind of concerned
about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that one of the men--did you
tell him the names of the men who were there?

Mrs. ODIO. I told him what I knew, the names of the men that I knew.

Mr. LIEBELER. You told him one was Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you did not tell him that you could identify the
other man as Eugenio?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not tell him that?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I have a report before me of an interview with
Father McKann by a representative of the U.S. Secret Service in which
it states that Father McKann told this Secret Service agent that you
had told him that one of the men was Eugenio. But you indicated now
that that is not so?

Mrs. ODIO. No. Perhaps he could have misunderstood me, because he has
the same problems with names. Probably I did tell him that the man was
not Eugenio.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing with him Eugenio's visit to
you in June?

Mrs. ODIO. I think I discussed it with him, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. During that telephone conversation?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I think I discussed it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never
used in your presence by any of these men?

Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when
they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is also what you told Agent Hosty when he
interviewed you on December 18, 1963, and that is indicated in his
report?

Mrs. ODIO. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, a report that we have from Agent Hosty indicates
that when you told him about Leopoldo's telephone call to you the
following day, that you told Agent Hosty that Leopoldo told you he was
not going to have anything more to do with Leon Oswald since Leon was
considered to be loco?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right. He used two tactics with me, and this I have
analyzed. He wanted me to introduce this man. He thought that I had
something to do with the underground, with the big operation, and I
could get men into Cuba. That is what he thought, which is not true.

When I had no reaction to the American, he thought that he would
mention that the man was loco and out of his mind and would be the kind
of man that could do anything like getting underground in Cuba, like
killing Castro. He repeated several times he was an expert shotman. And
he said, "We probably won't have anything to do with him. He is kind of
loco."

When he mentioned the fact that we should have killed President
Kennedy--and this I recall in my conversation--he was trying to play it
safe. If I liked him, then he would go along with me, but if I didn't
like him, he was kind of retreating to see what my reaction was. It was
cleverly done.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he actually played both sides of the fence?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right, both sides of the fence.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Leopoldo tell you that Leon had been in the Armed
Forces?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he tell you about that?

Mrs. ODIO. He said he had been in the Marines. That is what he said.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that Leon could help in the underground
activities in which you were presumably engaged?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talked to Eugenio about this matter since
it happened?

Mrs. ODIO. No, I have not even contacted him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is your sister Annie in Dallas now?

Mrs. ODIO. She is coming now the end of July.

Mr. LIEBELER. She is not here now?

Mrs. ODIO. No, she is coming from Florida. She is coming to live with
me. She spent 6 months with my brother.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us what her address is in Florida?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. She is in--wait 1 second--Southwest 82d Place, Miami,
Fla.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old were these two men that were with Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. One of them must have been--he had a mark on his face like,
I can't explain it--his complexion wasn't too soft. He was kind of like
as if he had been in the sun. So he must have been about near 40, one
of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one was that?

Mrs. ODIO. But the other one was young. That was the tall one.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was not Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Alentado was younger?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old was he, would you say?

Mrs. ODIO. About 34, something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now how old would you say Oswald was? Did you form an
opinion about that when you saw him at the time?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I have never thought about it. I mean, I never thought
how old he was. He seemed to be a young man. I mean, not an old man. I
would say he was a young man; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you say how old you thought he was after you saw
him that day in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. I can't say that. I can establish in my thoughts; yes, I
could establish an age, but I didn't think of it at the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. What age would you establish you thought about it?

Mrs. ODIO. Oh, 34 or 35.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you read the newspapers and watched television since
the assassination and observed Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I read some of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you read how old he was?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't even know what age he is.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how tall was he?

Mrs. ODIO. He wasn't too tall. He was maybe 4 inches taller than I am.

Mr. LIEBELER. How tall are you?

Mrs. ODIO. I am 5 feet 6 inches.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you think he was about 5 feet 10?

Mrs. ODIO. Probably.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how was he built? Was he a heavy man or a light man?

Mrs. ODIO. He was kind of a skinny man, because the shirt looked big on
him, like it was borrowed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Like it was borrowed from somebody else?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; that is the impression he gave me, because it kind of
hung loose.

Mr. LIEBELER. Didn't fit well?

Mrs. ODIO. It didn't fit.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had anything to do with the DRE movement
here in Dallas?

Mrs. ODIO. Students Revolutionary Council, not at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know any representatives of the DRE?

Mrs. ODIO. I just knew one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was that?

Mrs. ODIO. Sarah Castilo. Now, I have heard about the directorate in
New Orleans, because I have family there and they told me about all the
incidents about him in New Orleans, about Oswald giving propaganda in
the street and how he was down in front of a judge and caused a fight
with Carlos Bringuier, and that, of course, this man had been working
pro-Castro in this Fair Play for Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald, you mean?

Mrs. ODIO. Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Carlos?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I have met him. I don't think he would remember me, but
I know who Carlos Bringuier is. They call him Carlitos.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?

Mrs. ODIO. I think it was a long time ago in Cuba, or I was introduced
to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never met him here in the United States?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who in New Orleans told you about this incident between
Bringuier and Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. My family discussed it in New Orleans how he had been handed
the propaganda. The other member of the directorate came along, and
they had a problem with him, because they were taken in front of a
judge. This was true.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you read about that in the newspapers?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I haven't. This I know from my family, the information
we heard from New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. How much of your family are living in New Orleans?

Mrs. ODIO. I have an uncle and a cousin; a married cousin.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one of them told you about this?

Mrs. ODIO. I think it was my uncle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there at that time?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In New Orleans?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your uncle's name?

Mrs. ODIO. Agustin Guitar.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was this that you discussed this with him?

Mrs. ODIO. February.

Mr. LIEBELER. In February of 1964?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. I remember that, because I had just come out of an
operation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a man by the name of Joaquin Martinez de
Pinillos?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Emanuel Salvat?

Mrs. ODIO. I have heard about him very much. I know who he is, but I
don't know him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you associate him with one of the Cuban organizations,
Salvat?

Mrs. ODIO. If I have heard something about him, it has been attached to
some organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember which one?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it be the DRE?

Mrs. ODIO. I can't say for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a woman by the name of Anna Silvera?

Mrs. ODIO. I have heard about her, too.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea how these three men came to your
apartment? Have you ever thought about it and tried to establish any
contact that they might have had with someone else that would have told
them to come to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. They were coming from New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. They came directly from New Orleans to your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. If it was true. It is very easy to find out any Cubans in
Dallas. Either you look in the phone book, or you call the Catholic
Relief Service. If you say you are a friend of so and so, they will
give you information enough. They will tell you where they live and
what their phone number is and how to contact them.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you have no actual knowledge as to how these men came
by your address?

Mrs. ODIO. I kind of asked them, and they told me because they knew my
family. That is how they established the conversation. They knew him
and wanted to help me, and knew I belonged to JURE and all this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, can you remember anything else about the incident
when Leon and the two men came to your apartment, or about the
telephone call that you got from Leopoldo, that you haven't already
told me about?

Mrs. ODIO. No. If I have forgotten something, but I think all the
important things I have told you, like the trip, that they were leaving
for a trip. And this struck me funny, because why would they want to
meet me, if they were leaving for some reason or purpose. And it has
been a long time. You don't think about these things every day and I am
trying real hard to remember everything I can.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, is there anything else that you think we should know
about that we haven't already asked you about in connection with this
whole affair?

Mrs. ODIO. No. It would be involving my opinion, but anything that is
real facts of the thing, that really happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is this the only time you ever saw the man called Leon
Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. The only time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever told anybody else that you have seen him
other times?

Mrs. ODIO. No, I don't think. It would be silly to withhold any
information. I mean, the involvement was very slight, and look how much
involved you get just from meeting him once. I have a pretty good idea
who called the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. About what?

Mrs. ODIO. You see, I did not call the FBI to tell them this fact.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why not?

Mrs. ODIO. I was going to, but I had to get around to it to do it
myself, because at the time everything was so confused and everybody
was so excited about it, and I wanted to wait to see if it was
important.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who do you think called the FBI?

Mrs. ODIO. Mrs. Connell, I think.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you were interviewed by the FBI at your place
of work, did you have any opinion about the way that interview was
conducted?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. It brought me a lot of problems in my work. The two
men were extremely polite and nice, the two gentlemen from the FBI.
You know how people were afraid at the time, and my company, some
officials of it were quite concerned that the FBI should have come to
see me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed with Alentado these two men and how
they came to see you?

Mrs. ODIO. I never talked to him about it. I decided not to mention
anything after the FBI came to see me, because I thought they were
going to contact him. I think I gave them the address and the telephone
number.

Mr. LIEBELER. You gave that to the FBI?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. He actually wouldn't know anything about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that because you asked these men if they had been
sent by Alentado and they said no?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Connell that you refer to is Mrs. C. L. Connell, is
that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know her?

Mrs. ODIO. It is a strange thing. Everything that has happened to me
in the past year has been very strange. But I came from Ponce because
I was mentally sick at the time. I was very emotionally disturbed, and
they thought that a change from Puerto Rico to Dallas where my sister
was would improve me, which it did, of course.

And I was supposed to see Dr. Cowley in Terrell. He is a Cuban
psychiatrist, but he was busy at the time and he couldn't help me. Mrs.
Connell belonged to the mental health and at the time she had helped
the Cuban group some because they had money, and I was introduced by my
sister.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one?

Mrs. ODIO. Sarita. She actually sent part of the money for my trip to
come here to Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Connell?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. So I met her. We became very, very close friends,
extremely close, and she talked to Dr. Stubblefield and she got me a
psychiatrist which was Dr. Einspruch. I was here 4 months before I went
to get my children. We were close, like I said.

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you think she called the FBI about this?

Mrs. ODIO. I am not certain of this, but I did discuss this with her
after it happened, because I trusted her completely. I discussed it and
told her that I was frightened, I didn't know what to do. I did not
know if it was anything of importance that I should tell the FBI. And I
was the only person--she was the only person I told.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Dr. Einspruch about it?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; but the things you talk with a doctor in an office, he
will tell you before that he is going to say it. He would have told me,
"I am going to tell the FBI." You have to trust a doctor, especially a
psychiatrist. I know they talked to him later, but I don't think it was
him that called the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Mrs. Connell that you had seen Oswald at
some anti-Castro meetings, and that he had made some talks to these
groups of refugees, and that he was very brilliant and clever and
captivated the people to whom he had spoken?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure you never told her that?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen Oswald at any meetings?

Mrs. ODIO. Never. This is something when you talk to somebody, she
probably was referring--we did have some meetings, yes. John Martino
spoke, who was an American, who was very clever and brilliant. I am not
saying that she is lying at all. When you are excited, you might get
all your facts mixed up, and Martino was one of the men who was in Isle
of Pines for 3 years. And he mentioned the fact that he knew Mr. Odio,
that Mr. Odio's daughters were in Dallas, and she went to that meeting.
I did not go, because they kept it quiet from me so I would not get
upset about it. I don't know if you know who John Martino is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the same man as Johnny Martin?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. A different one?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who is he?

Mrs. ODIO. Martino is one that has written a book called "I was a
Prisoner in Castro Cuba," and he was on the Isle of Pines for 3 years.
He came to Dallas and gave a talk to the Cubans about conditions in
Cuba, and she was one of the ones that went to the meeting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Connell?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; and my sister Annie went, too.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Dr. Einspruch tell you that he had talked to the FBI?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. About this?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you roughly what his conversation with the
FBI was?

Mrs. ODIO. He told me that they had asked him if I had hallucinations,
that I was a person who was trying to make up some kind of story. That
was the context of our story. I trusted Dr. Einspruch very much. He
always told me the truth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you he had told the FBI that you did not have
hallucinations and you had probably not made this up?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. Other people make it up, but----

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mr. Einspruch tell you he had discussed this question
with some representatives of the President's Commission?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you what that conversation was about?

Mrs. ODIO. He told me that they had talked about an hour and a half
about this whole thing, and he told them that he had already told me
the whole facts of the thing, and he said let's not mention it any
more. You know what we discussed. Don't be afraid.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you still seeing Dr. Einspruch?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I am through with therapy. He left.

Mr. LIEBELER. He is no longer in Dallas?

Mrs. ODIO. No; he left for Philadelphia for the U.S. Naval Hospital.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Dr. Einspruch that you had seen Oswald in
more than one anti-Castro Cuban meeting?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I don't think so, because I have never seen him before
except the day he came to the door.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never seen him since?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You told us before that you had a fainting spell after
you heard about the assassination. Would you tell us about that, please?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, I had been having fainting spells all the past year. I
would pass out for hours, and this was part of my emotional problems.
I was doing quite well except that I had come back from lunch, and I
cannot deny that the news was a great shock to me, and I did pass out.
I was taken in an ambulance to a hospital in Irving.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you pass out as soon as you had heard that the
President had been shot?

Mrs. ODIO. No; when I started thinking about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you heard that Oswald was involved in it before you
passed out?

Mrs. ODIO. Can I say something off the record?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

(Witness talks off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. At this point, let's go back on the record. You indicated
that you thought perhaps the three men who had come to your apartment
had something to do with the assassination?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you thought of that before you had the fainting
spell?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes. Of course, I have "psychiatric thinking." My
psychiatrist says I have psychiatric thinking. I mean, I can perceive
things very well.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of thinking?

Mrs. ODIO. He says I have tremendous intuition about things and
psychiatric thinking, which has helped me many times. So immediately,
for some reason, in my mind, I established a connection between the
two greasy men that had come to my door and the conversation that the
Cubans should have killed President Kennedy, and I couldn't believe it.
I was so upset about it. So probably the lunch had something to do with
it, too, and I was so upset, but that is probably why I passed out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you heard the name Oswald before you passed out?

Mrs. ODIO. No, sir. It was only the connection.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had made the connection in your mind between these
three men that came to your apartment, and the assassination?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Primarily because of the remarks they had made about how
the Cubans should have assassinated President Kennedy because of the
Bay of Pigs situation, is that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had not seen any pictures of Oswald or heard his name
prior to the time of your passing out?

Mrs. ODIO. No; I don't recall--maybe you could tell me what the exact
time they mentioned by the radio the name of the suspect. They spoke of
a suspect all the time, but they did not mention any name. And I think
I came out about 8 o'clock that night. They gave me a shot, so I did
not know any name until that night.

Mr. LIEBELER. What time did you pass out?

Mrs. ODIO. I came back from lunch about 5 minutes before 1 o'clock,
because we had to punch the clock at 1, and by 1:30 we knew the
President was dead, and we all decided to leave, and it was about 10
minutes to 2 that we walked out of the office, and I think I passed out
back in the warehouse.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just after you left the office?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it would have been sometime before 2 o'clock or right
after?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did these men indicate that they had all come from New
Orleans together?

Mrs. ODIO. I am pretty sure that is what he said. Either that they had
been, or that they had just come. I cannot be sure of either one, but
they had been in New Orleans, or had just come from New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you recognize these men again if you saw their
pictures, do you think?

Mrs. ODIO. I think I could recognize one of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think they definitely look like Cubans?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, this is my opinion. They looked very much like
Mexicans. But I might be wrong at that, because I don't remember any
Mexican accent. But the color of Mexicans, when I am referring to
greasy, that kind of complexion, that is what I mean.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become aware of the fact that this man
who had been at your apartment was the man who had been arrested in
connection with the assassination?

Mrs. ODIO. It was immediately.

Mr. LIEBELER. As soon as you saw his picture?

Mrs. ODIO. Immediately; I was so sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt about it?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any doubt about it then?

Mrs. ODIO. I kept saying it can't be to myself; it just can't be. I
mean it couldn't be, but when my sister walked into the hospital and
she said, "Sylvia, have you seen the man?" And I said, "Yes." And she
said, "That was the man that was at the door of my house." So I had no
doubts then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you recognize this man's voice?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't know. I am not sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph that has been marked as Bringuier
Exhibit No. 1, and ask you if you can identify anybody in that
photograph?

Mrs. ODIO. That is Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. With the X?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anybody else in the picture?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I specifically call your attention to the man standing to
Oswald's right, the second man behind him, who is facing the camera and
has in his hand some leaflets.

Mrs. ODIO. Does he have some glasses on?

Mr. LIEBELER. The man that I just described?

Mrs. ODIO. Does he have any glasses?

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me see the picture.

Mrs. ODIO. He has the same build that that man has in the back.

Mr. LIEBELER. He has the same build?

Mrs. ODIO. A lot of hair here [pointing to the right temple].

Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing to this man here?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that his hair appeared to be pulled back in some
way?

Mrs. ODIO. One of them, Leopoldo, or the other one. One has very thick
hair.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are describing Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. He had hair in front, but he has it pushed back in here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Like sort of a bald spot in his front?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Excuse me just a minute, I will be back. Now, you have
indicated that the individual standing immediately behind Oswald and
to his left, actually in front of the door of this building might look
something like one of the men that was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right. That height and that tall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, what about the man standing immediately next to him,
so we have in the picture starting from the right, a head, and then a
man standing in the opposite direction from Oswald, and then we have
Oswald, and then we have the individual that you have just referred to
about his pushed back hair, or the bald spot in the front, and then we
have another man who has a group of leaflets in his hand.

Mrs. ODIO. He looks familiar, but I don't think that was one of the men
I saw there at the door. I don't know, Cubans sometimes have the same
physique and everything, the narrowness of the shoulders. I mean the
back looks something like this man I am telling you about.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you are unable to identify positively anybody else in
the picture other than Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. No; that's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a picture that has been marked Pizzo
Exhibit No. 453-B, which appears to show a front view of the man with
the bald spot, and I ask you if you recognize him as one of the men
that was with Oswald in the apartment.

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure that it was not, or you are unable to say?

Mrs. ODIO. No; that man was thinner and a little taller than that
picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you are referring----

Mrs. ODIO. I am referring to this man now.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to a man with the white shirt whose
back is toward the camera?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about the man immediately behind Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. No; he was taller than that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's refer to this as No. 1. Does it appear to you that
the man who is standing sort of sideways to the camera immediately
behind Oswald in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B is the same man as this man
who is immediately behind Oswald and facing away from the camera in
Bringuier Exhibit No. 1?

Mrs. ODIO. No; it seems like a different back to me. Actually, possibly
the same person, but for some reason, maybe the picture gives him a
slimmer look.

Mr. LIEBELER. You keep referring in Pizzo's exhibit to the man whose
back is to the camera with a white shirt?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; he came with a white shirt.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am having trouble, because I first thought that this
man here, who I will mark with the number 1 in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B
is the same as the man who I will mark as No. 1 in Bringuier's Exhibit
No. 1, but it appears that that is not so?

Mrs. ODIO. No; this man is this man in the picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. So we have established that No. 2 in Bringuier's Exhibit
No. 1 is the same as the man marked No. 1 in Pizzo's Exhibit No. 453-B?

Mrs. ODIO. Exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the man who we will mark 2 in Pizza's Exhibit No.
453-B is the man marked 1 in Bringuier's Exhibit No. 1?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as far as the man marked No. 1 in Bringuier's
Exhibit No. 1 is concerned, you think when you see him there, that
might look like the man who was in the apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. He has the same build in the back, and same kind of profile,
this side. Here he looks a little broader, and that is not him. It is
the same man, but that wasn't the way Leopoldo looked.

Mr. LIEBELER. So the man marked 2 in Exhibit No. 453-B, Pizzo, does not
look like the man who was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You cannot in any event recognize the man who we shall
mark 3 in both pictures; is that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. Correct. Let me look at that man here [looking]. He wasn't
one of them, but he looks so familiar to somebody, this one, the one
that has his hand on his face.

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicate that the man who we shall mark 4 in Pizzo's
Exhibit No. 453-B looks somewhat familiar?

Mrs. ODIO. Somewhat familiar; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you Pizzo Exhibit 453-A and ask you if you
recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. ODIO. Who is this man?

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to the man who we shall mark 1 on
Exhibit No. 453-A. Does he look familiar to you?

Mrs. ODIO. The color of him looks familiar. That was more or less the
color of that short man. He did not look real white.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does it appear to you that the man we have marked 1 in
Exhibit No. 453-A is an oriental?

Mrs. ODIO. Is an oriental?

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know. Does it look like it to you?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't know. I am just talking about the color of his face,
the same color. Now he looks more familiar in this picture, you see.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say this, you point to the man who we will mark
2 in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A, and he is the same man who is No. 2 in
Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, and No. 1 in Bringuier's Exhibit No. 1? They
all seem to be the same man, don't they?

Mrs. ODIO. I think they are all the same man, but for some reason in
this picture, he is wearing glasses, isn't he?

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, it looks like it; doesn't it?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this man wear glasses who was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He did?

Mrs. ODIO. Didn't wear them all the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you recognize Oswald in any of these pictures; in
Exhibit No. 453-A?

Mrs. ODIO. [Pointing.]

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicate the man with the green X over his head as
being Oswald, and that is the man who was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. He looks a little bit fatter. I don't know if it is the
picture. He looked thinner when he was in the apartment, than he looks
in this picture. He was kind of drawn when he was there. His face was
kind of drawn. But he looks more familiar there. He looks more like he
looked that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. In Exhibit No. 453-B, the man with the green line over
his head looks more like the man that was in your apartment; is that
correct?

Mrs. ODIO. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt that that man with the green line
over his head in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B was the man who was in your
apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, if it is not, it is his twin.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a photograph that has been marked Garner
Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if you recognize that man.

Mrs. ODIO. That is Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the man who was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure?

Mrs. ODIO. He doesn't have the little thing, the little moustache that
he had that day. He looks shaved there, and he did not look shaved that
day.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that
looks like the man who was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. That is not the expression he had, but he has the same
forehead and everything. But his lips, the only thing that confuses me
is the lips that did not look like the same man. It is that unshaved
thing that got me that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C appear to you, does the man
in that picture appear to be somewhat unshaven, or similar to the one
you saw in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. I think he was not. The only thing he had not shaved was
around where the mouth is, and everything else was shaved. That is way
he looked, kind of clothes hanging on him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think this man in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C is Lee
Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I think that is him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that is the man that was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, let me say something. I think this man was the one
that was in my apartment. I am not too sure of that picture. He didn't
look like this. He was smiling that day. He was more smiling than in
this picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. We have to put the pictures down on the record, because
when somebody reads the record--you say that he----

Mrs. ODIO. He looks more relaxed in Exhibit No. 453-C. He looks more
smiling, like Exhibit No. 453-B, or different countenance.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have some motion pictures of the scene that we have
been looking at here in these still pictures. These pictures that have
been marked Exhibit Nos. 453-B and 453-C were taken from a movie that
was made of that, and we also have on that movie a picture of Lee
Oswald as he appeared on the television program in New Orleans on a
sound track. I want you to look at those pictures and tell us after you
have looked at the pictures if you think that man was the same man who
was in your apartment.

I have not yet made arrangements for the projector to be set up, and
there is an FBI agent bringing another picture over here from the FBI
office that I want you to look at this morning before you leave. But
I would like to have you--and I have another witness waiting for me,
and I have nine more witnesses. Could you come back later this evening
to look at the motion pictures? And in the meantime, I will have the
Secret Service set up a projection room to view the films?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Why don't we terminate momentarily now, and as soon as
the FBI comes over, I will show you this picture, and I will call the
Secret Service and find out when he can set up the viewing of this
film, and I will tell you what time to come back.

Mrs. ODIO. Since I am going to be downtown, do you want me to come back
any special time?

Mr. LIEBELER. I will tell you as soon as I talk to Mr. Sorrels.

Mrs. ODIO. Before I leave?

Mr. LIEBELER. I can't tell you before you leave. I will see if I can
set up a time. When you say that these men came to your apartment in
late September of 1963, can you give me your best recollection as
to how long before the first of October they came? You moved out of
your apartment in the Crestwood Apartments on the very last day of
September; is that correct? Or can you remember? Is there any way you
can check that by finding out when you moved into your apartment in Oak
Cliff?

Mrs. ODIO. The day I moved, I had gone to work, so it must have been on
a Monday or Tuesday. This man must have come by the end of the previous
weekend.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a 1963 calendar and point out to you that the
last day of September was Monday.

Mrs. ODIO. That is probably the day I moved.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say that you also started working at a new job
that same day?

Mrs. ODIO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you had been working on the day that you did move?

Mrs. ODIO. I started working initially the 15th of September, because
it was too far away where I lived in Irving. I started the 15th of
September, I am almost sure of the 15th or the 9th. Let me see what
day was the 9th. It was a Monday. It was the 9th, sir, that I started
working at National Chemsearch.

(Special Agent Bardwell O. Odum of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
entered the hearing room.)

Mr. LIEBELER. This is Mr. Odum from the FBI. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Odum was the man that interviewed you.

Mrs. ODIO. I remember. He looked very familiar.

Mr. ODUM. What is the name?

Mrs. ODIO. Odio.

Mr. ODUM. I interview so many people, it slips my mind at the moment.

(Agent Odum left the hearing room.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you have indicated on the calendar, you circled the
30th of September, and you drew a line around the 26th, 27th, and 28th
of September. Can you tell me what you meant by that?

Mrs. ODIO. The 30th was the day I moved. The 26th, 27th, and 28th, it
could have been either of those 3 days. It was not on a Sunday.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you indicated previously that Leopoldo called you the
immediately following day after they had been there; is that correct?

Mrs. ODIO. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you also testified, according to my recollection,
that you had been at work on the day that Leopoldo called you; is that
correct?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes; it would be the 26th or the 27th for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you work on Saturday?

Mrs. ODIO. No; but he could have called me Saturday. But they would
have come Thursday or Friday.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thursday or Friday?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Because you had been at work on the day they came?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether you had been at work on the day
that Leopoldo called you?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't recall that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't recall that?

Mrs. ODIO. No. I know I was very busy with the kids, but I don't
remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture which depicts the same individual
that is depicted in an exhibit which has previously been marked
Commission Exhibit No. 237, and I ask you if you recognize that man.

Mrs. ODIO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is not the man that was with Leon when he came to
your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. No. I wish I could point him to you. One was very tall and
slim, kind of. He had glasses, because he took them off and put them
back on before he left, and they were not sunglasses. And the other one
was short, very Mexican looking. Have you ever seen a short Mexican
with lots of thick hair and a lot of hair on his chest?

Mr. LIEBELER. So there was was a shorter one and a tall one, and the
shorter one was rather husky?

Mrs. ODIO. He was not as big as this man.

Mr. LIEBELER. Not as big as the man in Exhibit No. 237?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the man in Exhibit No. 237 that had a pushed back
spot on his head?

Mrs. ODIO. It was different. In the middle of his head it was thick,
and it looked like he didn't have any hair, and the other side, I
didn't notice that.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was the taller man; is that right? The one known as
Leopoldo?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how much did the taller man weigh, could you guess?

Mrs. ODIO. He was thin--about 165 pounds.

Mr. LIEBELER. How tall was he, about?

Mrs. ODIO. He was about 3-1/2 inches, almost 4 inches taller than I
was. Excuse me, he couldn't have. Maybe it was just in the position he
was standing. I know that made him look taller, and I had no heels on
at the time, so he must have been 6 feet; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the shorter man was about how tall, would you say?
Was he taller or shorter than Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Shorter than Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how much, could you guess?

Mrs. ODIO. Five feet seven, something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he could have been 2 or 3 inches shorter than Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. He weighed about how much, would you say?

Mrs. ODIO. 170 pounds, something like that, because he was short, but
he was stocky, and he was the one that had the strange complexion.

Mrs. LIEBELER. Was it pock marked, would you say?

Mrs. ODIO. No; it was like--it wasn't, because he was, oh, it was like
he had been in the sun for a long time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's terminate now and we will resume when we show the
film to you tonight.




TESTIMONY OF SYLVIA ODIO RESUMED

The testimony of Sylvia Odio was taken at 6:30 p.m., on July 22, 1964,
at the office of the Secret Service, 505 North Ervay Street, Dallas,
Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission. Forrest Sorrels and John Joe Howlett, special agents of the
U.S. Secret Service were present.


Mr. LIEBELER. This is the continued deposition of Mrs. Sylvia Odio,
which is now being continued in the office of the Secret Service. We
have made arrangements in the presence of Agent Forrest Sorrels and
Agent Howlett, to show some movie films of some street scenes in the
city of New Orleans, and also a television appearance that Lee Harvey
Oswald made over station WDSU in New Orleans in August of 1963. I want
to ask Mrs. Odio to watch the film, and if you recognize anybody in the
film at any time say so as you see him and point the individual out and
we will run the film backward and see what it looks like at that time.
Please go ahead, John.

Mrs. ODIO [viewing film]. The man from the back with the glasses, I
have seen him, the tall thin one. I would like to see the beginning
where the man started coming in.

(Film was rerun.)

Mrs. ODIO. You see the one with the glasses, that thin man. He doesn't
have a mustache, though.

Mr. LIEBELER. That third man there?

Mrs. ODIO. I will show you the back when he comes. The man over to the
right in the white shirt from the back, that looks so familiar.

Mr. LIEBELER. That one right over there?

Mrs. ODIO. Right; he has the same build.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you back it up, John? Let me ask you this now,
Sylvia. Did you recognize Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Oh, yes; definitely. He made a television appearance. He
looked much more similar than the pictures from New Orleans. He had the
same mustache here.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the television appearance?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about in the pictures that you saw in the police
station of him standing against the wall when he walked out of the
police station, did that look like the man that was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about his voice? Did you recognize any similarity in
his voice?

Mrs. ODIO. No. I don't know if it was because in the television it
changed, or something, and he didn't speak too much that day, and it is
hard to remember a voice after such a long time.

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or
less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you
had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late
in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same
feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers
for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too
much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other
pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not
resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my
door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was
sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you have any doubts in your mind after looking
at these pictures that the man that was in your apartment was the same
man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you want to run the picture once more, John?

Mrs. ODIO. What I am trying to establish is the man with the bald in
the back was similar to the profile, but he seems lighter in this
picture. But the men looked like Mexicans. They did not look like
Cubans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now we have here two pictures that have been made from
films of this movie.

Mrs. ODIO. In that picture he didn't resemble that at all [pointing].

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B; the man
marked with the number 2?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the same man you have been talking about as
looking similar?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right. But in the motion picture he looks thinner and
I was trying to give you an idea of the man that I saw that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that the man you saw in the motion picture,
who is the same man marked number 2 in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, could
have been the same man that was in your apartment with Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I think he had a mustache, and this man in the apartment
does not have any mustache.

Mr. LIEBELER. But otherwise, you think that he looks similar?

Mrs. ODIO. They have the same stature and same build and profile. I can
say he was standing to the side in the door, and his hair was pulled
back on one side.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you want to run through it again, please?

(Film was rerun.)

Mrs. ODIO. The picture that resembled most, even though his hair was
not so cut that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have referred to the individual that was walking out
of the police station?

Mrs. ODIO. With his back.

Mr. LIEBELER. He had a mustache, and he had glasses on?

Mrs. ODIO. That day he did not have a mustache. He just had glasses,
and he would take them off and on. Lee Oswald--Leon is fatter in this
picture than what I actually saw him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think this man standing on the corner, who is No. 2
in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, is the same man you saw walking out of the
police station?

Mrs. ODIO. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is a different man?

Mrs. ODIO. That's right. The one that is walking out of the door, kind
of thin-looking individual, is darker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is the man that was walking out of the police station?

Mrs. ODIO. You want me to point it out?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Run it back. I think we should indicate in the
record there was a confusion in my mind, because I think it is pretty
clear that the man that was walking out of the police station is a
different man than is in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B.

Mrs. ODIO. He looked greasy looking. I will tell you when [looking at
film].

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it that man with the sunglasses that walked out of the
door?

Mrs. ODIO. That is the picture I see. That picture is what I mean.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. There he is again [indicating individual with
mustache leaving police station with Carlos Bringuier and others
depicted on film].

Mrs. ODIO. There he is again; big ears, but from the front, he doesn't
resemble it. It is the same build from the back, that thin neck.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that that man we have just seen in the picture
resembles one of the men that was in your apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. From the back, because I remember that I put the light on on
the porch, and I saw them get in the car. I wanted to be sure they were
gone.

Mr. LIEBELER. But it is clearly not the same individual?

Mrs. ODIO. No, sir; clearly not the same. I am trying to see something,
to put something in paper that would make me remember. [The film was
rerun but the witness did not recognize anyone depicted on it except as
indicated above.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Odio.




TESTIMONY OF RUTH HYDE PAINE

The testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine was taken at 11:15 a.m., on July 23,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite familiar with the proceedings of the
Commission and with the Commission's rules governing the taking of
testimony, since you have given testimony perhaps longer than any
other witness we have had, so we won't go through all the rituals of
explaining the purposes of why I am here, and I will come right to the
point.

In the testimony that you gave before the Commission, Mr. Jenner asked
you about the events of the evening of November 21, 1963, as regards
the relations between Lee and Marina. There was also considerable
testimony about their whereabouts and about the possibility that Oswald
wrapped the rifle up that evening, but I am not particularly concerned
about that. I do want to focus on your impression of the relations
between Lee and Marina at that time.

As I recall, the preceding Sunday you had called Oswald at his
roominghouse and asked for Lee Oswald and, of course, were not able to
talk to him because he was living there under the alias of O. H. Lee.
As I understand, on the following Monday Oswald called Marina, as was
his custom, and they had a considerable discussion over the use of the
alias, and after that conversation, or conversations that took place on
Monday, Lee did not call Marina again that week; is that correct?

Mrs. PAINE. That's my impression.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember how many times Oswald called Marina on
Monday?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, he called nearly every evening while he was working
during the week--he usually called around 5:30, just to talk.

Mr. LIEBELER. But specifically, on this Monday following the Sunday
on which you called the roominghouse and asked for him, the Monday on
which they had the argument about his use of the alias, do you remember
how many times he called and talked to Marina on that day?

Mrs. PAINE. On that particular Monday--only once, I think.

Mr. LIEBELER. Only one time?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Marina tell you, after she talked to him that Monday,
what the conversation was about?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes; she did.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did she tell you?

Mrs. PAINE. She said--and I believe I have testified to this--that
she was clearly upset. You are asking me what she told me of the
conversation?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. PAINE. I, of course, could tell that she was upset while talking
to him, although I didn't understand much of what she said to him, as
I was in the same room. She said that he was living under a different
name; was angry that we had tried to call him and she said that this is
not the first time she had felt between two fires, and I judge that she
meant between a loyalty to him and a feeling that what he was doing was
not right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she say that this wasn't the first time that she felt
between two fires, or did she use an expression that "this isn't the
first time I felt 22 fires?"

Mrs. PAINE. "Between two fires," is my memory on that. Twenty-two
fires? This is a common expression in Russian; it's like between the
Devil and the deep blue sea.

Mr. LIEBELER. Between two fires, you mean?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the only problem that I have is that on page 45 of
volume 3, of the page proofs your testimony indicates that.

Mrs. PAINE. That's why I would like to read my testimony. That's just
incorrect. Between 22 fires--no, no--this is not it. This should be,
"This is not the first time I felt between two fires," which, as I say,
is like our expression, "Between the Devil and the deep blue sea."

Mr. LIEBELER. I will correct the page proofs to reflect that on your
previous testimony.

Mrs. PAINE. It occurs twice there, I see.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Did she tell you of any detail of what the argument
was about--what the situation was?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, she said that she felt he should not be using an
alias. It wasn't contained in anything that was said, but I got the
feeling that she was upset with his doing this or thinking that he
should or could do it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you whether or not Oswald had told her why
he was using the alias?

Mrs. PAINE. She did not tell me anything about why.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any ideas as to why he might be doing it?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I did suppose the possibility--it is possible that he
was worried about it being found out at the School Book Depository that
he had a Russian wife. He did ask me to ask Mrs. Randle to ask Frazier
not to ask questions, not to discuss the fact that he had a Russian
wife with the coworkers at the School Book Depository. I think he felt
that, if this was known, it would also become known that he went to
Russia and the circumstances of that, and he felt, and this was a sheer
guess on my part, and I judge that he felt this would make his job
tenure unsure.

Mr. LIEBELER. In other words, you do say, however, that Oswald did ask
you to ask Mrs. Randle to ask Wesley Frazier not to talk about Oswald's
Russian wife at the School Book Depository; is that correct?

Mrs. PAINE. That's right; so that my impression is supported to that
extent.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ask Mrs. Randle to ask Mr. Frazier to do that?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not she did?

Mrs. PAINE. She said she had already discussed it and she judged that
they would not be talking about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't know whether Mrs. Randle ever specifically
mentioned it to Frazier after you talked to her?

Mrs. PAINE. No; I don't know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when Oswald asked you to do that?

Mrs. PAINE. It was very shortly after he got the job--it was in the
first week, I would say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Marina tell you that she was angry with Oswald for
using this alias?

Mrs. PAINE. It was clear that she was angry--on the face of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was clear to you on Monday after the conversation
she had with Oswald?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald, of course, did not call Marina at any time during
the rest of that week. Did you and Marina discuss the reasons for this?

Mrs. PAINE. We didn't discuss reasons. She did say on Wednesday, is my
recollection, that she said, "He thinks he's punishing me," after I
told her the fact that he was not calling as he usually did, and her
comment was, "He thinks he's punishing me."

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you think that Marina continued to remain angry with
Oswald throughout that week for his use of the alias?

Mrs. PAINE. I don't think she continued to remain angry--no. We did
briefly discuss why he came on Thursday, with one another, after his
arrival.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get to that, what was your impression of the
relations, if Marina didn't tell you, between Marina and Oswald prior
to the evening of Thursday, November 21?

Mrs. PAINE. They had a good many arguments and occasional heated words,
and I felt this was--well, that Marina is not one to maintain a feeling
of anger--I don't know about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you say that Marina is not one to maintain a
feeling of anger? What is the basis for that judgment on your part?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I have very little basis. Perhaps--she did write
me during the summer, and you have that correspondence, saying that
things were better when she didn't argue, and that may be the outward
circumstances that I'm talking about. She certainly was cordial to Lee
when he arrived on Thursday, and relations were normal between them, I
would say.

Mr. LIEBELER. That's really what I want to come to and I want to ask
you about, and you did say that on page 47 of volume 3 in your previous
testimony. Mr. Jenner asked you as regards the evening of November 21,
"Was there a coolness between them?"

    Mrs. PAINE. He went to bed very early. She stayed up and talked
    with me some, but there was no coolness that I noticed. He was
    quite friendly on the lawn as we----

Then, Mr. Jenner said, "I mean coolness between himself and--between
Lee and Marina."

    Mrs. PAINE. I didn't notice any such coolness. Rather, they
    seemed warm, like a couple making up a small spat. I should
    interject one thing here, too, that I recall as I entered the
    house and Lee had just come in. I said to him, "Our President
    is coming to town."

You indicated specifically here that he was quite friendly on the lawn
and that you noticed no coolness between them. Now, what was Marina's
response to all this, the best you can recall?

Mrs. PAINE. You recall that he was there when I arrived from the
grocery store. They had already met. Her response was really to me, as
he had gone on into the house. She mentioned to me her embarrassment
that he hadn't called and asked if he could come.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about Marina's response to Lee, did I understand
from reading your previous testimony that both you and Marina were
of the opinion that Oswald had come home that night to make up the
argument that Marina and Lee had had on the telephone on Monday; isn't
that correct?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Oswald acted in a manner that led you to believe that
he had come home specifically to make up the argument?

Mrs. PAINE. That it was at least conciliatory.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did Oswald do that led you to believe that he wanted
to make up the argument? Did he do anything different out of the
ordinary?

Mrs. PAINE. No; I would say just the contrary, that he proceeded as he
might normally have done on a Friday night coming home or coming to the
house for the weekend. I don't think--I would be certain that he made
no apology, just from my judgment of the man.

Mr. LIEBELER. At least, you didn't hear him make any apology?

Mrs. PAINE. I certainly didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear him ask Marina to move into Dallas with him?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that he might have asked her to do that?

Mrs. PAINE. She told me, and it should be there, that he had expressed
to her--she told me the night of the 22d that he had expressed to her
his wish that they could get together as soon as possible and have
their apartment together. The setting in which she told me this left
me with the impression that she was confused and hurt that he could be
making a gesture toward the reestablishing of their family life when
at the same time he must have been thinking about doing something that
would necessarily destroy their family life. There was no indication to
her, in what she told me, that he meant for her to do it right away. I
have since heard this by rumor.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I'm going to read some more of the testimony to you
momentarily, some of Marina's testimony, and I want to discuss it with
you, but there is one bit of it particularly that I am confused about
just from reading it and I get from it the possible inference and you
also, I believe, indicate on page 49 of your testimony, that on the
evening of the 21st you and Marina discussed plans for Christmas?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I think it was then--I'm not positive that it was
that night.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there any conversation between you and Marina to
the effect that Oswald was not to come back to Irving any more until
Christmas time?

Mrs. PAINE. Oh, absolutely not.

Mr. LIEBELER. There was no indication that his pattern of coming on
weekends was to change in any manner?

Mrs. PAINE. No; we had previously talked in terms of their staying at
the house through Christmas and then the Oswalds getting an apartment
again when they had saved up a little money, around the first of the
year.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me read to you a part of the testimony that Marina
gave.

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which, frankly, seems to me somewhat inconsistent with
the testimony that you have given about the events of this evening,
although perhaps, these things might have happened outside of your
presence and you were not aware of them. This appears at page 65 of
volume 1 of the hearings.

    Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband give any reason for coming home on
    Thursday?

This, of course, was on Thursday, November 21.

    Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he was lonely because he hadn't come
    the preceding weekend and he wanted to make his peace with me.

    Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to him then?

    Mrs. OSWALD. He tried to talk to me, but I would not answer him
    and he was very upset.

    Mr. RANKIN. Were you upset with him?

    Mrs. OSWALD. I was angry, of course. He was not angry, he was
    upset. I was angry. He tried very hard to please me. He spent
    quite a bit of time putting away diapers and playing with the
    children on the street.

    Mr. RANKIN. How did you indicate to him that you were angry
    with him?

    Mrs. OSWALD. By not talking to him.

    Mr. RANKIN. And how did he show that he was upset?

    Mrs. OSWALD. He was upset over the fact that I would not answer
    him. He tried to start a conversation with me several times,
    but I would not answer and he said that he didn't want me to be
    angry at him because this upsets him.

    On that day he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas.
    He said that he was tired of living alone and perhaps the
    reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not
    living together, that if I want to, he would rent an apartment
    in Dallas tomorrow, that he didn't want me to remain with
    Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas. He
    repeated this not once, but several times, but I refused. And
    he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him and
    I didn't need him.

    Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?

    Mrs. OSWALD. I said it would be better if I remained with Ruth
    until the holidays, he would come and that we would all meet
    together and this was better, because while he was living alone
    and I stayed with Ruth, we were spending less money and I told
    him to buy me a washing machine, because with two children it
    became too difficult to wash by hand.

    Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?

    Mrs. OSWALD. He said he would buy me a washing machine.

    Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?

    Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you, that it would be better if he bought
    something for himself, that I would manage.

Mrs. PAINE. I want to point out that she referred to his playing with
the children on the street, meaning outdoors--the phrase is the same in
Russian, that is to say, the translation--it can mean either outdoors
or on the street.

When I arrived, he had been there for at least, I will say, 15 minutes.
I arrived around 5:30 and a good deal of this might have happened prior
to then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to the time you came home?

Mrs. PAINE. Prior to the time I arrived--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the next two sentences here I will read to you--two
or three sentences more.

    Mr. RANKIN. Did this seem to make him more upset when you
    suggested that he wait about getting an apartment for you to
    live in?

    Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He then stopped talking and sat down and
    watched television and then went to bed. I went to bed later.
    It was about 9 o'clock when he went to sleep. I went to sleep
    at about 11:30, but it seemed to me that he was not really
    asleep, but I didn't talk to him.

I suggest that that testimony would indicate that there probably was a
considerable degree of coolness between the Oswalds that evening; would
it suggest that to you?

Mrs. PAINE. It would suggest that to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. At least that their relations would not be normal.

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I might describe what I think normal is. I said I
thought their relations were fairly normal.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, was there usually a good deal of coolness between
them?

Mrs. PAINE. They would often have small arguments--he wanted potatoes,
or where was the ketchup level of arguments, which I felt just
reflected a tension between them that showed in this way.

Now, very little was said--I don't remember well, but it was not
uncommon for him to eat his meal and then leave the table before other
people did. I don't remember specifically, but it's possible he did
that night and go in to watch the television. In other words, his
efforts at being sociable or friendly even was never very great.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, specifically, the part of your testimony, of
course, that I have difficulty in reconciling with the testimony I have
just read is when Mr. Jenner asked you if you detected any coolness
between Marina and him and you responded, "I didn't notice any such
coolness. Rather, they seemed warm like a couple making up a small
spat."

How clear and how definite is your recollection of the events of that
evening? I can't possibly reconcile in my mind the testimony that
Marina gave with the notion that they looked like a couple that were
making up from a small spat, and as far as that goes you can't either.

Mrs. PAINE. No; I can't--that may be just my interpretation.

Mr. LIEBELER. After hearing Marina's testimony and reflecting on what
happened that night, do you think that this testimony is consistent
with what you remember having happened there that night?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I saw nothing of the argument she describes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; I appreciate that.

Mrs. PAINE. I saw no continuing of it in the sense that they threw
barbs at each other later. I don't recall any such altercation, and
as I say, I just don't remember well enough whether it was that night
as he had on other nights--he ate and left the table without much
conversation--or just what happened. It was really my assumption, I
would say, that he was there to make up the quarrel over the telephone.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you specifically discussed that with Marina that
evening?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you both agreed that that was the reason he came
there?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. No; I don't mean that I specifically recall real
warmth being shown, but that his behavior was much as it often was and
I judged that he was there to make up for the fight in some way.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you also thought from observing Marina that she was
glad to have him make up the spat or that they had made the spat up?

Mrs. PAINE. I didn't see anything opposite to that, at least, so I was
left with my assumption unchallenged.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, as far as you know, the events that are described by
Marina's testimony that I have just read--could perfectly well have
happened.

Mrs. PAINE. It could perfectly well have happened--indeed--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. After the assassination, did you think about your
previous judgment that Oswald had come out there that evening to make
up the argument that he had with Marina?

Mrs. PAINE. That's what I thought he must have come for.

Mr. LIEBELER. After hearing this testimony, as it occurred between
Marina and Lee that evening, do you think that could have had anything
to do with his attitudes and feelings the next day?

Mrs. PAINE. What you read of her testimony is news to me. I had no
idea what the tone was of any words that passed between them, and as I
say, all I heard that was in any way familiar to me, was that he had
asked her to take an apartment--nothing about it being right away. I
would say it could certainly have affected his thinking about it the
next day. It is conceivable even that he hadn't seriously thought about
shooting the President, but that would be sheer conjecture on my part.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a washing machine in your house?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Marina use it?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. If I may say--that I am disturbed by what she said.
I was concerned all along in this arrangement that Lee not resent my
being--my offering a place for Marina, and what she said would do a
good deal to raise resentment in him, I would think.

Mr. LIEBELER. Marina, of course, was aware of the fact that you did not
want to conduct yourself in such a manner as to breed resentment on
Oswald's part with respect to his relations with Marina?

Mrs. PAINE. We never discussed it explicitly. I probably would have if
my Russian had been better. She at one point said to him on a weekend
when he came out that my Russian was improving while his was getting
worse, and I was embarrassed to have her say this. I may have testified
to this, and just pointed out that I was getting more practice than he
at that time was, but my feeling was that this was a mistake on her
part in terms of his feelings to say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she say that in front of him?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes; that's why I spoke up immediately and said, "Well, you
know a lot more vocabulary than I did."

Mr. LIEBELER. Other witnesses have testified that Marina was not always
entirely considerate of Oswald's feelings in the presence of others.
Would you think that would be a fair statement?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I seldom saw them in the presence of others.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the presence of others--I mean yourself.

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the incident you have just related, of course, is an
example.

Mrs. PAINE. I would say that it is an example and I am trying to
think of others that I can make a generalization. I can't make a real
generalization like that, and the reason I said, "In front of others,"
is because I do recall also, and I testified to this, that when they
first went down to New Orleans he got an apartment for her and I felt
he was very anxious that she like it, and her responses to him were
just simply not as enthusiastic as it was clear he had hoped. This was
not embarrassing in front of someone else in a sense it wasn't that
noticeable a thing, but I did feel that she wasn't trying very hard to
understand his hope to please her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it be a fair statement in your opinion that in
point of fact both of these people were more interested in tearing each
other down than they were in complementing each other or in trying
to accommodate themselves to each other or to work out some sort of
sincere relationship between themselves?

Mrs. PAINE. I don't think you can be that curt about it. Marina never
did speak to me about wanting to leave him. She spoke, and this appears
in her letters too, of wishing to get along and spoke and wrote that
she was encouraged that relations seemed better. It seemed to me
that she accepted this as a situation a good deal short of ideal but
nonetheless the one she was in and one she was to work with.

Mr. LIEBELER. My characterization assumed a continuance of the
relationship. A simple solution perhaps to many situations like this,
of course, is for people to leave each other. But while they were
together--I'm not trying to get you to say that this is so--I have
never seen them together, of course.

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. But I have seen other people in whose behavior I might
find some similarities to the Oswalds or what I think the Oswalds'
situation might have been on the basis of the testimony we have
had. But also, you said before there was a general coolness between
them--Oswald would argue about the ketchup. You indicated something
about the ketchup.

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Little things like this: Marina made a statement in front
of you that your Russian was getting better and Oswald's was getting
worse, and of course, the testimony that Marina gave herself about what
happened between them--I am wondering if you know Marina Oswald or
Oswald well enough to make a judgment about this sort of thing.

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I think I don't, and it's my guess that there was a
lot more argument and contention between them than what I saw, just
judging from what I have heard other people have said about it. I did
see them trade barbs or comments and in that sense the answer was "yes"
to your question of did they seem willing or out to hurt one another.
I can't remember just how you phrased it. They were certainly not
proceeding toward a mature relationship though----

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Marina ever say anything to you about sexual
relations between herself and Oswald?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you testified about that previously?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you care to tell us?

Mrs. PAINE. I will say this, that it is part of what convinced me that
she was interested in helping the relationship. We talked about going
to Planned Parenthood to get contraceptive information there 6 weeks
after the birth of Rachel, that is, we were to go then for that. It
must have been myself that suggested that she discuss with one of the
counselors there her feelings about their sexual relationship.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you her feelings about the sexual
relationship?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I think I'll answer that simply--I don't think--let
me say that I feel that the exposure of her private life has been
considerable and should be limited to what is pertinent, and I think
what is pertinent is whether she thought she would stay with him or
not, and whether she planned to try to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Other witnesses have testified to us that Marina said in
front of Oswald and in front of them that Oswald was not a satisfactory
man in terms of sexual relations with her and that she did not obtain
satisfaction with him and that he was, as far as she was concerned,
much less than a man in his sexual relations with her, and I wonder if
she told you some of those things.

Mrs. PAINE. Surely nothing was said in his presence and I am shocked
to hear that she discussed it in his presence with other people, which
sounds like an attempt simply to injure him rather than an attempt to
help the situation that needed help. Now, no doubt my own attitudes
affect how a person talks to me. She may have sensed that I was
interested in a reconciliation, and their feelings, and would have
known that I would not have accepted this, or perhaps not wanted to put
it that way with respect to the denouncement of him, but it certainly
was not put that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she suggest to you that she was not satisfied with
her sexual relations with Oswald?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes; she did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever tell you anything about the separation that
occurred between herself and Oswald in the fall of 1962 in November?

Mrs. PAINE. She mentioned that she had once left him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you any of the details of it?

Mrs. PAINE. Probably very few of the details--I didn't know to whom she
went. She described him as being ashen and shocked when she actually
did walk out and then as pleading with her to come back, after a week,
which she did, and that he said everything would be different and that
she commented that it wasn't different and that was virtually all that
was said about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever mention George De Mohrenschildt to you?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, that's how I met her.

Mr. LIEBELER. You know De Mohrenschildt yourself?

Mrs. PAINE. I have met him once at a gathering where I first met the
Oswalds, so I knew that they knew them--they were the mutual friend
between the hosts of the evening party.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Glover?

Mrs. PAINE. And the Oswalds, but that's the only time I have seen the
De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever say anything to you about De Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. PAINE. You mean that that might have been to whom she went?

Mr. LIEBELER. I just want to know if she ever discussed De
Mohrenschildt with you?

Mrs. PAINE. I recall her discussing a child. Now, this is what I am not
sure about, again my understanding of her Russian may have interfered.
She talked, I think, Mrs. De Mohrenschildt has a child or it may be
his, and that this person is married and has a child, but I never got
that straight as to who was married.

Mr. LIEBELER. She never discussed her own feelings about De
Mohrenschildt?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever indicate that De Mohrenschildt was in any
way involved or related to the separation that occurred between herself
and her husband?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions. However, I would
like to ask you one more.

You have previously been questioned about and have heard about a
supposed telephone call that was supposed to have been made from
Michael Paine's office to your home shortly after the assassination,
and I do not represent that I have knowledge of such call--that such
call was ever made, but as you know, there were rumors to the effect
that this man and woman together in this conversation--that one of
them said that he wasn't really responsible for the assassination and
they both knew who was and I think both you and Michael have testified
about this before and have denied that there was any such telephone
conversation between you and anyone.

Was there a telephone conversation of any kind between you and Michael
between your residence and Michael's office on November 22 or November
23, 1963?

Mrs. PAINE. I have testified to the fact that Michael called--I don't
know whether it was from the cafeteria where he had been eating or more
likely from his office, to my home, on the 22d. He had learned of the
assassination at lunchtime and called to tell me to find out if I knew
it, and this was the entire substance of the conversation. I told him I
did know--from watching TV.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that the only telephone conversation between those
two numbers on those 2 days that you know of?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever thought or had reason to believe that
Marina Oswald was responsible in any way for Oswald's assassinating the
President?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never meant to suggest anything or never said
anything that would suggest that to Michael or anybody else?

Mrs. PAINE. No--never--that has absolutely not occurred to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of course; my question doesn't mean to imply that she is
so responsible. Had you and Michael ever discussed Oswald's alleged
attack on General Walker?

Mrs. PAINE. You mean since the assassination of President Kennedy--have
we discussed it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes--at any time.

Mrs. PAINE. I suppose we have--I'm sure we have talked of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Michael ever indicate to you in any way that he had
knowledge of Oswald's attack on General Walker prior to November 22,
1963?

Mrs. PAINE. I would be absolutely certain he had not--his indications
were such that he had no such information.

Mr. LIEBELER. By that answer you mean to say, one, that he did not
indicate to you before the assassination that he did have knowledge,
and, two, after the assassination when it became known that Oswald had
been involved in the General Walker shooting, Michael didn't indicate
then that he had had any prior knowledge of it?

Mrs. PAINE. That's correct. Of course, it wasn't until several
days--more than a week after the assassination that something was
printed about Oswald there having been involved in an attempt on Walker.

Mr. LIEBELER. But as far as you know, Michael knew nothing about that
until he found out about it in the newspaper?

Mrs. PAINE. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. When the Dallas police and other authorities came out to
your house, they eventually took all of Oswald's personal effects, did
they not?

Mrs. PAINE. No; they did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have anything left in your house that belonged to
Oswald?

Mrs. PAINE. No; they were eventually taken by Robert Oswald in company
with John Thorne and Jim Martin. That was probably the first weekend in
December, or at least 2 weeks after the assassination--more likely 3.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall what was among these things that Robert
Oswald and Mr. Martin took?

Mrs. PAINE. They took the clothes from the closet, boxes and things
that I did not look into. I have heard from the police that it also
included an old camera which they had to chase later and went up to
Robert Oswald's to find it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were there any newspapers or magazines or anything like
that, copies of The Militant or The Worker?

Mrs. PAINE. I did not see--most of what was done was what was put in. I
busied myself in the bedroom getting out what was to go--what was the
Oswald's property.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald did, of course, receive copies of The Worker and
The Militant at your address?

Mrs. PAINE. I had seen that he received The Worker. I had never opened
The Militant. I noticed on November 23 when I looked at the pile of
second class mail and third class mail that was waiting for him to come
that weekend that it included a copy of The Militant--that was the
first I had noticed. This is after it had been in the newspaper.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember which issue of The Militant that was,
do you?

Mrs. PAINE. It must have been the current one.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened to that?

Mrs. PAINE. I threw it away, along with The Worker and a Russian paper,
I guess. It was unopened and still in its jacket.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when it had come?

Mrs. PAINE. During the week--well, no; it could have been during the 2
weeks since he hadn't been there over the weekend.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of course, he did come up on Thursday night?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, it wasn't discussed and it wasn't pointed out then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, how did he usually handle this problem with the
mail--he was accustomed to receiving these pieces--the issues of the
newspaper, at your address, wasn't he?

Mrs. PAINE. I handed it to him or laid them on the couch for him to
look at when he arrived on Friday night.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he hadn't looked at these newspapers that had come
during the period from his last visit to Thursday?

Mrs. PAINE. That's right; he had not been there.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't look at those on Thursday?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many newspapers did you throw away, do you remember
what they were?

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I recall particularly The Militant and The Worker
and it seems to me there was the Russian Minsk paper too, but I'm not
certain.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there just one copy of The Militant?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you don't remember when it had come?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many copies of The Worker?

Mrs. PAINE. One.

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe that's all. Thank you for coming in.

Mrs. PAINE. All right.




TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL RALPH PAINE

The testimony of Michael Ralph Paine was taken at 12:05 p.m., on July
23, 1964, in the office of the U.S. Attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Would you raise your right hand and take the oath,
please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name for the record?

Mr. PAINE. Michael Ralph Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are familiar with the Commission's procedure and you
have testified before the Commission as I have heretofore indicated,
isn't that correct?

Mr. PAINE. I have testified before--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You testified previously that when you first met Lee
Oswald in April 1963, that you discussed to some extent Gen. Edwin A.
Walker?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; I think we did discuss him in passing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald ever indicate to you in any way that he had
been involved in the attempt on General Walker's life?

Mr. PAINE. Not that I remember at all--nothing whatsoever. I think the
only thing he did--the only thing that I can remember now, was that he
seemed to have a smile in regard to that person. It was inscrutable--I
didn't know what he was smiling about--I just thought perhaps it
was--the guy assumed it was rapport for a person who was an extreme
proponent of a certain kind of patriotism or something.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Walker was?

Mr. PAINE. General Walker was--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you first met Oswald, as I recall, on April 2,
I believe it was, of 1963?

Mr. PAINE. You have been keeping up with this--I haven't been thinking
about Oswald for a year.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any recollection as to the date at this
point?

Mr. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you did meet Oswald sometime in April,
for the first time; do you recall whether it was before or after that
Walker had been attacked?

Mr. PAINE. I don't recall now; and as I remember--back in the fall--I
wasn't aware then whether it was before or after. It isn't just a lapse
of memory now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing with Oswald the fact that
someone had shot at General Walker?

Mr. PAINE. No--I don't. That would have led me to think it was prior to
his being shot at.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to this specific date. Now, my question
means to comprehend any time--do you remember discussing at any time
with Oswald the fact that General Walker had been attacked?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not. I didn't see him--I saw him that one evening,
you see, and then I didn't see him for a space of some time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't see him after that one time in April until
after he had returned from New Orleans?

Mr. PAINE. I guess that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that would have been in October 1963?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. On June 11, 1964, Marina Oswald testified before the
Commission at which time the following colloquy occurred, as indicated
on page 7368 of the Commission's transcript:

    Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Oswald, you say, or you said a few minutes
    ago, that Mr. Paine knew or knows more about your husband's
    attitude about the United States than you do. Why did you say
    that?

    Mrs. OSWALD. Because my husband's favorite topic of discussion
    was politics and whoever he was with, he talked to them
    politics and Mr. Paine was with him a fair amount and I am not
    sure they talked about politics.

Apparently it should have been "I am quite sure they talked about
politics." But, at any rate, the transcript does read, "I am not sure
they talked about politics."

    They went to meetings of some kind together. I don't know what
    kind of meetings.

    Mr. McKENZIE. Do you know where the meetings were?

    Mrs. OSWALD. In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting,
    my husband said to me something about Walker being at this
    meeting.

Do you remember going at any meeting with Lee Oswald at which Mr.
Walker was present?

Mr. PAINE. No--the only meeting I went to was the ACLU meeting, that I
recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall going to any meeting yourself in October
1963, with or without Oswald, at which General Walker was present?

Mr. PAINE. General Walker was present at the--Oswald mentioned the
U.N.-U.S. Day meeting held by the rightists, which occurred a day or
two or two nights before the ACLU meeting. He had been to that by
himself. I had gone that same evening to a John Birch meeting. We were
not together, but they were two things that occurred simultaneously,
and that's where Lee, by his report at the ACLU meeting said he was and
Walker was there. Maybe that's what Marina had in mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you, yourself, don't have any recollection of your
ever being at a meeting when he was there?

Mr. PAINE. No; I have never seen General Walker that I can recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never seen Walker?

Mr. PAINE. Unless he was--in a year previous to that I had been to the
Indignation Committee meeting--no--that is the answer to your previous
question.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do--to the best of your recollection, you don't ever
remember seeing General Walker present?

Mr. PAINE. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or having been at a meeting at which you subsequently
learned that he was present, although you didn't see him?

Mr. PAINE. That's right--I can't remember about the previous year, but
I don't think that has relevancy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, since the time you met Oswald--you were at no
meetings at which General Walker was present, to your knowledge?

Mr. PAINE. That's true.

Mr. LIEBELER. Marina Oswald goes on to testify and I will recapitulate
part of it, "After they came back from some meeting, my husband said
to me something about Walker being at this meeting and he said, 'Paine
knows that I shot him.'"

Do you have any reason to believe that--the first question, of course,
is and I have already asked you that and you testified you did not know
Oswald shot Walker prior to the assassination of President Kennedy; is
that correct?

Mr. PAINE. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you have any reason to believe that Oswald might
have thought that you knew that he, Oswald, had shot at General Walker?

Mr. PAINE. I can't see how he would have thought I knew that. I just
don't see--he might have said something that revealed that and I didn't
catch his meaning, so it never sunk in to me at all, that is, to assume
that he wasn't lying and that is the only way I can explain it.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that you think that this testimony that Marina has
given is either the result of a misapprehension, or a lie on Oswald's
part or on Marina's part?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you don't have any doubt about that whatsoever?

Mr. PAINE. I am perfectly certain that I didn't know he shot at Walker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Marina herself goes on to say:

    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 they told me.

And I presume she means that's what Lee had told her.

Mr. PAINE. Now, wait--this is--it would be well to check for that
"they"--this is testimony in June, you said, and that "they" could
possibly be Martin and Thorne. I don't know much about Martin and
Thorne either, but I had the impression that they were telling her
stories.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, of course, this is what the translator said Marina
had said. Marina is going to be here tomorrow and I will ask her about
this then and see if she can clarify the record, but the point we want
to bring out now at this time is that your testimony is quite clear
that you did not know before the assassination that Oswald had shot at
General Walker?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You testified before that Oswald had shown you one of
those newspapers of his one day and said you could tell what they
wanted you to do by doing some reading between the lines; is that
correct?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And my recollection is that he was specifically referring
to a copy of The Worker that he showed you at that time?

Mr. PAINE. It was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald reading The Militant?

Mr. PAINE. I do not now remember which are the things that I have come
to realize later and which I knew at the time. I was not particularly
aware of The Militant, as I recall. I really have to remember what my
feelings were back in the fall when I was questioned on the matter and
that, as I recall, the name and quality or the name and nature of The
Militant wasn't really very familiar to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever have any discussion with Oswald about the
U.S. policies toward Cuba?

Mr. PAINE. Well, I don't think we did discuss that except in the
very brief talk in the car when he was reciting someone else's
approval--apparent approval of Castro and citing that he was a
Communist.

Mr. LIEBELER. I remember you testified about that before--that it was
on the way back home after an ACLU meeting.

Mr. PAINE. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you told him, or thought if that was what he had
to go on to identify anyone as a Communist, that he apparently was
reaching quite far?

Mr. PAINE. I thought so, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall that in the fall of 1963 there was a
climate of what might be called, and what was in fact called, detente
between the United States and the Soviet Union that apparently led
people in some quarters to believe that the Soviet Union would withdraw
its support from the Castro regime or at least modify its attitude?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever have any discussion with Oswald about that?

Mr. PAINE. No, we did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald ever indicate in any way that he was aware of
such a thing?

Mr. PAINE. We very seldom spoke about it. Most of our discussions
were to the more specific elements, since there was such a wide area
of disagreement it didn't seem best to talk about smaller points, so
we didn't talk about Soviet-American relations as I recall it in that
regard.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph which depicts the same individual
as is depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 237 and ask you to examine it
and tell me if you recognize the individual?

Mr. PAINE. I remember the same face on a picture that I saw earlier,
but I had not at that time, and do not now, recognize the person, but
he could work at Bell.

Mr. LIEBELER. In our discussions in Washington, we had some
conversations about what you thought Oswald's possible motive might
have been for the assassination--I don't think you have really ever set
them forth for us on the record, and if you care to give us your views
on that, I would appreciate having them.

Mr. PAINE. I was more eager to speak about it then--I was thinking
about it then. Since that time I haven't thought about it at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you reconstruct the thoughts that you had at the time
you were in Washington?

Mr. PAINE. I think my thoughts then were brief and they certainly are
now. I thought it was a very spur of the moment idea that came into his
head when he realized that he would have the opportunity with sort of a
duck blind there, an opportunity to change the course of history, even
though he couldn't predict from that action what course history would
take, that in my opinion would not have deterred him from doing it. I
thought that he was of the mind that something small or evolutionary
changes were never going to be of any effect. It had to be, though he
never revealed to me what kind of actions or policies he would have
advocated or did advocate or did want to see--I had frequently had the
impression that it was--it had to be of a rather drastic nature, where
kindness or good feelings should not stand in the way of those actions.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he ever discuss with you his notion of how society
ought to be structured?

Mr. PAINE. Yes--he did discuss them but not in a way---did he ever
describe anything that could be real. It was more a way that society
should not be structured, that he talked about. Now, I shouldn't really
say that--it was a negative description of how society should not be,
and I never did get a description of what he would like or what one of
a more positive nature would be like.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had the feeling that whatever it was, if in fact he
had a notion about it, would have required a drastic and sudden change?

Mr. PAINE. Well, I don't know about the suddenness but he assumed that
the society was all tied together, the church and the power structure
and our education was all the same vile system and therefore there
would have to be an overthrow of the whole thing. Just how he was going
to overthrow it or what he was going to overthrow toward--it was not
clear to me, especially, because it was also apparent that he didn't
particularly admire Russia, so I didn't--I never did get it clear in my
mind what program he was going to inaugurate with his new world.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he ever tell you he had written about this subject?

Mr. PAINE. No; he didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never read any of the things he wrote?

Mr. PAINE. No; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know he had written about anything?

Mr. PAINE. No; if I had thought he had written about something, I would
certainly have been eager to have read it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever have any opinion that this man was
psychologically disturbed, suffering from personality disturbances and
neurosis or psychosis--you pick it.

Mr. PAINE. No; truthfully, I should say that did not appear to be a
good description. It seemed simpler and more to the point to say he
was extremely bitter and couldn't believe there was much good will in
people. There was mostly evil, conniving, or else stupidity--was the
description--that was his opinion or would be his description of most
people. That's my description, and the best description I can give
of him--to call him other psychological names--names of paranoia or
paranoid or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. What made you pick that particular name?

Mr. PAINE. Well, that kind of suspicion of people--expecting them to be
consciously perpetrating evil or ill toward him or toward the oppressed
people--workers--is perhaps a trait of paranoia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that he exhibited this trait?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; he did, but it didn't seem to be uncontrollable. He
didn't generally take it--I would say he was paranoid if he always
took it personally, but he always seemed to transfer it to, or put
himself in the class of people who were oppressed, so that's the
distinction why I wouldn't call him sick or wouldn't have then called
him sick--before the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. Because he seemed to describe this feeling of his in
institutional terms?

Mr. PAINE. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And in terms of the social structure and the impact the
world had on classes and groups of people?

Mr. PAINE. He was in the exploited class.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; there was no doubt about that--I mean, as far as his
own mind was concerned--that's what he thought?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that he would describe these terrible misfortunes
that were being perpetrated on a class of people, but he would make it
clear that he did regard himself as being included in that class of
people.

Mr. PAINE. That's correct. Now, I think he was a little--I can't
remember now where I got the impression that he was allergic to the
FBI, which is another case of him mentioning being sensitive to a
person--a sense of persecution, but the only thing that I do remember
that he did mention that surprised me a little bit was his sense of
personal exploitation by his employer at the photoengraving company.

Mr. LIEBELER. And when you say you cannot remember where you got the
idea that he was allergic to the FBI, you mean you don't remember
whether you were aware of that before the assassination?

Mr. PAINE. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you aware of it before the assassination or can't
you remember?

Mr. PAINE. I think I learned that from Ruth's statement of things that
he had said and I don't remember whether that was before or after.

Mr. LIEBELER. For instance, if you were told that he in fact did have
quite an allergy to the FBI, whether you were aware of it or not at
that time, I suppose that that would provide an example of one or
two things--either an accurate description of what was going on or a
slightly exaggerated or greatly exaggerated notion of what was going on
and to that extent a manifestation of this feeling of persecution, as
he put it.

Mr. PAINE. Yes; it was greatly exaggerated--it had, of course, some
grounds, so you wouldn't be too inclined to call it paranoia and
the fact that he also perhaps wanted to continue doing the things
that would have to have the legitimate fear of the surveillance by
the FBI because he would want to be attempting to do something that
wasn't legal or proper. In other words, that would agitate him with
grounds--for other reasons than paranoia.

Mr. LIEBELER. One of the witnesses who knew him in the Marine Corps
testified that he thought that Oswald had a persecution complex which
he strove to maintain--had you ever thought of it in that way?

Mr. PAINE. Well, he was certainly--I wanted to give him some sense of
letting him participate in some sense of being effective to change the
world and to let him be a little more generous in his thinking toward
his enemies--his employers by suggesting that they weren't so fully
in control of the social situation as he made out, and he certainly
resisted all efforts on my part to think in a more generous and active
way toward people toward whom he felt bitter. In other words, he had
no inclination or tendency to try to get out of that mood--I don't
remember now any illogical way he would have maintained that attitude.

I suppose, though, he just had to fight so hard, or fighting is about
the only way he would or could get it out. He perhaps never had any
experience of relieving the feeling of hate or bitterness through being
kind to someone, so you just wouldn't imagine he would think that that
was just pious or just talking to suggest that that was a way out of
that feeling.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever have the feeling that he had a considerable
degree of hostility toward the society in general, toward our
particular society?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; he had unreasonable and unrealistic and pervasive
feelings.

Mr. LIEBELER. In that it affected his attitude toward almost everything?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he ever discuss with you his personal relations with
his wife?

Mr. PAINE. No; he did not--he never spoke of girls at all. I thought he
was very proper.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was that?

Mr. PAINE. Well, this is the way I supposed he was. I knew that he
didn't smoke or drink and it seemed inconsistent with a libertine
attitude toward women or even a sensual enjoyment of women would be a
form of life that would be contradictory to his ethics.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no idea that he had been engaged in the Fair Play
for Cuba activities while he was in New Orleans?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to Ruth about Oswald's employment
situation in New Orleans?

Mr. PAINE. Not that I can recall--no. I think I asked her what kind of
a job he had found, and that was the extent of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did she tell you he had found?

Mr. PAINE. She said he had found the same kind of work he left
here--the engraving business--or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember Ruth ever mentioning that Oswald had said
that he had gotten fired from his job in New Orleans because of his
activities in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. PAINE. No; I don't remember her mentioning that.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions. Thank you very
much for coming.

Mr. PAINE. All right.




TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. EDWIN A. WALKER AND GEN. CLYDE J. WATTS

The testimony of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker was taken at 4:15 p.m., on
July 23, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office
Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J.
Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record indicate that General Walker is being
represented by Clyde J. Watts of Oklahoma City.

Would you rise, general, and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

General WALKER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an
attorney on the President's Commission investigating the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your
testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the
Commission by President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130, dated
November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

Pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure, you are entitled
to be represented by counsel. As the record now indicates, you are
represented by counsel, General Watts. I understand that you are
appearing voluntarily before the Commission in response to its request
to give testimony touching upon certain matters relating to Lee Harvey
Oswald and to the assassination of President Kennedy. Is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would like to have the record show that prior to the
commencement of this deposition, a discussion between General Watts
and General Walker and myself was had in which we reached an agreement
under which a copy of the transcript of the testimony which will be
taken here today will be made available here at the office of the U.S.
attorney for examination by General Walker and by his counsel. They
will be given an opportunity to make whatever changes in the testimony
may be necessary, so that the transcript reflects accurately what
happened here today.

We also agreed and confirmed in a telephone conversation with Mr.
Rankin, the general counsel for the Commission, that as soon as a
copy can reasonably be made available, within 2 or 3 days after this
transcript has been signed by General Walker and approved by me, a
copy of the transcript will be made available to General Walker at his
expense. It may be purchased from the court reporter here in Dallas. We
will make whatever arrangements may seem proper at that time to give
the general a corrected copy. Would you state your full name for the
record, please?

General WALKER. Edwin A. Walker. A stands for Anderson.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

General WALKER. 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you lived there?

General WALKER. I believe since December of 1961 or January of 1962. I
am not sure of the month I moved in.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think we have to indicate a great deal of your
background for the record, since I think we all know who you are, but
you are a retired major general, are you not?

General WALKER. No. I am former major general, now resigned from the
U.S. Army.

Mr. LIEBELER. You resigned from the Army. Where were you originally
born and raised, general?

General WALKER. At Center Point, Tex. I was born in 1909, November 10.
Center Point is Kerr County. It is C-e-n-t-e-r P-o-i-n-t, Kerr County,
Tex. That is 60 miles west of San Antonio.

Mr. LIEBELER. Since your resignation from the Army and your taking up
residence in Dallas, you have been active, have you not, in various
political endeavors here in Dallas and throughout the United States?

General WALKER. Patriotic and political endeavors.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that on the evening of April 10,
1963, some person fired a shot at you while you were in your home on
Turtle Creek Boulevard; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances surrounding that
event, as you can now recall them?

General WALKER. I was sitting behind my desk. It was right at 9
o'clock, and most of the lights were on in the house and the shades
were up. I was sitting down behind a desk facing out from a corner,
with my head over a pencil and paper working on my income tax when I
heard a blast and a crack right over my head.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do then?

General WALKER. I thought--we had been fooling with the screens on the
house and I thought that possibly somebody had thrown a firecracker,
that it exploded right over my head through the window right behind me.
Since there is a church back there, often there are children playing
back there. Then I looked around and saw that the screen was not out,
but was in the window, and this couldn't possibly happen, so I got up
and walked around the desk and looked back where I was sitting and I
saw a hole in the wall which would have been to my left while I was
sitting to my right as I looked back, and the desk was catercornered
in the corner up against this wall. I noticed there was a hole in the
wall, so I went upstairs and got a pistol and came back down and went
out the back door, taking a look to see what might have happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you find anything outside that you could relate to
this attack on you?

General WALKER. No, sir; I couldn't. As I crossed a window coming
downstairs in front, I saw a car at the bottom of the church alley just
making a turn onto Turtle Creek. The car was unidentifiable. I could
see the two back lights, and you have to look through trees there, and
I could see it moving out. This car would have been about at the right
time for anybody that was making a getaway.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now as I understand it, there is an alley that runs
directly at the rear of your house; is that correct?

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that alley run directly into Turtle Creek Boulevard,
or does it join with another alley?

General WALKER. No, sir; it joins with another alley, and it joins with
the street called Avondale.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that to get----

General WALKER. At one end is Avondale, which runs into Turtle Creek
going downhill east, and at the other end it goes into the parking lot
of the church. As you enter that parking lot from my alley, if you turn
directly right, you go down the church alley going into Turtle Creek,
and that is where the car was going down that I referred to, and it was
just making the turn out of the church alley.

Mr. LIEBELER. The alley that runs into Turtle Creek?

General WALKER. No; directly from the church alley into the Turtle
Creek main boulevard. Now, there is another alley right at the entrance
of my alley to the church parking lot, which runs straight west
practically to Oak Lawn. Hardly anybody knows it is there, because you
have to ease down it with an automobile, it is so narrow. And as I
know, only garbage trucks use it. I have been up and down it once or
twice only.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now when you got that pistol, did you go out the back
door of your house?

General WALKER. I went out the back door.

Mr. LIEBELER. You went into the alley?

General WALKER. I went about halfway out to the alley.

Mr. LIEBELER. From that point you could observe this car that was just
turning?

General WALKER. No, sir. I observed that--it was already gone--I
observed that from the window upstairs as I came down with the pistol.
I could see out the south window, front and left.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would imagine that you assumed that that car had gone
from the church parking lot down the alley and was at that point
entering Turtle Creek Boulevard?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see which direction it turned?

General WALKER. Left, going north.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to make any kind of identification of the
automobile at all?

General WALKER. None at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to see how many people were in it?

General WALKER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it seem to be leaving in a hurry, or was it just
debarking?

General WALKER. There was no way to tell, because from the upstair's
windows you were looking through trees at the car and I probably
wouldn't have seen it unless I had seen the two taillights of it. It
only has to go a few feet and it is beyond the bank where you can
hardly see.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph which is a copy of a photograph
that has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1008, and ask you if you
can identify that picture, or tell us what is portrayed in it.

General WALKER. Well, it looks like an old wornout picture of the
wall beside my desk and the shothole as it appeared. It is not really
a picture. They used, evidently had plastered this silver foil-type
peculiar stuff on the wall previously and it is still there.

Mr. LIEBELER. But this does show the hole in the wall over your desk
that was made by the bullet that struck the wall; is that correct?

General WALKER. As far as I can identify it, that is what it looks
like. I could take the picture and probably match it up with those
flowers. It is a flower arrangement on this silver foil on the wall.

Mr. LIEBELER. That looks like your wallpaper, doesn't it?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a copy of a picture that has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 1007, and ask you if you can recognize what is
shown in that picture.

General WATTS. Can we go off the record a minute?

Mr. LIEBELER. Certainly.

(Discussion off the record.)

General WALKER. Yes; I can identify this picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is it, generally?

General WALKER. It is an outside picture taken looking into the house,
taken from the west. The camera pointed east and took the house, and it
shows the shot and the broken glass in the window.

Mr. LIEBELER. The window of your home?

General WALKER. The window of my home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the window through which the shot was fired at
you on April 10, 1963?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it possible to see your desk?

General WALKER. Yes; you can see the chair. Let's go off the record a
minute.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's stay on the record. It is all right.

General WALKER. All right, what I had mixed up, I never knew anybody
got a picture of me pointing at anything, and that looks like my hand.
I didn't know this photographer was outside at the time. I was thinking
the picture was taken from the inside, but I see it perfectly now and
it is from the outside. This looks like there is a table here, from
this window, and in the corner running that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just inside the window?

General WALKER. Just inside the window. Then there is a space between
that and the desk. Then the desk is here at an angle across this
corner, and that looks like the chair. No; I am not sure. I did have
a chair in between me and the table, which may be that chair. It is
possible that you are not seeing the desk chair. There are two windows
in this wall, but those are too close to be the windows. That is one
of those panels, I suspect, like the flower panel. The window is still
further back here.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it is not possible to see your desk from that picture?

General WALKER. That picture is taken at this angle, see.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you can't really see your desk?

General WALKER. I would say my desk is back in that corner.

Mr. LIEBELER. But it would be directly, if you stood at the window and
looked straight through the window, you would be able to see your desk
across the room?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was your desk directly across the room from the window,
or was it sitting catercornered?

General WALKER. It was sitting catercornered in the corner on the
opposite side of the room. I was facing out over the desk toward the
center of the room.

Mr. LIEBELER. When the shot was fired?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that you were almost facing the window at the time the
shot was fired; is that correct? Looking sideways?

General WALKER. No; I was looking to the center of the room.

Mr. LIEBELER. Sideways to the window? I am trying to drive at what kind
of shot the man had at you. Was he shooting at you from the side, from
the back, or from the front? I think it would be from the side.

General WALKER. More from the side than the front. Definitely from the
side but a little at an angle, because I was facing the center of the
room.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right. I show you a copy of a photograph that has been
marked Commission Exhibit No. 1006, and ask you if this is not also a
picture of the window through which the shot was fired showing where
the shot had apparently hit the sash at one point?

General WALKER. That looks like the window and where the shot was fired
through the window into the room. It certainly must be the same shot.

Mr. LIEBELER. It purports to be a photograph that was turned over to
the Commission by the police department and it purports to be a picture
of that window.

General WALKER. That is the same shot then.

Mr. LIEBELER. The bullet apparently actually hit a portion of the
window frame before it went through. Does that accord with your
recollection?

General WALKER. The bullet went through the screen frame. Then it went
through a portion of the window frame, and a portion of the glass.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a copy of a photograph that has been marked
Commission Exhibit No. 1009, and ask you if this is not in fact a
picture of the next room.

General WALKER. To closer identify that further, the screen frame
has a crosspiece in the center also, and the bullet went through the
crosspiece in the screen and then hit both the window frame and the
glass.

Mr. LIEBELER. Commission Exhibit No. 1009 is a picture of the room next
to the one in which you were sitting, and shows some literature that
was stored and the place where the bullet came out.

General WALKER. That identifies the next room where the bullet went
through the wall by my desk and came out in the next room. The bullet
was picked up lying on a piece of the literature there.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have here a photograph which I am marking as
Walker Exhibit No. 1, and which I will initial for the purpose of
identification, and ask you to do the same so that we have no confusion
as to the identification of that picture.

(General Walker initials.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Now are you able to tell from looking at that picture
what it shows?

General WALKER. Yes; I can identify this picture. It is the backyard
of my house at 4011 Turtle Creek. It is a view from a position taken
near the west fence line, taken of the rear of my house, camera pointed
east. It shows the fence running down on the left side between my
rented property, and the church property.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you see the room in which you were sitting when this
shot was fired at you in that picture. I call your attention to where
the police officer is standing. There is a police officer standing over
there in front of a window, isn't there?

General WALKER. I can see the corner of the house. The window is right
in here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you have indicated that where the policeman is
standing in this Walker Exhibit No. 1, is part of the entrance to the
house, but that is not the room that you were sitting in at the time
the shot was fired at you? You were sitting in a room that is not even
visible in this picture, because it is behind some bushes and trees
that appear to the left foreground of the picture; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct. The policeman is to the left--to the
right. His position is to the right.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you face the picture?

General WALKER. Of the room I was sitting in.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't actually see the window through which the shot
came in that picture?

General WALKER. Not in this picture, you can't see the window.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department, of course, sent officers
out to investigate this after the shot was fired at you, did they not?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You got out in the backyard and reviewed the
possibilities, to try and figure out what happened with them at that
time, and specifically I wonder----

General WALKER. Seems to me I talked to them in the room first and
showed them around. I believe I did. I can't recall whether they asked
me out or not. There wasn't much to tell them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to determine the spot from which it
appeared the shot had been fired?

General WALKER. We lined up the shot, the police did, and I noticed
they worked this whole area back here to the fence, and even went out
into the alley to find the lattice fence that sits right here.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean the area immediately behind the picture?

General WALKER. Just behind the camera that took this picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; Walker Exhibit No. 1. Were you able to determine to
your satisfaction the place from which the shot was fired?

General WALKER. I was convinced there wasn't any doubt the shot was
fired about where this cameraman was standing, or a little bit behind
him and outside the lattice fence, probably firing through the fence
which had spaces in it, squares of about 4 to 6 inches.

Certainly the lineup of the holes in the two, in the window and in the
wall, gives the direction. The distance would be questionable to this
point, based on the information I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. I hand you a photograph that I have marked Walker Exhibit
No. 2, and I ask you to initial it on the back near my initials there.

(General Walker initials.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Now that in fact is a photograph, is it not, of the fence
to which you have just referred?

General WALKER. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that the shot was probably from the other
side of that fence, behind the fence as we face it, and very likely
the rifle was rested on one of the slats and fired through it, is that
correct?

I suggested that this picture was taken from inside the yard. General
Watts pointed out it was very likely taken looking from the alley, so
if this picture had been taken at the time the man was shooting, he
would be in that picture very likely with his back toward the camera
with the rifle through the fence?

General WALKER. If he fired through the fence, he would very likely
have been right in this picture, that is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, when I look at Walker Exhibit No. 1, since
you have indicated you thought that the shot was fired somewhere
about where the camera was located when this picture was taken, or
slightly behind it on the other side of the fence, I have considerable
difficulty in that I can't see the window through which the shot went.
How could the shot have been fired from there?

General WALKER. You can sit in the house and turn off your lights and
look right out through the fence and all the areas in the fence. It is
just a question of lighting. The difficulty you are having here is a
question of lighting of the picture, but if you are looking from the
inside of the house, you see that fence in many places, all places.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that this picture which was obviously taken at night
with a flash attachment does not give a true picture of the situation?

General WALKER. Not at all, because you can't see the house, and that
is why the picture with the policeman in it is so hard to identify.
Windows don't show there. There is a whole glassed-in porch to the
left of the policeman, as you look at this picture. There is a 5 by 6
glassed window there with a back porch that sticks out a little bit
that doesn't show.

Then there is a window beside that porch in the room I was sitting in.

Well, delete that. I don't think the cooler was in the window at that
time, but from that window, there is a space of 6 or 8 feet. Then you
come to the window that was fired through, and then there is 2 or 3
feet to the corner of the house.

Then referring back to the picture we referred to, the policeman was
in, you see the dark alley going down beside the house between the
house and the fence, which is the north side, in general, of the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. That picture, being Walker Exhibit No. 1.

General WALKER. But I don't see how you could take a picture and see
less of the house, and it is definitely because of the lighting in the
picture and everything dark. The whole house is dark under the light,
the way that picture was taken, so that you see very little of the
house except the policeman, what he has of the light coming out behind
him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right. Now did you make any sudden movement on or about
the time that shot was fired?

General WALKER. None that I was aware of; no. Just moving with a pencil
and thoroughly engrossed in my income tax.

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is it from where you were sitting to the fence
where we think the shot was fired from? How many feet?

General WALKER. I would say 100 feet. I would say between 100 and 120
feet.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever say in words or substance after this shot
was fired at you that the guy must have been a lousy shot? That sounds
like something you might say, doesn't it?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember saying that?

General WALKER. But I will tell you what I did think. I think I said
that, right. The police asked me to sit down. You want me to tell you?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

General WALKER. The police asked me to sit down when I got there and
they went through the motions of lining up the shot from inside and
outside.

And one policeman said, "He couldn't have missed you." And one said, a
lieutenant I believe it was, said, "It was an attempted assassination."

And I said, "What makes you call it that?" And he said, "Because he
definitely was out to get you."

And I said, "Your remark sounds like a natural remark." But as I later
was analyzing the thing, he couldn't see either with a scope or without
a scope. He couldn't see from his position any of the lattice work
either in the windows or in the screens because of the light. It would
have looked like one big lighted area, and he could have been a very
good shot and just by chance he hit the woodwork.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which he did in fact?

General WALKER. Which he did, and there was enough deflection in it to
miss me, except for slivers of the bullet, the casing of the bullet
that went into my arm laying on the desk--slivers of the shell jacket.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit No. 2
and ask you if you recognize the scene in that picture?

General WALKER. Yes; I identify this picture looking approximately
south down the alley, taken from about the entrance of where the
alley enters the church, a few steps short of where the alley enters
the church parking area. It is facing approximately south. Shows the
back entrance to my back yard and the tree and my garbage can and the
lattice fence on the west.

Mr. LIEBELER. The alley that runs down there is the alley that runs
directly behind your house, isn't that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct. And the direction we are looking is
the direction in which it connects and joins Avondale Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that object in the background that looks
like a building maybe under construction?

General WALKER. That is the bigger apartment house down south of me.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit No.
1003, that is a copy of Exhibit No. 1003, and ask you if that larger
apartment building shown in the right background of that picture is not
in fact the same building that is shown as being under construction in
Commission Exhibit No. 2?

General WALKER. As well as I can identify it, it looks like the same
building.

Mr. LIEBELER. Looking further at Exhibit No. 1003, there is a house
that is circled and indicated by the letter "A." That is, in fact, your
house, is it not?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the street marked "E" is Turtle Creek Boulevard?

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of course, the whole picture is an aerial view of the
general vicinity of your house and the apartment building, is it not?

General WALKER. That is correct. And "H" would be Avondale.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's right. And "G" is Irving Street?

General WALKER. That I don't know. Probably is. The church alley shows
up here going into Turtle Creek.

Mr. LIEBELER. Point that out to me, would you please?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is a little street that runs right between your house
and the big building immediately next to your house just outside the
circle?

General WALKER. Which is the Mormon Church.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the church, is that correct?

General WALKER. And the car was right here I referred to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just turning from the church alley?

General WALKER. Just turning here, and turning this direction.

Mr. LIEBELER. Turning left up Turtle Creek?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a document, a picture which is a copy of
Commission Exhibit No. 5 and ask you if you recognize the scene
portrayed in that picture?

General WALKER. I recognize my house in this picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anything else? Specifically, I draw your
attention to the automobile that is shown in there.

General WALKER. I do not recognize the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Charles Klihr?

General WALKER. Would you spell it again?

Mr. LIEBELER. I will spell it right in just a minute. K-l-i-h-r. 2046
Rosebud Street, Irving, Tex. Do you know that man?

General WALKER. Not that spelling. I know a Charles Clyr. As I know the
spelling, it is C-l-y-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he live out in Irving?

General WALKER. I think he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you recognize his address?

General WALKER. I wouldn't recognize his address. I don't recognize
that address. That could or couldn't be it.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about that car, do you recognize that as his car?

General WALKER. I don't recognize that car.

Mr. LIEBELER. This gentleman that we may be talking about, we may be
talking about the same man, is a volunteer worker for you from time to
time?

General WALKER. If it is the one I am referring to, he is in and out
quite often, right. He and his wife have helped me quite a bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to identify that car as being his?

General WALKER. No; I am not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that car appear to be a 1957 Chevrolet? Or aren't
you able to tell by looking?

General WALKER. I am not able to tell. I am not very good on cars.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you indicate that to the very far left of this
photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 5, through these bushes there is a
window, and that is the window through which the shot was fired, is
that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the window immediately left of the gasmeter there
as you look at the picture?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any doubt that that is the back of your
house?

General WALKER. None at all. That is the back of the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never seen that picture before, have you?

General WALKER. No; I haven't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph which is a copy of Commission
Exhibit No. 3. The photograph that I refer to is set forth in this
copy, and I refer specifically to the one denominated P-1 and ask you
if you recognize the scene portrayed therein.

General WALKER. Yes; I recognize that as the back of my house, a
portion of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have another photograph I have marked Walker Exhibit
No. 3, and I ask you to initial that, if you would, for the purpose of
identification.

General WALKER (initials). Can I look at it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, please. That is a picture of the back of your house
too, isn't it?

General WALKER. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have shown you another picture which is Walker Exhibit
No. 4, and I ask you to initial that, and ask you if that isn't in fact
a picture of the alley behind your house.

General WALKER (initials). Yes; that is a picture of the alley looking
south toward the same apartment building we referred to before, down
to where the alley connects with Avondale showing the back fence and
the entrance into my backyard. I believe the picture is taken at a
different date from the other one we referred to, because the fence has
been changed behind the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. That apartment is completed in the picture?

General WALKER. That's right. There was work on the fence in the other
house and, also, the apartment building is in further advanced stage of
construction.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, it looks to be completed in Walker Exhibit No.
4, does it not, the apartment building?

General WALKER. Yes; it does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a series of photographs which are copies
of Commission Exhibits Nos. 998, 999, 1000, 1002, and 1004, and ask you
if each and every one is not, in fact, an aerial view of the general
vicinity of your home and surrounding area, and if the identification
of landmarks in those pictures, insofar as you can tell, is correct.

General WALKER. 998 is identification of my home. 1000 would certainly
include the area of my home. It is hard to identify the exact house
marked "A".

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, that big old apartment building is in there in 1000?

General WALKER. That is correct. So it is bound to include the area of
my home; 1002 is the area of my home, and it indicates my house; 1004
certainly includes the area of my home, and it would be very difficult
without further study to definitely identify that as my home. They all
include the area of my home. My home definitely is in those pictures.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't see any obvious mistakes, at least, as far as
the identification and the symbols on the pictures are concerned?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Going back to the record on this Klihr, it does appear,
in fact, to be K-l-i-h-r.

General WALKER. Why don't we ring the house and establish that that is
correct. LA 1-4415.

(General Watts called on phone and confirmed it was K-l-i-h-r.)

General WALKER. What is it?

General WATTS. K-l-i-h-r.

General WALKER. All right; that is the original spelling you had?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

General WALKER. OK; that is correct. It is Charles Klihr.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Robert Surrey?

General WALKER. Yes, I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has Mr. Surrey discussed with you the fact that on June
3, 1964, he was interviewed by an agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and shown a picture, or a copy of a picture similar to
Commission Exhibit No. 5, which showed this automobile behind your
house with the license plate obliterated on it? Did he tell you he had
been asked about that?

General WALKER. He told me about a picture being shown to him of the
back side of my house, and I believe he referred to it showing some
automobile or automobiles being behind the house, but I don't remember
any reference to that car or the hole in it. There wasn't any reference
to that car, if that is a hole in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. I represent to you that Commission Exhibit No. 5 that we
have here is a copy of an original photograph, which in fact had a hole
torn in there right where the black part is on the car. The original
picture itself has a hole right through there.

General WALKER. Then it is not a hole in the car?

Mr. LIEBELER. No; it is a hole in the original photograph, of which
this thing I show you now is a copy.

General WALKER. Oh, I see.

Mr. LIEBELER. I thought exactly what you thought the first time I
looked at it; that that was a hole in the car. It is not. It is a hole
in the picture.

General WALKER. He referred to being shown photographs with the back of
the premises and the car or something back there.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't remember him telling you that he was able
to identify this as Charles Klihr's car?

General WALKER. No; I don't remember that he identified the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I understand that Mr. Surrey saw two men in the
vicinity of your house shortly before April 10, 1963, acting in a
manner that he regarded as suspicious. Did he report that to you at or
about that time?

General WALKER. He has reported that to me, and I don't remember the
date on which he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it prior to the time that the shot was fired at you?

General WALKER. I can't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of the fact, if it is a fact,
that Surrey had seen two men out there in an automobile that didn't
have any license plate on it?

General WALKER. Yes; I do. I knew. He told me that he had come toward
my house and noticed a car, as I remember, parked on Avondale, and he
went on by or backed up or something and got out and came behind the
car and saw two men moving around in the area somewhere in the alley in
the back part of my house. Then he followed that car. They went down to
the center of town, and he lost them. I would suspect that he told me
that the next morning, if not that night.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether or not you reported that to the
police?

General WALKER. Yes; that was called in to the police. As I recall,
that was. I believe there is a report at the house that it was called
in to the police. As I recall, it was, and I told them what we knew
about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you reflect on that event, do you recall it was called
in to the police prior to the time the shot was fired?

General WALKER. As I reflect, it must have been called in either that
night or the next morning. I don't recall the exact time, but the
police record will show it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make the call yourself, or did someone else do
that, if you remember?

General WALKER. As I recall, I made it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what kind of response you got from the
Dallas Police Department?

General WALKER. Seemed normal. Wasn't upset about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, subsequent to April 10, 1963, of course, the Dallas
Police Department conducted an investigation of the attack on you; is
that not right?

General WALKER. Will you repeat that?

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department investigated this attack on
you that occurred on April 10, 1963? They sent men out there and talked
to you and took some pictures?

General WALKER. Oh, subsequent to it; yes. Subsequent, right; they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they discuss with you any possible suspects that they
might have come up with, any leads they had on it as to who might have
been involved?

General WALKER. I don't recall that they did. They may have, and I may
have told them who had been in and about around the house, or who had
worked for me. I don't recall this definitely, but the records will
probably show.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any records like that here?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald come up in connection with
this investigation in any way at that time?

General WALKER. No; it didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know William Duff?

General WALKER. I know who William Duff is under that name; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he lived in your house for a while and worked
for you as a batman?

General WALKER. Yes; that is what he calls himself; right.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first make the acquaintance of Mr. Duff?

General WALKER. He walked in the house late one evening and said he was
out of a job and out of a place to sleep, and I put him up and put him
to work. The date I would have to get for you; I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, was it sometime prior to April 10, 1963, in any
event?

General WALKER. Yes; it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Duff living in your house at the time of the attack
on you?

General WALKER. No; he wasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how long had he been gone; can you remember?

General WALKER. As general figures, I would say he worked about 3
months for me, and he had been gone a month or two. I would have to
verify these.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the fact is that you suspected, possibly, that Duff
might have been involved in this attack on your life, didn't you?

General WALKER. I suspected that he might be involved.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you conducted an investigation of that possibility,
did you not?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. In connection with that investigation, two detectives
from General Watts' office, one, Kester, and one, Roberts, came down to
Dallas and engaged in an investigation, did they not?

General WALKER. They did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us about that, please?

General WALKER. They were in and out, as I remember, in the
investigation, and in contact with my house from time to time during
it, and even drove Duff around in a car, finally, and he explained how
he would have shot at me if he had intended to, or if he had any such
intentions.

General WATTS. I got a call--I don't remember the exact date--but I do
have a record of it. I got a call from Mrs. Kenecht in General Walker's
office to the effect that an anonymous telephone call came in from some
lady who advised Mrs. Kenecht that this boy Duff had been going with
the lady's daughter and had bragged to the daughter that he had been in
on the shooting at General Walker.

So I sent these two investigators whose names were just mentioned,
connected with our office. They are ex-detectives or policemen from the
Oklahoma City Police Department and do freelance investigating. I sent
them down here with a tape recorder to verify as much as they could
from Duff, because we were very apprehensive that he might take another
shot at Walker.

We couldn't get Duff to admit that he actually fired the shot, but he
professed to readiness to stage another attempt if someone would raise
$5,000. It is my recollection that the tape recording was turned over
to the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask: Were you, General Walker, generally familiar
with the events at the time, and reports were made to you about the
progress?

General WALKER. I was familiar with the progress of the investigation
and got a final copy of it. I thought it solved nothing, but Duff was
telling his usual lies.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Watts' description of these events is accurate,
to the best of your knowledge; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct, except that I do not agree with
General Watts' statement that Duff had implicated himself in the attack
on me by statements to the daughter of this woman who called Mrs.
Kenecht. My information is only to the effect that the girl's mother
was upset about her daughter's friendship with Duff. As far as I know,
she never said that Duff admitted being involved in the attack on me
that occurred on April 10, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Watts, you indicated you had some additional
information on Mr. Duff.

General WATTS. Yes; one Friday evening--I could get the exact date--I
was dictating in my bedroom at home, and I looked up and there stood
Duff whom I hadn't seen since he had worked at General Walker's, but
whom we had investigated, and he told me a rather weird story.

He had gone to the Army and was stationed at Fort Sill, and immediately
after the assassination he was interrogated by personnel from the
Justice Department and was charged with fraudulent enlistment,
according to him. He had failed to enter on his enlistment papers that
he had worked for General Walker, and when it became known that he had
worked for General Walker, he was charged with fraudulent enlistment
along in December 1963, and his pay cut off.

He professed to me that he had been living at Fort Sill, although not
under arrest, but without pay since the previous December, and had
no funds, and was about to be discharged. So in order to keep tab on
him, I arranged for him to get a job with a friend, Paul Blakeley, for
whom he worked for a short time, and later got him another job with
a contractor, W. H. Thompson, for whom he is, as far as I know, still
working. And after things get quieted down, I fully intend to see what
information I can get out of Duff, if you can depend on what he says,
and if he knows anything, he has never told anybody up to this date.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, the inference to be drawn is that Duff is an
extremely unreliable individual, so far as telling the truth?

General WALKER. I wouldn't believe anything the boy would say unless it
was verified.

General WATTS. I did call Fort Sill and talk to the judge advocate, who
raised considerable question as to the accuracy of the story Duff told
me. And frankly, I wouldn't believe a word the boy would say unless I
have absolute verification of it. But I am at least suspicious that he
knows something that he has never told.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as the attempt on General Walker is concerned?

General WATTS. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, what makes you think that he does know
something about that?

Let me say this. Since this is almost a friendly, if I may say so,
session, I assume that we can take it that the remarks that you are
making will be under oath, is that correct? And you will swear to that?

General WATTS. Yes.

General WALKER. They should be identified as that of my attorney
because they don't necessarily agree with my opinion.

General WATTS. My opinion and General Walker's don't frequently jibe.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let us swear you. Do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you have given and you will give throughout the rest of this
deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

General WATTS. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you indicated that you had some belief that Duff
might know something about the attempt on General Walker that he hasn't
told you. Do you have any basis for that?

General WATTS. My only basis is suspicion. First; his generally
unreliable nature. Second; I have never fully satisfied myself as
to the accuracy of the investigation these boys made where Duff
undoubtedly had made some kind of an alarming statement to this unknown
woman who called in. We have never been able to locate or identify her.
I have never reconciled his tape recorder statement that he had not
shot at Walker, but would do so for $5,000, with the apparent statement
to this unidentified woman's daughter that he had actually fired at
Walker. In other words, we could never verify that by our investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Walker, were you satisfied, or did you reach a
conclusion as a result of these investigations or any other way, as to
Duff's involvement in the attack made on you on April 10. Do you think
he knows anything about it that he hasn't told us, or do you think he
was involved in it in any way? Do you have any evidence to indicate
that he was?

General WALKER. I also know that I wouldn't believe 90 percent of what
Duff said about anything. I have come to no conclusion even after the
investigation that he was even involved. Knowing Duff; I felt that if
the investigators were a little bit naive, they got tricked more than
Duff got tricked.

Mr. LIEBELER. But these investigators weren't able to develop anything
that led you to think that Duff had been involved in the attack on you
made on April 10, 1963, isn't that right?

General WALKER. It led me to believe what?

Mr. LIEBELER. That Duff had been involved in the attack on you.

General WALKER. According to his fantastic stories, it might lead to
the belief that he had been involved, like my attorney says, but Duff
is so fantastic that I don't believe a word he says.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence other than the statement that
Duff is alleged to have made to his girl friend that would indicate
that he was involved in the attack on you? Do you have any indication
that he was involved in it at all?

General WALKER. None; other than, as I remember what he has stated, and
there is something else. And based on Duff's nature.

Mr. LIEBELER. You wouldn't believe what he said?

General WALKER. He never appeared a vicious fellow, and I rather liked
the guy for what he was supposed to do at the time I had him, until I
realized that nothing was truthful that he said, and I felt that he had
left feeling friendly, actually, except that he left by having been
ushered to the door while I was gone and told not to come back.

General WATTS. He truly professes to feeling very friendly to
General Walker. I have never confronted him with the fact that the
investigators have a tape recording that he was anxious to get a
shot at Walker for $5,000, but I am still suspicious that Duff knows
something that he hasn't told.

General WALKER. It is certainly true, to further my counsel's
statement, that Duff certainly lived in the area of night clubs and
beer joints and so forth, and he could still know something and not be
involved himself.

General WATTS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, have you any information of any kind that would
indicate or suggest who actually took that shot at you?

General WALKER. None; other than the indications that have been brought
up here with respect to Duff. He did appear back in my house at one
time after this, just walked in. Which I don't bring up now as an idea
that that gave further indication that he did. I can't seem to recall
exactly what the purpose of his visit was, but I wasn't very warm
toward him and he was soon out the door after talking to him maybe 5 or
10 minutes.

Other than Duff and what we have covered here, the only indications of
anybody that might have taken a shot at me is what has been said and
expressed by other people regarding Oswald's connection in the case of
shooting at me.

Mr. LIEBELER. So aside from Duff and aside from what has been made
public as regards Oswald's involvement, you have no other leads or
conclusions or ideas as to who might have taken the shot at you on
April 10, 1963?

General WALKER. No; I am pretty well blocked by you all and the fact
that--not particularly you, as the FBI having taken the information
on the case from the city police, and it is difficult to find who is
now responsible for an open case, and also the lack of contact with my
counsel at any time regarding Oswald's position in this from the time
the shot was fired or even after the events of November 22, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, of course, all that information will be made public
eventually, and aside from that, the basic thrust of my question at
this moment is, you don't have any other information other than what we
have already covered here that would give us any ideas as to who might
have done that, is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any basis for believing that there was any
connection between Duff and Oswald?

General WALKER. None at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald?

General WALKER. Only with respect to what we have passed over with
regard to what we have said about Duff, and we have heard said about
Oswald. I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned
in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the
individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas
or any other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the
assassination?

General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22. More specifically,
no knowledge or no reference of any indication that Duff was in any way
connected with Oswald. I still think that the information that Kirk
Coleman gave is very relevant to this case, and I would like to say as
far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked.

I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to
talk to these witnesses freely and that you or the FBI give a release
on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, has your counsel attempted to talk to Mr. Coleman
and Mr. Coleman refused to talk to him? So far as I know, this
Commission----

General WATTS. I never tried to talk to Coleman.

General WALKER. The word we got is, the boy has been told not to say
anything. That may not be the direct information, but I think you will
find it about what the situation is.

General WATTS. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. The last question was, has your counsel attempted to talk
to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Coleman refused to talk to him?

General WALKER. No; I have no knowledge of my counsel trying to speak
to him, but I was told by others that tried to get to him that he has
been advised and wasn't talking, and that he had been advised not to
talk.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that, General Walker, do you remember?

General WALKER. Oh, it's been at least 3 or 4 months ago.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who told him he wasn't supposed to talk to
anybody?

General WALKER. No; I don't. It is my understanding some law
enforcement agency in some echelon. But the important thing we would
like to find out is who is responsible for the open case, if it is
back in the hands of the city police or if it is still held under
advisement, and as soon as it got back into their hands, we can go to
dealing with them. Until it does, under your requirements, if there
are such requirements, the question becomes when can we get into this
further?

Mr. LIEBELER. I want the record to indicate that the Commission, to my
knowledge at least, and I think I would know about it, has never told
anybody not to talk to you about the attack on you in any way, shape or
form whatsoever, and has no intention of doing so. That is point 1.

Point 2 is that the Commission is conducting its own investigation into
this matter, and has requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
conduct an investigation into the matter, which it has done at the
request of the Commission, and the report will include a finding one
way or the other as to whether Oswald was the man who was involved in
this attack on you.

General WALKER. It will have such a finding?

Mr. LIEBELER. It certainly will, and will be a complete disclosure.

General WALKER. Then it must be handling the case, because we have
information that the city police turned all the information over to the
FBI and there was nothing for us to deal with them about.

My counsel went to the city police on this. Then the FBI definitely
said that they had turned it over to the Commission, and then they were
under whatever wraps there were, but wraps that kept them from carrying
on any development of the cases.

Mr. LIEBELER. No activity of this Commission has ever foreclosed any
other law enforcement agency from doing anything that they saw fit to
do. The FBI conducts its investigation in any way it sees fit, and the
Dallas Police Department does the same thing.

General WALKER. I think we should have a round robin discussion with
the city police, FBI, and yourself, if you all have what you have
stated, so that we will understand this too, and place this case and
the Warren Reynolds case back where they should be. I would think that
we should get together to establish who is responsible for the open
cases in the city of Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the President's Commission on the investigation of
the assassination of President Kennedy is certainly not responsible for
open cases in the city of Dallas. That your counsel will tell you. That
is perfectly obvious.

General WALKER. Then I want to go on the record that the city police
has misused the Commission and also the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no knowledge of that.

General WALKER. I think it is--I can't straighten it out and neither
can my counsel. I think it is perfectly obvious that somebody is
misusing somebody, the fact that we have no starting point and this is
an open case, and this is true with Warren Reynolds as well as myself.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am glad you brought that subject up. Tell us what you
know about that.

General WALKER. I certainly will.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before you do, I think I did hear the witness come in out
here.

Go ahead.

General WALKER. I would prefer you to question me on which way you want
me to discuss this case and I will answer what is necessary.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Warren Reynolds?

General WALKER. I do know Warren Reynolds.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?

General WALKER. My first contact with Warren Reynolds was by telephone,
I would say sometime in the area of 8 or 10 days after he was shot
through the temple. I thought I had the date of that, or the press
release, but I didn't seem to bring it with me. But you probably have
that date.

It doesn't make much difference. I would say sometime I saw a notice in
the paper when it came out to the effect that Warren Reynolds had been
shot in the head and a Latin type was seen running away.

I left on a trip and came back to the house, and I was curious about
Warren Reynolds and I asked somebody in the house to call and see about
Reynolds, and was told to call the hospital.

I found out that day finally after calling out to his place of
business, found out he was out walking around that afternoon. I think
we found out he had just been released from the hospital that day. I
would say that was about 10 days from the time he was fired at.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have the date of that?

General WALKER. That was approximately January 23 or January 24, 1964,
and within a day or two I had a telephone conversation over there.

I talked to Warren Reynolds finally and he said he wanted to talk to me
or said he would talk to me, and I asked him the circumstances of what
had happened to him.

Within a day or two I would say--I said, "If you want to see me, you
can." And he came to the house and discussed what had happened to him
with regard to being shot through the head, how it all happened, and I
have been quite interested in his case.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, am I correct in understanding that you initiated the
contact with Mr. Reynolds?

General WALKER. I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you seen him?

General WALKER. Sir?

Mr. LIEBELER. When was the first time you actually saw him in person,
if you ever did, and I believe that you did.

General WALKER. I don't remember the exact date, but a week after the
first telephone conversation, within a week or so after the first
telephone conversation, I believe he dropped by the house with his
brother.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you seen him in person altogether?

General WALKER. I believe he has been in the house twice.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have also had various telephone conversations with
him, isn't that right, General Walker?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, you talked on the telephone with him yesterday
noon, didn't you?

General WALKER. Very likely.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether you did?

General WALKER. I talked to him yesterday, yes. I don't remember the
exact time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us the substance, the general substance
of your conversation with him over this period that you have been in
contact with him.

General WALKER. I was very much interested in his case and why they
would have, why there would have been an attempt on his life, since,
according to his story, you might say he was the last one to see Oswald
in the domestic state after he had killed Police Officer Tippit.

I have had these conversations with him to get all the details I could
regarding why he thought he was shot at or who shot at him and what the
police were doing about it, and how he felt about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate to you the first time that he talked to
you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him
and his observation of Oswald?

General WALKER. Pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. Following the time that Oswald shot Officer Tippit?

General WALKER. Will you repeat the question?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Reynolds tell you that he thought there was some
connection between the attack on him and Oswald killing Tippit?

General WALKER. We discussed that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he thought there was a connection
between the two?

General WALKER. He seemed to think there might be.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think there is?

General WALKER. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?

General WALKER. I think there is a definite--I don't know that you
could call it evidence--but you can anticipate that people would like
to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right
here in Dallas. And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at
the time after November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?

General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of what
he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths shut.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is pure
speculation on your part?

General WALKER. Yes, but everything is speculation until you prove it
or disprove it.

Mr. LIEBELER. But my basic problem is this, and I am not just trying to
harass you.

I want to know if you have any evidence or can give us some idea on
how to approach this problem to find out if there is any connection,
because the Commission would certainly like to know if there is.

General WALKER. I would be much interested in the hanging of the woman
in the prison here in the cell that said she had worked in the Carousel
Club, her only claim to fame, who I believe was the same woman, as I
remember my information at this point, was the same woman that was
driven over to this used car lot where the Reynolds brothers worked.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, in point of fact, your primary source of
information in connection with this whole thing is the newspaper story
written by Bob Considine; isn't that right? That is where you first got
all this information?

General WALKER. He did cite this case; that is correct. That was one of
the pieces of information I had.

Mr. LIEBELER. You cited from this newspaper story and the statements
that Warren Reynolds has made to you, and your observations about what
you have been told about the facts regarding this stripper.

Are these the only things that led you to believe, plus your other
statement about keeping people quiet, are the only things that led you
to believe there might be some connection between these two events?
Isn't that a fair statement?

General WALKER. It would seem significant to me from Reynolds' story
that he was only checked by the law enforcement agencies 2 days before
he was shot, that somebody was watching what was going on.

There are many things that would make me go into a lot of leads which
no doubt make you all go into a lot of leads. Probably what you already
know, but just to say that one particular thing is the only thing
that makes me curious about this attempt on Warren's life as the one
out of a hundred of used car lot operators in Dallas, to attempt the
assassination of Warren who had seen Oswald, makes this quite unusual.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want you to tell us right now on the record all of the
things that you can think of that led you to believe that there is some
connection between these two events, in addition to the ones that you
have already suggested.

General WALKER. I have just referred to one.

Mr. LIEBELER. That one that you referred to is the----

General WALKER. The fact that there has not been, as far as I know, any
finding of the man who attempted to kill him, is another one.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned previously that Reynolds had said that the
law enforcement--you didn't say Reynolds said it--you said that you
understood that the law enforcement officers had checked Reynolds just
2 days before he had been shot; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is what Reynolds told you?

General WALKER. That is correct. I believe he referred to them as FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other indications of any possible
relationship between these things, that would help the Commission try
to find out if there is a relationship between these events?

General WALKER. I don't think of anything else; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you sent a telegram to the Commission suggesting that
we question Warren Reynolds?

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you probably know, of course, we have questioned him
yesterday.

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss Mr. Reynolds' appearance with us, with
him?

General WALKER. I did. He called me on the telephone and we discussed
it. He said you were a very nice young man.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you, General Walker. Thank Mr. Reynolds. You didn't
say that. That is what he said. That isn't what you said.

General WALKER. I may call him tonight and tell him the same thing.

I think we are working in the same effort and same direction. I haven't
done anything to hide on this thing. I do ask that you all get the
chain of command straightened out here, or chain of responsibility with
respect to the case.

Mr. LIEBELER. Those problems come up many times because there isn't any
real chain of command or responsibility between these people. We don't
have very much to do with the Dallas Police Department.

General WALKER. When they pass things to the FBI and the FBI is
responsible to you, then it gives me a feeling it is probably out of
their hands. Certainly they have used that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you have any knowledge or any information that
would indicate that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy of any type on
the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. I think he designated his own conspiracy when he said
he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That to me is a
definite recognition of conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Suggesting that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was
involved?

General WALKER. I would say as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee, it could not be segregated from being involved in it when
one of its members does it, who thinks like they do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, that is of course, your view. My question of you
is this. Do you have any evidence or any knowledge that would indicate
either the involvement of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or any other
individual or organization in a conspiracy or plot to assassinate the
President.

The fact that Oswald may have been a member of this organization, which
he was, of course, is a fact that can be viewed from many different
ways. But my question to you is somewhat different from that, and
that is, do you know of or have any evidence to indicate that this
organization or any other organization or any other person was involved
with Oswald in the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. My answer to you is that I have exactly the evidence
that you have, which is evidence that it was involved in the
conspiracy, because he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee, and I consider the objectives of the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee a Communist activity and a conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if anyone discussed the assassination with
Oswald prior to the time that he assassinated the President, if he did
the assassination; do you have any indication of that?

General WALKER. I have no personal knowledge that they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any indication that they did?

General WALKER. I certainly do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what that is?

General WALKER. The indications seem to be not only mine, but all over
the country that Rubenstein and Oswald had some association.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you indicate to us what it was?

General WALKER. Well, I am wondering about one thing, how Rubenstein
can take his car in to be fixed and Oswald can sign the ticket and pick
up the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now can you tell us when and where that happened?

General WALKER. I haven't been able to verify that it happened for
sure, but I have been told that it happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who told you that?

General WALKER. My information came from a repairman, from another
fellow to a friend of mine, to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you give us the name of the person?

General WALKER. I don't think it is necessary. I think you have all the
information, because the information also includes the fact that the
records were picked up in the repair shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. Whether we have the information or not, I am asking you
if you know the name of that repairman who said that Oswald said he
picked up his car?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the name of the garage?

General WALKER. No; I don't. As I remember, it was a hotel garage.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you give us the name of the people that brought the
information to you, so it can be traced back to this source? Who the
garageman is, apparently as you say, that it came from a garageman
somewhere.

General WALKER. No; I think your sources are better than mine on this.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is not my question. My question is, do you know
their names?

General WALKER. Yes; I do, but I am not telling.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you are not going to tell us the names of these people?

General WALKER. Hold up. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

General WALKER. We are all working in the best interests of this thing.
I don't see where my sources of information have to be revealed. You
know whether the information is any good or not, and I don't see any
reason to get any more people involved than are already involved
in it. The information is either correct or incorrect, and can be
substantiated by your Commission, or it is not.

This that I am telling you is the information I have got. Now, if you
all find out that it is absolutely necessary to your information,
but revelation of the names of the people isn't necessary to your
information with regard to the assassination. I think we have covered
the assassination, and--as helpful as I can be--don't think I wouldn't
be delighted to see exactly all the truth that can probably come out of
it, come out of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. All we are asking you to do is give us whatever
information you have that can help us in this investigation.

General WALKER. That I think we have covered, haven't we?

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know whether we have or not.

General WALKER. If you find out you need the further information that
will really help the assassination story--we will leave it like this--I
will do the best I can to cooperate on it, but I don't think it is
necessary to reveal all the sources of my information, and the story
which you all should have the basic facts. The basic facts are the
records on the story and you either know whether or not they are true
or not. I haven't done all this investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I am not able to make a determination as to
whether or not the information that you have would be helpful to the
Commission's work because I don't know what information you have.

General WALKER. Let's leave that, because if it is in the best interest
of finding anything, that there is a hole in their findings, why we
will reveal it.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am going to let the question stand. I do ask you to
tell me who advised you or who apprised you of information that
Oswald picked up Jack Ruby's car, because I am not able to make a
determination as to whether or not that information would be worthless
to the Commission. It might be helpful and it it might be that these
people should be questioned by people on the Commission staff or by the
FBI. So for that reason, I am compelled to let the question stand, and
I do renew my request for you to give me the answer.

General WALKER. I will answer that at some later date if you find it
necessary, I will reconsider it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, aside from the matter we have just discussed, can
you tell us what other common acquaintances Mr. Ruby and Mr. Oswald
had, as that is the statement that started all this? You indicated that
Ruby and Oswald had common acquaintances.

General WALKER. I thought DeMar's statements--I believe the man is
DeMar--were very interesting, and they were only by hearsay from the
newspaper, if you call that hearsay.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other indication that Oswald and Ruby
were connected?

General WALKER. I am going back on the other question. I say it was
only from newspapers. They have been also from the owner or editor of
the newspaper, who may have told me that his reporter had been in touch
with DeMar. I believe the town is on the Tennessee-Kentucky border or
somewhere up there. I don't recall the name of the town where he was at
the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is DeMar that was up there?

General WALKER. Yes. Have I got the right name? DeMar is the man that
was on the program in one of Rubenstein's clubs.

Mr. LIEBELER. The name seems familiar to me. I don't know the man's
name actually myself.

General WALKER. As I recall, it was DeMar, the one that made the
original statement that he saw Oswald in the club one night. That was
printed in the press.

Mr. LIEBELER. Aside from the fellow DeMar having made the statement, do
you know of any other connection between Ruby and Oswald or any other
common acquaintances that they may have?

General WALKER. I believe we verified that Oswald had been for a short
period living in the same apartment house where Ruby's sister lived.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is Ruby's sister's name?

General WALKER. Eva Grant.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know what apartment house that is?

General WALKER. No; I don't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who verified this?

General WALKER. I say I believe I verified it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did yourself?

General WALKER. With assistance.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you are telling me that you conducted an
investigation of some sort into the possibility that Ruby's sister, Eva
Grant, and Oswald lived in the same apartment house? Now is that in the
city of Dallas?

General WALKER. That is correct. And as I recall the address, I never
did pinpoint it, but as I recall, it wouldn't be too far from where I
live. And of course, I am still interested in my case with respect to
Oswald, if there is any significance.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now can you tell me when they were supposed to have lived
in this apartment house?

General WALKER. I don't recall the date.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it 1963?

General WALKER. This is getting pretty old in my mind. It definitely
would have been in 1963; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1963?

General WALKER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was the apartment on Neely Street, if you remember?

General WALKER. As I recall--is Neely over in Oak Cliff or on this side?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is in Oak Cliff.

General WALKER. No; it wasn't that far away.

Mr. LIEBELER. It wasn't in Oak Cliff at all?

General WALKER. Well, I had the idea at the time that it was on this
side of town, out the side I am on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, from the time Oswald came back from the Soviet
Union and moved to Dallas and the time he was killed, he lived in an
apartment on Neely Street, and on Elsbeth Street and in a room on
Marsalis Street, and 1026 North Beckley Street. Those are the only four
places he ever lived. Was it on any one of those four streets that this
is supposed to have happened?

General WALKER. I can't recall definitely. Are they over in Oak Cliff?

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe each and every one of them, with the possible
exception of Marsalis, is.

General WALKER. I can get the information that I must have recorded
somewhere on the address we have.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you have any indication that Oswald lived in the same
apartment house that Ruby's sister lived, I will appreciate it very
much if you would supply it to the Commission.

General WALKER. Take a note on that, will you. I believe there is a
paper release on it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that would indicate any
connection between Ruby and Oswald? By that question I do not mean to
characterize the previous testimony.

General WALKER. If Oswald was the one that was at my house, I wonder
where he was from the time he left until he got home, since the Las
Vegas Club is not too far from my house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any indication that Oswald went to that club?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that would suggest a
connection between these two men?

General WALKER. I think the two boxes in the post office are very
interesting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, are you suggesting that because two men both
happened to have post office boxes in the same post office, that that
suggests there is some connection between them and indicates conspiracy
to assassinate the President?

General WALKER. The boxes were rented the same week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were what?

General WALKER. I believe the boxes were arranged the same week in the
post office.

Mr. LIEBELER. Rented?

General WALKER. Rented.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that suggests a conspiracy between Oswald and
Ruby to assassinate the President?

General WALKER. I think that is more information.

Mr. LIEBELER. But I want to know.

General WALKER. That suggests a possible relationship. I think the fact
that Rubenstein shot Oswald suggests plenty. I am convinced he couldn't
have shot him except for one basic reason, and maybe many others, but
to keep him quiet. That is what shooting people does. I think the
whole city of Dallas is very interested. I would be interested in the
information on a Professor Wolf, William T. Wolf.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who is he?

General WALKER. William T.

Mr. LIEBELER. What information is that?

General WALKER. The first man we found in the paper that seemed to have
come to death after the attempted shot at me.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am not familiar with the circumstances surrounding
that. Would you tell me about Dr. Wolf?

General WALKER. William T. Wolf is a professor that was supposedly
burned up in an apartment, which seems impossible to have burned a man
up, a normal man with his normal faculties, because the apartment, he
couldn't have been trapped in it on the first floor.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know Dr. Wolf?

General WALKER. Never heard of him until I read about him in the paper,
and I believe I read about him 8 days after they shot at me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think there is some connection between Dr. Wolf's
death and the shot at you?

General WALKER. No; but I think there is some connection with respect
to what is going on in Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, does this relate to the possibility of a
conspiracy between Oswald and Ruby to assassinate President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I think many unusual deaths in the city of Dallas might
show some indication of what is going on in Dallas, to include what
happened on the 22d of November. And I would refer to one other, a
professor by the name of Deen. His name is George C. Deen.

Mr. LIEBELER. What has that got to do with the assassination of
President Kennedy? What are the facts about it?

General WALKER. I would think it has to do with the investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in what way?

General WALKER. It seems rather mysterious that a young doctor of
psychiatry at Timberlawn would, so far as I can tell, only show up in
the obituary page.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened to this fellow?

General WALKER. Reported died of natural causes, I believe, or
certainly nothing more than the obituary, so far as I can find.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with the organization known as The
Minutemen?

General WALKER. In general terms.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a member of that organization?

General WALKER. I am not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any connection between The Minutemen and
the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any conspiracy or connection on the part
of any so-called rightwing organization and the assassination of
President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any connection between any of the people
who associate themselves with and who, shall we say, follow you as a
political leader, and the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. No. People that follow me are for constitutional
government. This is absolutely in violation of constitutional
government. Very destructive to what we stand for.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you say that there is no involvement of any kind
or nature whatever between any of the organizations or people that
associate with you or are involved with you in the assassination of
President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I certainly know of none, and I certainly wouldn't be
suspicious of any. I would be suspicious from the center to the left.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you don't have any knowledge of or
information that would suggest to you any such conspiracy or
involvement of any rightwing organization or person; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I asked General Watts to bring whatever records you
have that would indicate your whereabouts in October and after that
in 1963. Particularly, I want to know whether you were at a political
rally or meeting that was held immediately prior to the visit of Adlai
Stevenson to the city of Dallas in October of 1963.

General WALKER. Yes, I was the speaker on the day before Mr. Stevenson
appeared in the auditorium. I was the speaker in the same room and the
same platform on October 22.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that event called U.S. Day?

General WALKER. U.S. Day rally.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many people would you say were there at that rally?

General WALKER. The room holds about 1,700 seats, and there were about
1,300 to 1,400.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you aware of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald claims
to have been at that meeting?

General WALKER. No, sir; I wasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't know he was there at the time?

General WALKER. I don't know yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you didn't know then?

General WALKER. Certainly didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall speaking--pardon me, not speaking, but
going to any meetings of anti-Castro Cuban groups during the month of
October 1963?

General WALKER. During what month?

Mr. LIEBELER. October.

General WALKER. I don't remember a date of attendance.

Mr. LIEBELER. Isn't it a fact that there were some meetings here
in Dallas sponsored by an organization known as DRE, which is a
revolutionary group that is opposed to Fidel Castro? Do you remember
that?

General WALKER. What does DRE stand for?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is the initials of a lot of Spanish words which
stands for the Student Revolutionary Council. It is an anti-Castro
organization.

General WALKER. What does DRE stand for? How would they have advertised
themselves?

Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is probably DRE.

General WALKER. Meaning what?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is Spanish words I am not familiar with.

General WALKER. Well, there is a student directorate group, which I
remember they call themselves, and that is the way they identified
themselves. I attended a meeting sometime and listened to some speakers.

Mr. LIEBELER. They came from Miami?

General WALKER. I believe they came from Miami.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you contributed $5 to the organization that night?

General WALKER. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald at that meeting?

General WALKER. No; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. In point of fact, it would be correct to state that, to
your knowledge, you never saw or heard of Lee Harvey Oswald at any time
prior to the time that his name was announced after the assassination
on November 22, 1963?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no connection of any sort whatsoever with him
prior to that time?

General WALKER. None at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or since that time?

General WALKER. Or with anybody that I ever knew that was associated
with him, unless Duff turns out to be.

General WATTS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmet Hubert Muench?

General WALKER. That name is not familiar to me. Can you give me
anything to refresh me?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. He is a West German journalist who wrote an article
that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a
Munich, Germany, newspaper.

General WALKER. No; I don't know him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to him?

General WALKER. Not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in
which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey
Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life?

General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't
speak German.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper?

General WALKER. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29,
1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story
entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how
Oswald had allegedly attacked you.

General WALKER. November 29, that is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do
you know?

General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he
probably got from me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right
on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone
conversation between you and some other person.

General WALKER. Thorsten?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Hasso Thorsten, is that the man?

General WALKER. He called me in Shreveport.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you in Shreveport?

General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7
a.m.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald
having attacked you?

General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the
portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way
of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very
prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not,
until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he
did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a record here that indicates when you were in
Shreveport?

General WALKER. I don't know that I have a record here. I can tell you
definitely when I was in Shreveport.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you?

General WALKER. Well, starting back to make the record clear, I had a
speaking engagement in Hattiesburg, Miss., either the 18th or 19th of
November. I went from there to New Orleans and stayed 2 or 3 days. I
was in the airplane between New Orleans and Shreveport about halfway,
when the pilot announced that the President had been assassinated. I
landed in Shreveport and went to the Captain Shreve Hotel and stayed
there two nights and returned to Dallas and was walking into my house,
just about the time of the immediate rerun of the shooting of Oswald. I
had been out of the city on speaking engagements.

Mr. LIEBELER. The question was, when were you in Shreveport, and when
did you talk to this man?

General WALKER. I was in Shreveport the night of the 23d and the night
of the 22d. Do you have a transcript of my conversation with Mr.
Thorsten?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir.

General WALKER. Sir?

Mr. LIEBELER. I have what appears to be that; yes.

General WALKER. Where did you get that?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is apparently taken from the newspaper. The newspaper
itself had a transcript printed right in it.

General WALKER. I believe the article you referred to in the newspaper
was separate from the other article in the paper which evolved out of
the conversation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now so that there were in this particular issue of the
newspaper two transcripts of a conversation between yourself and
Thorsten, and also a story about how Oswald had allegedly fired at you,
is that correct?

General WALKER. In the newspaper I remember two separate articles. One
based upon the conversation we had between us, as he understood it, and
then as a separate article which I consider that the newspaper had done
on its own.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the separate article about? Did that have any
reference to the fact that Oswald had allegedly fired at you?

General WALKER. Yes. As I remember the article, it alleged that Oswald
was the one that had fired at me, and that this had been known earlier,
and that this had been known and that nothing was done about it.

And if something had been done about it at that time, he wouldn't have
been the man that--it wouldn't have been possible for him to have
killed the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, did you tell anybody from this newspaper that
Oswald had shot at you and that this had been known prior to the time
of the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. No; I did not. I wouldn't have known it. It was much
later that they began to tie Oswald into me, and I don't even know it
yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you certainly didn't know it before November 22?

General WALKER. Or the morning of the 23d, certainly not. I was very
surprised to see the article.

Mr. LIEBELER. So the best of your recollection is that you never
provided them with the information?

General WALKER. I did not. I didn't know it at the time of this
conversation at all. I didn't know it until I started reading the
newspaper, which would have been later than then.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think that is right, so that you only had two
conversations with these people, is that correct?

General WALKER. In connection with this incident, as I remember, there
was a call back to verify something on the original conversation?
I don't remember how the conversation came about. There were two
telephone conversations; right.

Mr. LIEBELER. They both took place while you were down in Louisiana,
the 23d and the 22d of November?

General WALKER. The first one was 7 o'clock in the morning the 23d, and
it woke me up.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't have the faintest idea that Oswald had taken
a shot at you and you didn't make a statement to that effect to the
newspaper?

General WALKER. No; I didn't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't make a statement to the newspaper or anybody
connected with it at any other time, isn't that a fact?

General WALKER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it not a fact?

General WALKER. I might have said that the reports over here had
connected Oswald with me some subsequent time.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am somewhat puzzled by the whole thing, because the
newspaper in which this apparently appeared is dated November 29, and
in fact, that information was not known to anybody that I know of until
a later date than that----

General WALKER. Much later.

Mr. LIEBELER. Several days, at any rate.

General WALKER. People began to guess it immediately. I should say
guess at it.

Mr. LIEBELER. It might have been that the article was based on
speculation, and it might have been the newspaper was postdated too. I
think that sometimes happens.

General WALKER. I think that paper was definitely postdated.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that would explain it. That is what I mean, predated.

General WALKER. That is something else.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that you think the
Commission ought to have that we haven't already talked about?

General WALKER. Yes. I think the Commission should look into George De
Mohrenschildt, if it hasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you know about Mr. De Mohrenschildt?

General WALKER. I know that my information indicates that he lived next
door to the professor that was supposed to have burned up.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any information that would connect De
Mohrenschildt to the assassination of President Kennedy in any way?

General WALKER. I have the information the paper had that connected him
with the Oswalds.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes?

General WALKER. Of course, it is common knowledge that De Mohrenschildt
was associated with Oswald now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Other than that, do you have any information to indicate
that De Mohrenschildt was involved in any way with the assassination of
President Kennedy?

General WALKER. Not directly.

General WATTS. Do you have any indirect evidence?

General WALKER. I am tired of them blaming the rightwing, and I have
had enough of this, and it is about time that the Commission cleared
the city of Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, do you have any indirect indication or
evidence that would associate De Mohrenschildt with the assassination
of President Kennedy in any way?

General WALKER. I think it is very important that De Mohrenschildt
knew Oswald. I think it is very interesting. My information is that De
Mohrenschildt went to Haiti. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, is there anything else that you think the Commission
ought to know that we have not already mentioned here this evening? It
is now 7:15.

General WALKER. Where am I at?

Mr. LIEBELER. I didn't mean to suggest--I just wanted to let the record
show we are both working very hard.

General WALKER. I will stay here all night.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you have anything else that you think the Commission
should know or that you consider to be of material importance, I want
you to say so, General Walker, because I think that you have--I hope
you realize that the Commission is trying to do the best job that it
can with the situation, and that if you can be of help to us, or if
anybody else could be of help to us, we want your help.

General WALKER. That is my approach to the problem. We certainly want
the truth. We want the truth to come out.

General WATTS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

General WALKER. I believe it has been released to the press that, and
I am not sure that it has, but some information has gotten to me, I
can't recall how, but the bullet that was fired at me matched the gun
of the type that Oswald used on the 22d. That sounds rather vague, but
I believe that is the way the information has come.

General WATTS. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. General Watts has indicated that he had some ammunition
the investigators got from Mr. Duff and I request you to forward that
ammunition, to deliver it to the FBI in Oklahoma City and ask them
to forward it to the FBI laboratory, and I will contact the FBI in
Washington when I get back.

General WALKER. Don't you want to clarify that where they found that in
the apartment, wasn't it?

General WATTS. Yes. I will get the investigator and get the detailed
source of the ammunition and turn the ammunition over to the FBI in
Oklahoma City.

General WALKER. I can think of nothing else that I am not sure hasn't
already come to the Commission one way or another.

Mr. LIEBELER. Very well. I have no more questions. I want to thank you
very much for coming down and appearing before us and giving us the
testimony you have. We appreciate it.

General WALKER. Thank you very much. If I can do anything further for
you, we will be happy to.




TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WEISSMAN

The testimony of Bernard Weissman was taken at 10:30 a.m., on June 9,
1964, at the U.S. District Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y.,
by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.


Bernard Weissman, called as a witness, having first been duly sworn by
the notary public, testified as follows:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, could you state your full name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bernard Weissman.

Mr. EISENBERG. And your address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 439 South Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, did you receive a copy of the rules
governing this deposition?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had an opportunity to study them?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have had an opportunity to study them.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your occupation, Mr. Weissman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Salesman.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you lived at your present address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Presently or totally?

Mr. EISENBERG. Presently.

Mr. WEISSMAN. About 1 year.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, I now hand you an advertisement beginning
"Welcome, Mr. Kennedy," from the Dallas Morning News, Friday, November
22, 1963, which I will mark Weissman Exhibit No. 1.

(Excerpt from Dallas Morning News, Friday, November 22, 1963, marked
Weissman Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. Might I interject at this point that since I don't have
the advice of counsel, that I reserve the right to refuse to answer any
question that I feel may not be in my best interests at the moment?

Mr. EISENBERG. Certainly. Now, under the rules, of course, you are
entitled to counsel, and if you wish we can adjourn this deposition so
that you can get counsel.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I have tried to get counsel, and I frankly can't
afford it, and the counsel I could afford wouldn't take the case.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Well, would you wish us to try to make
arrangements for a court-appointed counsel?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This would be entirely up to you. I should think
possibly that if I can see my way clear to answer your more pertinent
questions--in other words, to your satisfaction--it might not be
necessary. Otherwise, we can do this some other time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, it is entirely up to you. Now, we can adjourn if
you want or we can continue and see whether the questions are pertinent
in your mind or not.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would rather continue and to avoid repeating this
again, taking time out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, I hand you this advertisement which I have
labeled Weissman Exhibit No. 1, and ask you whether you are familiar
with this advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you the Bernard Weissman whose name appears at the
bottom of this advertisement, as chairman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, could you tell us how this advertisement
came to be composed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is rather simple. A group of individuals in Dallas,
friends of mine, got together and decided to express our feeling about
the domestic and foreign policy of the Kennedy administration, and we
felt that picketing, anything of the nature of picketing, and so forth,
wouldn't go, since the Stevenson incident. We decided that the best way
to get our point across would be to run an ad.

Mr. EISENBERG. When was this decision made?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The decision was made approximately a week or so before
Kennedy's arrival in Dallas.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be approximately November 15, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Approximately; a few days more, a few days less, in there.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who were the individuals who participated in this
decision?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Schmidt, Bill Burley, myself, and one or two other
individuals who I would rather not mention.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the reasons why you don't want to mention
these individuals, Mr. Weissman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. As a matter of fact, it is not that I doubt your
sincerity, personally, it is just that I doubt that--or it is my
feeling that there are several members of the Commission that might
use, if I implicate any individuals or organizations other than the
ones I have mentioned, that this may be used as a political weapon
later this year and the coming years, and I feel that what with very
comprehensive FBI reports and the report I have given to the FBI
myself, and the Secret Service, that any loose parts that are left out
right now can be pieced together if you desire to do it, from their
reports, very simply and very easily.

The reason I don't have the confidence I should have, not in the
Commission itself, but in some of the counsel to the Commission, for
example, Norman Redlich, if even 5 percent of what I hear about the
individual is true, I don't want to have this man in a position to hurt
anybody who has been or is an associate of mine.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, Mr. Weissman, the subject of this deposition,
of course, is the advertisement, and it is crucial to that question
who composed the ad and who was instrumental in its placement in the
newspaper. Now, you are not represented by counsel, and I don't want
to press you to answer a question in the absence of representation
by counsel. However, since this is the very subject with which the
deposition is concerned, I think that if you don't want to answer that
question we should stand adjourned until you can obtain counsel, and I
will attempt to get a court-appointed counsel for you, if you can't get
counsel yourself. If you wish, and we can hold a recess while you think
it over.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Call a recess for a few minutes.

(Recess.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. What is your opinion here now? Let me put it to you that
way.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think that if there is any question in your mind at
all as to what questions you should answer, that you should get a
lawyer.

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is what I am going to do. I am going to read you, it
looks like about three or four pages, typewritten pages, I will read it
into the record.

It will tell the story why I came to Dallas, exactly what I and several
of my associates wished to accomplish.

I will name them where necessary and when I am finished I will let this
stand as my complete testimony, period, finis, and if at any other time
the Commission wants to talk with me, they will have to subpena me and
at that time--I want to get it over once and for all.

I am going to tell my story now as to why I did things I have done, how
it came about, how the ad happened to fit into this pattern, and it
will be all very simple and logical.

Mr. EISENBERG. Go ahead. You understand that when I say to go ahead I
don't mean that we will not be asking further questions, but you are
certainly welcome to put this in.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I understand. Our preparation to come to Dallas was made
approximately----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me 1 second, Mr. Weissman. I want you to be very
sure that before you enter this statement in the record you shouldn't
consult an attorney?

(Witness indicates.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You are gesturing "no"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am gesturing "No"; that is right. About 3 years ago
in Munich, Germany, while I was in the service, I and several friends
joined or formed a conservative political organization, dedicated to a
conservative philosophy, and I am going to read what you might call the
constitution or the aims of that organization.

This was originally written by Larry Schmidt, who originally founded
the organization, which is known as CUSA, or Conservatism, U.S.A., and
this particular copy was prepared for the recruitment of new members
and what was expected of them.

It also applies to the members of what we call ourselves, the council.
The council originally consisted of myself, of Larry Schmidt, of Bill
Burley, of a Larry Jones, who is no longer associated in any way with
us, of Norman Baker, who is no longer associated in any way with us,
James Mosley, who is no longer associated in any way with us.

How was CUSA organized? CUSA, with its headquarters in Dallas, No. 5417
Louis Street, is broken down into two branches. The stateside branch,
which was headed by Larry Schmidt, and the overseas branch, which was
headed by myself.

Although both presently function separately from each other, they both
have the same organization, etc.

On August 1, 1963, the overseas branch will discontinue being a
separate branch and will become completely subsidiary to the main
stateside branch.

CUSA is set up similar to the Ford Motor Co. and its dependent, the
Ford Foundation.

Ford Motor Co. of CUSA is American Businesses, Inc. or AMBUS. AMBUS
will be a private profitmaking corporation which finances its own
Ford Foundation, which is Conservatism, USA, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
conservative political foundation with the goals outlined above.

The owners of AMBUS are the same as the five partners who are the
board chairmen of CUSA, the partners I mentioned before. All positions
in AMBUS and CUSA are appointed by the ETC or the executive in the
council, which again are the five members of that which has been
mentioned.

Every member of CUSA and AMBUS who works for either or both of AMBUS
and CUSA full time shall be paid at a salary at least equivalent to
that paid a man in a similar position in industry or politics.

In most cases AMBUS and CUSA will pay its people higher salaries.

CUSA is broken down into three divisions: the political analysis
division, the recruitment and fund solicitation division, and the
foreign affairs division.

AMBUS is divided into two divisions: the business management division
and the public relations division.

AMBUS' two divisions fully support the activities of CUSA. Each
division has its own organizational setup and subsidiary sections and
officers to carry out its functions.

For a copy of this, ask the chief of your particular branch--that is
pertaining to a new member. He will be happy to show it to you. For
detailed information on the operations of any particular division, ask
the chief of the division in question.

Geographically CUSA is broken down into six regions. These are the
eastern, northern, southern, southwestern, midwestern, and western
regions.

Each region has several States under its jurisdiction.

The headquarters of each region are as follows: eastern, New York City;
northern, Chicago; southern, Atlanta; southwestern, Dallas; midwestern,
Wichita; western, Los Angeles.

These regional headquarters come directly under CUSA's Dallas
home headquarters. Each State within the region also has its CUSA
headquarters. In each case the headquarters is located in the capital
of each State.

The State headquarters come directly under the regional headquarters
in which they are located. Each State in turn is broken down into
districts with several counties comprising a district.

Most States are broken down into four or five districts. These
district headquarters come directly under the State headquarters and
the breakdowns go along as I have mentioned, and it gets smaller and
smaller as the areas get smaller.

Both AMBUS and CUSA will have staffs in each of the regional State
district and city headquarters. These will be full-time salaried
employees.

How does CUSA expect to gain its goals? CUSA is convinced it can induce
all other conservative organizations to join it, especially if CUSA has
induced a large number, that more and more will want to jump on its
bandwagon.

For those organizations that refuse to join, CUSA will bring pressures
to bear to end their resistance.

CUSA will also work closely with conservatives in the Republican and
Democratic parties.

Among CUSA's members are some of the finest salesmen around, men who
know how to convince, how to sell, how to persuade: CUSA intends
to work toward monopolization of the money available for rightwing
organizations, thus forcing any organizations to come into the CUSA
fold.

CUSA will use any method, so long as it is legal and honorable, to
attain its goal. A timetable has been set up to guide CUSA's actions,
when each project has to be completed, and places these projects in
proper timetable sequence.

What will happen to CUSA after it reaches its goals? CUSA shall
continue to aid the conservative cause and keep our Government
conservative. So long as there is a U.S.A. there shall be a CUSA.

Can I make a career of CUSA? Most definitely. CUSA and AMBUS are big
business. Think of CUSA as being the same as a political party like the
Democratic or Republican. Even if it isn't actually a third party, it
shall function as one. However, if you desire and have the necessary
qualifications, CUSA will even run an individual for a political office
if it feels you can win.

AMBUS needs good business minds and CUSA needs aggressive political
minds.

Above all, CUSA-AMBUS needs salesmen, public speakers, writers,
debaters, analysts. Men who think like men of action and act like men
of thought.

But CUSA also needs background men, men willing to stay out of the
public eye and work quietly to do the planning, thinking, creating,
formalizing, and other things in a great cause.

CUSA-AMBUS has established regular wage scales along the line of the
civil service, GS-4 to GS-18.

Just what is a conservative, anyway? A conservative is a person who
looks at a man or a woman as an individual and respects him or her as
a unique human being rather than just a face in the crowd; a member
of the mass who believes in individual initiative above collective
charity, yet accepts charity where the individual cannot provide
for himself; who believes the Government should be supported by the
people, not the people supported by the Government; who believes
Government should be restricted to those areas of concern outlined in
the Constitution of the United States of America, leaving the citizen
free to pursue life, liberty and happiness without the overburdens
of excessive taxation that restrict such pursuits; who believes that
every effort should be made by individuals to provide for themselves
first and when that can't be done, help by local, State, or private
charitable organizations rather than by Federal Government aid
comprised of general taxation; who believes that the Federal Government
should not compete with private enterprise or interfere with the rights
of the States as outlined in the Constitution; who believes that the
best Government is the Government which governs least; who believes
that the best interests of the American people should be served by its
Government first before the peoples of other countries, yet believes we
Americans must help the needy peoples of other countries; who believes
the best interests of the U.S.A. should first be served by our Federal
Government before the needs of other nations are looked into, yet that
we should aid needy nations where aid is justified and deserved, and in
the best interests of our country; who believes that the American form
of republican government, a government of the people, for the people,
by the people, with rule by law and constitution, is the only way of
government and way of life for Americans; who believes that although
a government and system of law and rule and economics isn't perfect,
it is the best one ever attempted by mankind in its long history; who
believes that private enterprise and capitalism is the whole basis of
our way of life and the reason of our way of life--and the reason our
way of life is so richly endowed; who believes that communism is the
greatest threat to the existence and freedom of America and must be
completely defeated; who believes there can be no peace without victory
over communism; who believes that the true revolutionary political
system and the true revolution of mankind is the American democracy and
democratic and political system; that the enslavement of man embodied
in communism is as old as mankind itself, and therefore there is
nothing revolutionary about it, even though it has a modern name and
foundation and is certainly no good, indeed fatal, to mankind.

Is CUSA identified with any other organization or society? CUSA is
associated with no organization or group, be it political, economic,
social, fraternal, or religious. CUSA is committed to none, either.

I can interject a footnote of my own at this point. At council sessions
we decided to use whatever vehicles were necessary in the way of other
organizations to get CUSA off the ground and at the same time keep the
name CUSA secret among ourselves, as it was our organization, you might
say; no one of the other organizations that we became involved with
knew anything about the existence of CUSA or what we had planned to do
with it. They did not know, the individuals that we were concerned with
did not know, that in many cases, as a matter of fact, we were using
them merely as a vehicle to further the interest of CUSA.

Just who does CUSA hope to elect President?

I want to reiterate that this was prepared in late 1961 or very early
1962.

CUSA considers Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) as
Mr. Conservative, U.S.A., and wholeheartedly endorses him for the
Presidency, although CUSA is not committed to Mr. Goldwater in any way.
However, it is felt that he is by far the most outstanding conservative
politician and spokesman in the country.

How does CUSA feel about the so-called radical rightwing? CUSA has
proof that many so-called radical organizations are not really
radical or at least as radical as the enemies or opposition of these
organizations would have the public believe.

CUSA loathes extremism of the right, typified by the American Nazi
Party, as much as it does the extremism of the left, exemplified by the
Communist Party in the U.S.A.

CUSA does not believe, however, that an American can be too radical or
extreme in his love or patriotism for his country.

CUSA endorses Americanism, love of country, and patriotism, even if it
does not always agree with what some citizens believe is wrong with
our country, who is to blame for our faults and our solution to our
problems.

CUSA has faith in and believes in many rightwing organizations and
their endeavors, although it does not always agree with everything they
say or do, the words or actions of their leaders.

On the other hand, CUSA does not condemn a patriot who, in the heat
of anger or frustration, says things which are irresponsible and not
honestly meant. On the other hand, CUSA cannot subscribe to continued
irresponsibility on the part of organizations, its leaders or
membership.

This is one reason, for example, recently in Dallas, we decided not to
become, at least as far as we knew, to become involved with anybody
associated or doing business with General Walker, as an example. We
made it a point to try to stay clear of that.

How does CUSA feel about communism? CUSA intends to do everything
it can to destroy communism. CUSA is against any philosophy, any
organization, any group, any individual which threatens the freedom,
way of life, or congressional government of the United States.

CUSA is against any tyranny, whatever its skin or title; against
anything indecent, unlawful, or harmful to man.

Can anyone join CUSA? Any citizen of the United States who believes in
what CUSA is trying to do and who is not a demagog or dishonest, may
join CUSA regardless of race, religion, creed, or ethnic origin. CUSA
does not believe that patriotism is contingent upon skin, color, or
religion or family background.

Let me say again that this was prepared in 1961, and in its essence has
been followed through to the--up until the 22d of November 1963, and
this, I think, would give some reasons or give you several answers as
to why the ad was placed, why it read as it did.

Mr. EISENBERG. That completes the statement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That completes my statement.

Mr. EISENBERG. OK; then we will stand adjourned.




TESTIMONY OF WARREN ALLEN REYNOLDS

The testimony of Warren Allen Reynolds was taken at 3:35 p.m., on July
22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Would you rise and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an
attorney on the staff of the President's Commission to investigate the
assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your
testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by
President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963,
and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

Under the rules of procedure governing the taking of testimony, you
are entitled to have an attorney present at this hearing. You are
also entitled to 3 days' notice for the hearing, and you are entitled
to exercise whatever rights and privileges, as far as not answering
questions are concerned, as are afforded to you under the Constitution
and laws of the United States. I assume that you do not wish to have an
attorney present, since you don't have one here. Most of the witnesses
do not have.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Warren Allen Reynolds.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. REYNOLDS. 8707 Mosswood.

Mr. LIEBELER. Here in Dallas?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born, Mr. Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. June 22, 1935.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you employed here in Dallas?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; Reynolds Motor Co.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of company is that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is a used-car lot.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is operated by you and by your brother; is that
correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is operated by my brother, and I am an employee there.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not an owner of the corporation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are employed by your brother?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you give us briefly what your educational
background is?

Mr. REYNOLDS. High school.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you graduate from high school here in Dallas?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which school?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Forest Avenue High School.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is this Reynolds Motor Co. located?

Mr. REYNOLDS. 500 East Jefferson.

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is that from the corner of 10th and Patton?

Mr. REYNOLDS. One block.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there at the used-car lot on November 22, 1963?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there at about, say, after the hour of 12
o'clock noon in the afternoon?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what you saw; will you, please?

Mr. REYNOLDS. OK; our office is up high where I can have a pretty
good view of what was going on. I heard the shots and, when I heard
the shots, I went out on this front porch which is, like I say, high,
and I saw this man coming down the street with the gun in his hand,
swinging it just like he was running. He turned the corner of Patton
and Jefferson, going west, and put the gun in his pants and took off,
walking.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots did you hear?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I really have no idea, to be honest with you. I would say
four or five or six. I just would have no idea. I heard one, and then I
heard a succession of some more, and I didn't see the officer get shot.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Very good.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, you were questioned by the
Dallas Police Department, were you not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department never talked to you about
the man that you saw going down the street?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Now, they talked to me much later, you mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that
anybody from any law-enforcement agency, and I mean by that, the FBI,
Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County sheriff's
office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to
you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. January 21.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what
you saw on that day?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police
department or any other authority, either in November or in December of
1963; is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man
who was running down the street, and identified him as the man who was
going around and putting the gun in his pocket?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own
mind?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no question about it?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show
you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you
if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of
November as you have already told us.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. REYNOLDS. In my mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on
television? Is that right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot
like him there.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit
No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then,
properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this
man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey
Oswald, is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no. When it happened, and after I seen--and
you probably know what I did--after I saw the man on the corner of
Patton and Jefferson, I followed him up the street behind the service
station and lost him. I went back there and looked up and down the
alley and didn't see him, and looked through the cars and still didn't
see him.

Then the police got there, and they took my name. While they were
taking my name, some television camera got me, and I was on television,
I am sure nationwide. Then some man that I worked with wanted to be big
time, I guess, so he called some radio station and told them what I had
done, and they recorded that and ran it over and over and over again
over the radio station. And other than that, no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, what was it that they said you had done? All you
had done was try to follow this man and he got away from you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. And he got away.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you went back and you looked around for him around
the car lot in the area and you weren't able to find him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I looked through the parking lot for him after. See, when
he went behind the service station, I was right across the street,
and when he ducked behind, I ran across the street and asked this man
which way he went, and they told me the man had gone to the back. And I
ran back there and looked up and down the alley right then and didn't
see him, and I looked under the cars, and I assumed that he was still
hiding there.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Even to this day I assume that he was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where was this parking lot located now?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It would be at the back of the Texaco station that is on
the corner of Crawford and Jefferson where they found his coat.

Mr. LIEBELER. They found his coat in the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They found his coat there.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that he had apparently gone through the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And gone down the alley or something back to Jefferson
Street?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. When the police got there, and they were all there,
I was trying to assure them that he was still there close. This was all
a bunch of confusion. They didn't know what was going on. And they got
word that he was down at a library which was about 3 blocks down the
street on the opposite side of the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Down Jefferson?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Down Jefferson. And every one of them left to go there.
So when they left, well, I did too, and I didn't know this man had shot
a policeman. I wouldn't probably be near as brave if I had known that.
The next time, I guarantee, I won't be as brave.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; I can't say that I blame you, although we don't know
there is any connection. But we would certainly like to find it, if
there is.

Mr. REYNOLDS. There is no connection that you can prove now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's come to that a little bit at a time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Okay.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you were on television, what was shown is that you
were talking to the policeman?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They were taking my name. No name was shown, was
mentioned.

Mr. LIEBELER. They were just taking down your name?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Just my name.

Mr. LIEBELER. When it was told on the radio about your involvement in
it, was it also made clear that you had not, in fact, directed--let me
ask the question this way. Was it ever stated either on the television
or the radio that you had directed the police to the Texas Theatre?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Not the direction. In the general direction, but not to
the theatre.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, you were looking for this man who later turned
out to be Oswald, in this parking lot which was some distance from the
Texas Theatre at that point?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never saw Oswald continue on down the street--on
down Jefferson or go in the Texas Theatre, and you never told the
police that he had gone in that direction, did you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I told the police he was going in that direction.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was going--you told the police he went into the
parking lot, or what did you tell him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That he was going west. I told them that he was going
west, and I had assumed that he just cut through the parking lot and
kept going the general direction he was going in.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he hadn't gotten to Jefferson by the time you had
seen him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right. He was about almost half a block before he
got to Jefferson.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he was heading toward Jefferson?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; he was heading toward Jefferson.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never saw him after he got to Jefferson?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. When he got to Jefferson, that is when I followed
him.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he went which way?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Went down Jefferson, and then he went behind the station,
and that is when I lost him.

Mr. LIEBELER. He went around behind the station, and there was a
parking lot back there, is that right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You went back in the parking lot and you were looking for
him there, but you never saw him again after he ducked off Jefferson
into the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Just on television.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then according to the information that I have, on January
23, 1964, you were shot in the head by a bullet from a 22 caliber
rifle, is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; right there [pointing to right temple].

Mr. LIEBELER. On the right side of your head?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; and it went to here [pointing to left ear].

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances in which that
happened?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I know this man was waiting for 3-1/2 hours in a basement
where I work.

Mr. LIEBELER. In a car lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. In a car lot.

Mr. LIEBELER. At the car lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. At the car lot, the Johnny Reynolds Co. And when I went
down to turn off the lights in this basement where he had taken the
light globe out of the room, I went in there more or less in the dark
to turn off the light. It is a switchboard, and when I walked up to it
and turned two switches, this man couldn't hardly have been over a foot
from me with the rifle, and shot me.

When he shot me, I ran upstairs. I went around to the right about 20
feet and got this towel to, of course, stop the blood, and when I
turned around to go call the police, I had assumed all the time that I
had been electrocuted for some silly reason, never dreaming I had been
shot. But when I saw the man run off, I figured right then I must have
been shot, so I ran on in and called the police.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you see the man run off?

Mr. REYNOLDS. When I ran upstairs and ran around to the right to get
this towel, and he came up out of the basement. I saw him and two more
people saw him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You then got the towel. Did you call the police?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I was able to call the police. Then I laid down just
for a few minutes, and the ambulance got there and carried me to the
hospital, and by some miracle, I survived, very much a miracle. The
police got the call at 9:19 p.m. in the evening of January 23.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now were you able to identify the individual who ran up
out of the basement?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea who it was?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of fellow did he look like? Did you get a
physical description of him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; it was just a blur to me. It was just a blur, but the
people that saw him said he was around 5 foot 4, weight around 130 or
140 pounds, and was either Spanish or Cuban or Indian or something like
that; not Negro.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was not a Negro, but he was of a foreign extraction or
foreign appearing, or dark colored?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; dark colored, the way they described him. He had a
rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea as to why somebody might have wanted
to take a shot at you, why did they?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have no proof. I would say it would be fair to think
that somebody shot me on account of they thought I knew something or
had some connection with Lee Oswald. It was definitely not people that
I would know of, and it hadn't been business. I am sure it wasn't in
business form.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do in the car lot? Are you engaged actually
in selling and trading automobiles?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; generally everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't think of any reason why one of your customers
wanted to take a shot at you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there anybody else around the company that might
have been having trouble with anybody else that maybe you got shot by
mistake, or something like that? Is that possible?

Mr. REYNOLDS. We ruled that out.

Mr. LIEBELER. You considered that possibility?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have considered everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the police conduct an investigation of this?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of this shooting?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, they came out with a suspect, didn't they?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They came out with one, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that individual before he was picked up in
connection with this investigation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long had you know him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I had known him for about 6 or 7 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was he a friend of yours?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you come to know him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Just in business. Our business with him was bad business.

Mr. LIEBELER. In what sense?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, he was a troublemaker. But at no time did I think
he was the one that shot me.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you form an opinion on the question of whether
this was the man who shot you? In fact, we are talking about a man by
the name of Darrell Wayne Garner.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That was just my personal opinion.

Mr. LIEBELER. You weren't able to see the man who shot you to say
whether it was Garner or whether it wasn't?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Isn't it a fact that Garner had been in the car lot on
January 20, 1964, trying to sell you an automobile, particularly a
1957 Oldsmobile for which he didn't have a title?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with your brother?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your brother is Johnny Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He lives at 622 West Five Mile Parkway, is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it surprise you to know that on January 23 he
apparently told the Dallas Police Department that Garner had been in
the carlot on January 20 and tried to trade a 1957 Oldsmobile for which
he did not have a title, and became extremely upset when he, Johnny
Reynolds, wouldn't purchase the automobile from Garner?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I had to keep in mind that it is possible that that had
happened and I just didn't, I mean I have been through an awful lot
these 6 months, and it is possible that I have just missed it, but I
would say I would be a little bit surprised.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of person is Garner?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, to describe him as best I can, I heard that his
mother had $10 hidden one night and he wanted it and she wouldn't tell
him where it was, and he held a knife to her throat threatening to kill
her unless she did. He is just a complete troublemaker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where he lives?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I heard he was in Las Vegas. In fact, I parked my car
at his father-in-law's. He runs a little parking lot right there down
the street, and it so happened I pulled into that parking lot when I
came here.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you haven't seen him around recently? You don't know
where he is?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, Garner was released from the Dallas Police
Department after they conducted an investigation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Into the possibility he might have been involved in the
shooting of you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you have any basis for your belief that the shot
at you was somehow connected with the assassination, other than pure
speculation or surmise on your part?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea as to who it might be other than the
fact, as you have previously explained before, it might be that since
your were associated in some way with Oswald's apprehension in the
Texas Theatre, that somebody wanted to get you for that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. A lot of people thought that I followed him all the way
to the Texas Theatre and pointed him out in the theatre. A lot of
people, just rumors, thought that, and a lot of people still think it.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in fact, there isn't any fact that you can point to
or tell me about that would connect up the assassination in any way
with the shooting of you on January 23?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I can't think of anything that could be a fact unless we
just found the man.

Mr. LIEBELER. For the purpose of our investigation, I mean if there
were any connection between your shooting on January 23 and Oswald's
arrest for the assassination, we want to know about it. That is
perfectly clear, is it not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am asking you if you have any facts that would tie it
up.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have no facts. I just have my own beliefs.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you do believe that there is some relation, do you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Nancy J. Mooney?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever heard of her?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What have you heard?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I heard that she was with Garner the night that I got
shot. I heard that she took a lie detector test that helped free him. I
heard that a few days later she was caught fighting and they put her in
jail, and she hung herself. I heard that she formerly worked for Jack
Ruby as a stripper.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who told you that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I read it in Bob Considine's article.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the only source of your information concerning
Nancy J. Mooney?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The police told me that she had hung herself and that she
was the one that was with Garner. Everybody calls him "Dago."

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the police department tell you that she had worked
for Jack Ruby?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The only source of information that you have for that is
the article that Bob Considine wrote about this whole thing?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you heard anything about Nancy J. Mooney, or do
you know anything about her other than that which you read in Bob
Considine's newspaper article?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I don't. Well, I know one thing, she was 16, and her
age, that is just what I have heard.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have heard that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. From the police department.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that she also used the name Betty MacDonald?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I didn't know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. My information is also that she is 24, not 16.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Twenty-four?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever hear that she tried to commit suicide prior
to the time she hung herself in the Dallas Police Station?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or that she had four children that had been taken away
from her because of her conduct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I see nothing in that whole story that Considine wrote
that would really come to me--be true.

I mean, it is true in one sense, and it is fair story, but I don't see
any connection there, let's say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Considine was trying to create an impression that some
girl had worked for Jack Ruby and was connected with Garner, and hung
herself in the police department?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you believe there is any connection in that respect?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you considered, when you thought about this problem,
that there are other people that actually went down to the police
station and viewed Oswald in lineups, and have testified in Washington
before this Commission, and received international publicity in
connection with the identification of Oswald as the murderer of Tippit
and that so far at any rate they have not been attacked in any way such
as you were?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you suggest to me why you were picked out to be shot
for this reason and not these other people?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The ones that I know, I am the only aggressor in the
whole bunch. I am the only one that actually did something more than
just look. I actually did something.

Mr. LIEBELER. But that is the only distinction you can see between
yourself and those other people?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this question of the possible
relationship between your shooting and the assassination, with General
Walker?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you say to him and what did he say to you about
this matter, if you remember.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Oh, I said to him basically the same thing that I have
said to you, and he said it could be and he thinks that it's strange
that I was shot. I think anybody would think it strange. But of course,
if you have ever talked to him, he wouldn't say yes or no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does General Walker know of any facts, so far as you
know, that would relate your shooting to the assassination?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. He has never expressed a firm opinion to you one way or
the other as to whether there was in fact, any connection between the
two, has he?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Let me just let him answer that when he talks to you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that he is going to talk to us?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Talked to him since we have invited him to come over and
talk to us?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When is the last time you talked to General Walker?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Around noon today.

Mr. LIEBELER. Talked to him on the telephone? Or in person?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Telephone; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss with him your appearance before the
Commission here?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the general subject of your
conversation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I just don't want to answer that, really.

Mr. LIEBELER. Preceding your conversation at noon today, when was the
last time you talked to him before that, do you remember, approximately?

Mr. REYNOLDS. About a week ago. Maybe 2 weeks.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you talked to him about this question
altogether?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have no idea; five or six.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, in fact, General Walker sent a telegram to the
Commission suggesting that we take your testimony, did he not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You knew that he did? Did he tell you that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. May I go off the record?

Mr. LIEBELER. Sure.

I think I have asked you all the questions I can think of, Mr.
Reynolds, at this point. But I do want to say this to you. If you
can think of anything else that you want the Commission to know in
connection with this whole thing, I want you to feel free to say what
it is right now. Or if you think there are any other facts that relate
to this that we haven't brought out.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know of any. I think it should be investigated
what happened to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department did conduct an investigation
of the attack on you.

Mr. REYNOLDS. But their investigation didn't go too much past Garner.
I mean they questioned a lot of people, but not anything of any
importance. They have a little old bullet. I believe that is the only
clue that they have.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you can't think of anything else that you think we
ought to know and I haven't already asked you about, we can terminate
the deposition at this point.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would like to say something that might be important.
About 3 weeks after I got out of the hospital, which would be around
the 20th of February, my little 10-year-old daughter--somebody tried to
pick her up, tried to get her in a car.

Now, again, whether that has any connection or not, I don't know, but
it did happen, and it never had happened before nor after. But they
even offered her money. She was smart enough to run and get away.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you seen any other indication that anybody has been
following you or that anybody is watching you or anything like that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Someone unscrewed my light globe one night on the front
porch of my house, and someone definitely did it.

Whether it was a jokester or kid, but I have a lamp over the light.
They had to take three screws loose to get to my light globe. They took
those off and unscrewed my light, and that is for sure. Now, that was
around the 20th of February, too.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was after you had gotten out of the hospital?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there anything else that would lead you to think
anybody has been looking for you or looking after you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.




TESTIMONY OF PRISCILLA MARY POST JOHNSON

The testimony of Priscilla Mary Post Johnson, was taken at 10:25 a.m.,
on July 25, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by
Messrs. W. David Slawson and Richard M. Mosk, assistant counsel of the
President's Commission.


Mr. SLAWSON. I will swear you in if you will rise? Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Miss JOHNSON. I do.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, would you please state your full name and
address?

Miss JOHNSON. My full name is Priscilla Mary Post Johnson, 48 Brattle
Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Mr. SLAWSON. And would you state for the record your occupation or
activities now and also what they were in 1959 when you saw Lee Harvey
Oswald?

Miss JOHNSON. In 1959 I was a Moscow correspondent for the North
American Newspaper Alliance, and now I am a freelance writer on Soviet
affairs.

Mr. SLAWSON. Have you been given a copy of the Executive order and the
joint resolution authorizing the creation of this Commission?

Miss JOHNSON. I have.

Mr. SLAWSON. And an opportunity to read them?

Miss JOHNSON. I have.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson has been asked to testify this morning
because she in the course of her duties as a newspaper correspondent
in 1959 interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald on at least one occasion while
he was in Moscow, just after he had announced to the American Embassy
that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship and become a Soviet
citizen. She is going to describe to the best of her recollection,
with the help of her notes taken at the time, what went on during that
interview. Miss Johnson, first I think we will put in as exhibits the
various notes you have taken and articles you have written since that
time, about your interview with Mr. Oswald. I present you a copy,
marked Johnson Exhibit No. 1, of the notes you have said were taken at
that time, and I wonder if you would acknowledge that that is a true
copy.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; it is.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
identification.)

Mr. SLAWSON. I present this as Exhibit No. 1, introduce it in evidence
as Exhibit No. 1.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I have marked this as Exhibit No. 2.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 2 was marked for
identification.)

Mr. SLAWSON. It purports to be a true copy of the article you wrote of
your interview with Mr. Oswald, and submitted on November 18, 1959.

Miss JOHNSON. That is right. I submitted it to the Soviet censor on
November 18.

Mr. SLAWSON. I submit this in evidence and mark it as Exhibit No. 2.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 2 was received in evidence.)

Mr. MOSK. Miss Johnson, was anything censored?

Miss JOHNSON. No. It would show on that. Nothing was censored.

Mr. SLAWSON. I now show you a document marked Exhibit No. 3 which
purports to be a true copy of an article you wrote for the Boston Globe.

Miss JOHNSON. I wrote it for the North American Newspaper Alliance.
That just happens to be one place that it appeared. It probably
appeared in other places too.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 3 was marked for
identification.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Then I will say your article----

Miss JOHNSON. For the North American Newspaper Alliance.

Mr. SLAWSON. As it appeared in the----

Miss JOHNSON. As it appeared in the Boston Globe.

Mr. SLAWSON. I believe that was on November 24, 1963?

Miss JOHNSON. Sunday. November 24. It was filed on November 22.

Mr. SLAWSON. Except for possible deletions of your complete article as
it was submitted, is that a true copy of your article?

Miss JOHNSON. A true copy of my article.

Mr. SLAWSON. I present this in evidence as Exhibit No. 3.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 3 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. I now have a document marked Exhibit No. 4 which is an
article from the--a copy of an article from the Christian Science
Monitor of November 25, 1963.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 4 was marked for
identification.)

Miss JOHNSON. The interview was given November 23, and that is a true
copy of the interview as published in the Monitor.

Mr. SLAWSON. For the record, Miss Johnson, that is an interview of you
by a correspondent working for the Christian Science Monitor; is that
correct?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. I then introduce it in evidence as Exhibit No. 4.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 4 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I have here what purports to be a true copy
of a statement you gave to a representative of the U.S. Department of
State on December 5, 1963, and it has been marked Priscilla Johnson
Exhibit No. 5.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
identification.)

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; that is okay. That is a copy.

Mr. SLAWSON. I then introduce in evidence this Exhibit No. 5.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 5 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Finally, I have here a document marked Priscilla Johnson
Exhibit No. 6, which purports to be a true copy of an article written
by you as published in Harper's magazine.

Miss JOHNSON. April 1964.

Mr. SLAWSON. Right; in the April 1964 issue.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 6 was marked for
identification.)

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. That is a true copy?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. I introduce as evidence, present this as Exhibit No. 6.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 6 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, to begin the deposition, I would like you to
state, with the help of your notes or articles at any time you want to
refer to them, exactly when and where and how many times you saw Lee
Harvey Oswald.

Miss JOHNSON. May I have the calendar. I saw him, Lee Harvey Oswald,
on two occasions. First of all I had been at the American Embassy in
Moscow, and Mr. McVickar, the consul, had told me that a would-be
defector was staying at my hotel, that he had shown a reluctance to
talk with officials of the Embassy or with other correspondents, but
knowing my interest in kind of human interest stories, he thought that
I might want to see this man. This was on an afternoon in November, and
I think it must have been Monday, November 16, 1959, that Mr. McVickar
advised me to see Mr. Oswald. So I stopped by Mr. Oswald's room, which
was the floor below my own room in the Metropole Hotel. He lived on the
second floor. I asked him for an interview, and he agreed to come to my
room in the hotel that evening at an hour he named. I forgot what hour
it was--8 or 9. So the second occasion on which I saw him was when he
actually came that evening, and he stayed until the early hours of the
morning, although I don't remember what hour. So far as I know, those
were the only two occasions on which I saw him.

Mr. SLAWSON. He was in the same hotel you were staying in?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. Could I interpolate a question here?

Mr. SLAWSON. Certainly.

Miss JOHNSON. Maybe it is out of line, but do you know whether he did
stay at that hotel the rest of the time or did he go and leave? You see
when I went back they had said he left. Had he actually gone to another
hotel or did he remain in that hotel all the time?

Mr. SLAWSON. I believe that he was staying in the Hotel Metropole at
the time you saw him, and I think he stayed there----

Miss JOHNSON. The rest of the time?

Mr. SLAWSON. The rest of the time. He had previously been in, I think,
the Hotel Berlin, but he had moved to the Metropole before you saw him.

Miss JOHNSON. And they did move him out of the Berlin?

Mr. SLAWSON. That is right.

Miss JOHNSON. He stayed in the Metropole?

Mr. SLAWSON. Stayed in the Metropole.

Miss JOHNSON. So I was informed incorrectly when I was told he had gone
by the people at the hotel?

Mr. SLAWSON. Do you remember when you were informed that he had gone?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. I think that it was Thursday, the 19th.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you state some of the details of that, how that came
about that you were so informed?

Miss JOHNSON. Sure. Well, I wrote the story about him. I must have
filed it on the 18th, but I don't think it was in connection with the
story but with rather the fact that I had been told by him that he
thought he would leave the hotel at the end of the week. So as soon
as I had written the story and wasn't too busy in other ways, I went
to the hotel. The woman who sat on his floor, the second floor, and I
think it was the 19th, a Thursday, I asked if Mr. Oswald was there,
because I wanted to catch him before he left. I expected he would leave
the 20th. And because I kind of wanted to keep in contact with him, for
his sake. And the woman who was sitting on the second floor--I don't
know what you call her--who gave the keys out, just threw up her hands
and said, "He is gone." So I asked her when he had gone, and she said
she didn't know. So I assumed I had been informed correctly, and didn't
try to get in touch with him again. And he had told me that he would
let me know before he left for good, and he didn't either.

Mr. SLAWSON. Let us call a recess for a minute here, so that I can look
for some records on Oswald's stay at the Hotel Metropole.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, in connection with your statement that you
had returned to see Oswald and were told by a woman employee of the
hotel on the second floor that he had left at a time which she did not
know, I have here a copy of a letter Oswald wrote his brother Robert
Oswald dated November 26, 1959 (Commission Exhibit No. 295). At the
bottom of the letter he gives his address as "Hotel Metropole, Room
201, Moscow," with the marking, "(New Room)."

Miss JOHNSON. His room when I saw him was, I think it was room 225. It
was down a corridor to the right. My room was 319, on the next floor.
You turned just a little to the left to get to it. His was about 225 or
something like that. So he had probably been moved to a cheaper room.
My room would probably have had the same rent as his--$3 a day--but
later his was maybe a little bit less.

Mr. SLAWSON. I see. And would the woman employee of the hotel who told
you that Mr. Oswald had gone have had charge only of the old corridor
and not the corridor with room 201 in it?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I think she would have had charge of his new room
too, but he would have entered it possibly from the other side of the
landing. I rather forget where the 01 was, but he might have entered it
rather than from her desk turning right and then going down a corridor
and then turning left. He might have taken his key from her and gone
off to the left from her desk and from the elevator. She would have
had charge of his room, but she might have been on duty for the first
time since he moved, and only been aware that he had left--she might
not have been trying to mislead me. It might have been her first day on
duty since he switched his room, and she might have seen he wasn't in
225 and not realized that he was on the same floor but in another room.

I think the key thing is they probably gave him a very inexpensive
room, since they were paying or since he was very poor. They perhaps
accommodated him in allowing him to switch rooms.

Mr. SLAWSON. You mentioned a minute ago that he might have taken
his key from her. You mean by that that ordinarily--or rather,
frequently--a hotel guest would leave his key with the woman on his
floor, but that it was possible to carry the key with you so that you
would not have to pick it up from her?

Miss JOHNSON. No; customarily you pick it up from her when you go to
your room and you leave it with her when you leave your room. It is
simply that she would have had a book in which she had written down the
room number of every guest, and I think each morning changes would be
recorded there. My guess is that she rather than consciously misleading
me--although she could have been told to say he was out, was gone--that
there is a very good chance that she simply had not taken in that he
was still there and in another room.

He would have left his key though, and customarily she would have
always asked him for the key when he left.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did Oswald say something to you which would have led you
to believe that he was interested in getting a less expensive room at
the hotel?

Miss JOHNSON. He struck me as notably reticent about his finances,
about his financial situation. He told me, truthfully or otherwise;
that he had been there for 10 days on Intourist. He said he was paying
the standard room and food rate, and said "I want to make it clear
they are not sponsoring me." I must have asked him about his financial
situation in some detail, because I thought it would give a clue as to
how they were handling him. If they had allowed him to go from the $30
a day rate, that is the rate if you come Intourist which he said he was
on, if they allowed him to go from $30 to a lesser sum, since mine was
$3, that would indicate that they had an interest in him and they were
seeking to help him, whether he knew it or not.

And he was defensive. He bristled on the point, and I assume that there
was more of an exchange of words than I took notes of, and that there
was something there. I just didn't know what it was, and I couldn't get
it out of him.

But when you say he switched from 225 to 201, 225 was an outside room,
the kind that foreigners have, and it would probably be bugged, and it
would be for foreign guests coming in on Intourist. I don't remember
room 201, but the chances are it was an inside room. It might have been
very small. It might or might not have had a bath attached to it, and
the rate for it could have been as low as $1.50 a day. And they could
have been either accommodating him because of their interest in him, or
because they were simply responding to his financial situation while
pending a decision on his request to stay.

Mr. SLAWSON. While we are on this subject--how much he was paying for
his hotel room and his finances generally--I am not clear whether you
were able to get some kind of indication out of him whether he was
paying the $30 a day or simply the lower, something like $3 a day.

Miss JOHNSON. You see he said he had been there since 10 days--perhaps
what he said was since being there for 10 days on Intourist at $30
a day "I have been paying the standard room and food rate." That is
probably how I should read my own notes.

"I want to make it clear they are not sponsoring me." Your question is?

Mr. SLAWSON. I am trying to establish what your impression was at the
time of how much he was paying for that hotel room.

Miss JOHNSON. At the time I was very unclear what he was paying. I
think now he must have been paying $30 for the 10 days after his
arrival in October, and $3 a day after that until he left room 225.
What he was paying when he moved into room 201 I don't know.

Mr. MOSK. That was $30 a day the first 10 days?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes, $300 for the first 10 days. Probably after that $3 a
day, and after that I don't know.

Mr. SLAWSON. Are meals included in that $30 a day?

Miss JOHNSON. Meals are included, but they wouldn't have been included
once he went off it.

Mr. SLAWSON. I realize you can only do this very approximately but if
one were eating fairly inexpensively as Oswald probably did----

Miss JOHNSON. And as I did.

Mr. SLAWSON. But on the other hand he probably did not know much about
the city of Moscow, and so could not hunt out places that might be
inexpensive. But how much per day do you think he could get along on
for meals?

Miss JOHNSON. Perhaps I could just tell you from my own experience.
I had a one-burner stove and I bought some food at the Embassy
commissary, some from the hotel, and some in the stores around, and
my total living expenses probably didn't exceed $50 a week, and my
room would have been $21, and taxis would have been a little bit. So
probably I could have done it on $15, and he without the stove and
without the use of the commissary, but having probably modest tastes,
he could have done it for somewhere between $10 and $25 a week foodwise.

He did tell me that he had only been on one expedition by himself to
this children's store where he got some food at the buffet, and if that
is an indication that he was taking all his meals at the Metropole,
then it would have cost him $25 to $30 a week for food at least.

Mr. MOSK. He generally didn't eat breakfast, or he generally ate very
little for breakfast. Would this make a difference?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. MOSK. It might reduce it?

Miss JOHNSON. Because breakfast, coffee alone was very cheap. We had
old rubles then, and I think it was--the figure in my mind is 2-1/2
old rubles, which is 25 cents, for coffee in the room, and they didn't
charge you anything for room service. That would have been cheap,
and soup was very nourishing and that was cheap. I think he knew his
Intourist guide pretty well, and she may have taken him home and given
him food, or shown him cheap places to eat, so that when he said his
only expedition himself, that could mean that he took literally himself
but it could be he went other places with her, inexpensively. So he
could have done pretty well. He could have kept it pretty low.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I don't think that we established clearly
before when, or rather what day it was, when you spoke to John McVickar
and later spoke to Lee Harvey Oswald and had your interview with him.

Miss JOHNSON. I believe I spoke to John McVickar either on Friday,
November 13, or Monday, November 16. My recollection is that it was
Monday, the 16th, and that on coming home from the Embassy, coming to
the Metropole, I went straight to Oswald's room, and therefore that
would have placed my original conversation with McVickar on the 16th,
my interview with Oswald probably on the 16th, my writing of the story
and my second conversation with McVickar on the 17th, and my filing
of the story on the 18th. But I could have seen Oswald as late as the
17th; Tuesday, the 17th. I could have seen Oswald as late as Tuesday,
the 17th. My interview was the 16th or the 17th.

Mr. SLAWSON. Fine. Miss Johnson, I have here a copy of Commission
Exhibit No. 911, which is a memorandum for the files dated November
17, 1959, written by Mr. John A. McVickar of the American Embassy
in Moscow. This is the same John McVickar which you and I have been
discussing and to whom you spoke about Lee Harvey Oswald some time just
before you saw Mr. Oswald.

I hand you a copy of Exhibit No. 911 and would like you to take some
time to read it and comment on your opinion of its accuracy, and make
any corrections you like. It purports to record a discussion that you
had with Mr. McVickar about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; firstly he says that I told him that I had seen
Oswald Sunday, May 15. He would have meant here Sunday, November 15. My
recollection is that it was a Monday night that I spoke with Oswald,
and it would therefore be Monday, November 16, not May.

Mr. MOSK. 1959?

Miss JOHNSON. 1959. Yes; I was struck by Oswald's reserve, and that
comes out in the memo. I had forgotten, but I recollect, and it is not
in my notes but I recollect that it is true that he said he had never
talked so long about himself to anybody, that about his use of words
struck me very much in conversation, that he sometimes pronounced a
particular word correctly and later pronounced it incorrectly, and that
simple words he sometimes mispronounced and hard ones he got right.

Mr. MOSK. He was speaking in English?

Miss JOHNSON. Oh, yes; his emphasis on legality, I had the impression
that unconsciously he wasn't 100-percent behind what he was doing,
that he wanted to get out of it and he left a loophole and that the
scapegoat was the Embassy.

Mr. SLAWSON. I would like to ask a question on that. You think then
that he may have at least unconsciously had reservations right at that
time that he was not doing the right thing?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; and I think this is implicit in the interview and
it corresponds with my recollection. It says here, "it was her opinion
that he might consciously or not have been trying to leave a loophole
for himself."

I felt that in making such a scapegoat of the Embassy and of Mr.
Snyder, he was leaving himself a reason not to go back to the Embassy,
and hence not to really renounce his citizenship, and that impressed me
even then, and I think that didn't come out in my story and it doesn't
come out in my notes, but it does correspond with my recollection.

I felt he was using his annoyance at the Embassy for other reasons. It
was a pretext, although I didn't think it was conscious. And I did bore
in on whether the Embassy had given him two versions, that is, whether
they had said they were too busy, or whether there was legal grounds
that they couldn't allow him to renounce citizenship until he had
assurance of Soviet citizenship.

I was just interested in resolving the discrepancies, because I wanted
to clarify the nature of the loophole he was leaving himself, rather
really than to put the Embassy on the spot. And also I wanted to get
the Embassy's role straight because I didn't know how fully in my story
to put his annoyance at Snyder, the consul. I wanted to be clear on
what he was doing, before writing about his annoyance with Snyder.

Mr. MOSK. Do you think, Miss Johnson, that he had any knowledge of the
law of expatriation?

Miss JOHNSON. My recollection of him was that he was very legally
minded. He showed me his letters from the Embassy, his exchange of
letters from the Embassy, and that is in the notes, that he claimed
they were acting illegally. He showed me the text of these letters
and asked me what I thought of them. He said that he had been told on
Saturday, October 31, that is a Saturday, that they needed time to get
the papers together.

Mr. MOSK. But do you think that he had ever read a book of statutes or
did he give you that impression, that somebody had told him about the
law or that he had read the law?

Miss JOHNSON. He claimed that they were acting illegally, and I am not
at all sure that he didn't also indicate that he had a right, that he
knew he had a right. I am not sure that he didn't say that they had
told him at the Embassy that they wanted some assurance that he had
Soviet citizenship, but actually I believe that this was more what
I gathered from talking to Mr. Snyder and Mr. McVickar, that they
actually wanted to give him time to think.

Somewhere I got the idea that he had also been told that they wanted
assurance that he had Soviet citizenship, before letting him renounce
American citizenship. Where I got the impression, I think it was from
him, but I am not sure. Yes; my guess about him is that he would feel
that he knew the law. Whether he would have seen it or been told it by
somebody that he thought knew the law, he would have informed himself
or thought he was informed about his legal rights. He seemed very stuck
on the importance of legality, legalism.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I am going to now back up a bit and ask you
some questions about the general atmosphere in Moscow, quite apart from
Lee Harvey Oswald. I make reference here to Exhibit No. 5, which we
introduced just a minute ago. On the first page of that exhibit, which
is your statement to the Department of State, you mention that most of
the defectors who came to Moscow while you were a correspondent there
came because of personal troubles they were having at home, rather than
reasons of ideology.

You also bring up the fact that, rather your belief that, the Russians
had wanted one or two defectors from the U.S. exhibition of 1959 to
counter the negative propaganda they had been suffering from the
frequent defections of East bloc persons to the West. I wonder if you
would comment about both those points? First, if you could give us a
description of approximately how many American defectors you either
knew or had knowledge of at that time?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, I heard about most of those who came through,
though I didn't necessarily interview them. There had been one called
Webster--Richard Webster, I think--from the fair, and he had had a job
in Ohio. He worked at the fair. I don't know what he did. At the end
of the fair he asked to stay. That was, say, September or so of 1959.
We had defectors on the brain right then in Moscow, all of us, because
there had been a great deal of travel. The result was that a lot of
tourists were there; there were an unusually large number. That is to
say there had been three defectors. And Webster, now, when you did
go into it, it developed that he wasn't too happy with his wife and
he was interested in a waitress at the Hotel Ukraine. There had been
another one named Petrulli--Nicholas Petrulli. I have forgotten the
circumstances, but again they were personal, and I think he changed his
mind. I think my colleague, Mr. Korengold, supported him, really, while
he was thinking it over and deciding not to do it.

That is as far as I can remember. Those were better known cases that I
didn't bother with because I couldn't compete with the agencies. And
the Oswald case I did see because Mr. McVickar said he was refusing to
talk to journalists. So I thought that it might be an exclusive, for
one thing, and he was right in my hotel, for another. But then, once
I got talking to him, I realized right away that he was different. At
least I found him interesting at the time. Afterward I thought he was
very interesting.

I don't remember the Petrulli case; it was probably after the Oswald
case, and then there were a couple named Block--Morris Block and Mrs.
Block. I one day encountered Mrs. Block on the third floor of my hotel,
sitting talking with the woman who gave out the keys. She was quite
a forthcoming lady who talked far more about herself than she should
have, since they couldn't have wanted any publicity right then about
themselves. So I knew about the Blocks, too.

Mr. MOSK. They also came back?

Miss JOHNSON. They did come back this year, lately. But I didn't know
too much about the Blocks. There was something else about the Blocks.
Maybe they had some connection with the Soviet Union. Maybe he had
been there before. There was some reason about the Blocks. Anyway, I
couldn't get to interview them. That was the crux of the matter. So
that Oswald was the only--and there was something that made me think
the Blocks were not pure ideological, that they had some connections
with Russia as such, although I may be quite mistaken.

Mr. SLAWSON. You mean possibly some business or personal connection
that would give them a tie?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. That would be different, quite apart from the ideology of
Communist Russia?

Miss JOHNSON. I had the feeling that perhaps Mr. Block had been in the
Soviet Union before, perhaps in the service during war or that they
were of Russian ancestry, something of that kind, which took away from
any ideological features.

Here Oswald was of an age that made him different right away. He was
only 20, and I had never heard of anybody of that age in the first
place, or that generation, taking an ideological interest to the point
where he would defect. His age made him extraordinary.

Somebody of his generation reminded me right away of the 1930's, and I
lived in the hotel where I heard stories about the kind of defectors
who came in the 1930's; that is, they had been ideological. They had
come for reasons of race or sex; women desirous of emancipation, the
American women; Negroes desirous of thinking that here is a country
where Negroes were treated equally; people of leftist views; and among
the press corps I was aware that most of the Western press corps or
much of it were fellow traveling or Communist, and I read quite a bit
about them.

Mr. MOSK. This is during the thirties?

Mr. SLAWSON. During the 1930's?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. Malcolm Muggeridge, Eugene Lyons, Louis Fischer. And
I would gather these tales, because I was interested in them.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Do you want to add something to what you have previously
said?

Miss JOHNSON. The ones we have are Malcolm Muggeridge, Eugene Lyons,
Louis Fischer, Walter Duranty. These were famous cases of people
who had a great interest in communism, and the Soviet Union in some
ways was the promised land to them. Mr. Lyons later titled a book
"Assignment in Utopia." Our press corps was not at all like that. We
were mostly there because Moscow was a great place to make a name and
a career, and we ranged from very interested, like me, to downright
disenchanted, you know. We were all pretty anti and skeptical, and we
were there because it was good for our careers rather than because we
were interested in communism or because we thought it was the promised
land, and that was always striking to me, because I often heard stories
about the thirtys, and I really thought it sounded very exciting
then. And he was the one person who seemed to have nineteen-thirtyish
reasons, unemployment in the United States, economic difficulty, racial
inequalities, interest in communism. So I thought sometime I would like
to write an article about how the kind of newspaper people and the kind
of defectors who really came now reflected what happened to the Soviet
Union compared to the thirtys, going back to Muggeridge's memoirs,
Lyons, Fischer's memoirs, Duranty's memoirs, and what other people had
said about Duranty to show what happened to the Soviet Union itself. It
didn't attract people now for ideological reasons.

It was a bourgeois country like any other, and if it attracted people
from the West it was because they wanted to make it their career; it
had become a career for foreigners; or because they were personal
malcontents.

They weren't getting along with their wives. It was the strangest kind
of reason. Oswald was the exception that proved the rule. And I had
made notes about him in the interim, when I thought of him, because of
this. He was the exception who proved the rule because he purported to
be acting for ideological reasons.

Whenever I thought about him I thought: What is behind these professed
reasons? They are really emotional reasons in his case, too, and I
don't understand, although it is not obvious like a wife he is leaving,
they are still emotional reasons, and I don't know what is behind his
professed ideological reasons. And I can't guess. So he was the pin
really for the piece, and I couldn't guess them. If I had known he
was back in the States--I had thought about him, it seems to me, as
recently as 3 weeks before the assassination, and wondered, and the way
that the thought used to come to me was, "I wonder what ever happened
to that little Lee Oswald?" And had I known he was back--I thought he
would have been disenchanted, trapped in Russia, unable to get out--if
I had known he was back I probably would have tried to see him, write
him, go to see him. And if I had been able to figure out his reasons
and what happened to him, maybe I could have written that piece.

Mr. MOSK. You had no indication that people could not leave the Soviet
Union?

Miss JOHNSON. Oh, yes; I did. I had plenty of indication that they
couldn't leave, and I didn't assume for a second that he had ever left
or gotten out, and I wanted, if I could, to help him, warn him subtly
that he was going to be trapped. That is why I spent so long talking
to him. But I assumed that my room was wired, and I couldn't be obvious
about it, and I tried to do it by talking to him about economics.

Mr. SLAWSON. Before we get into the actual interview you had with Mr.
Oswald, Miss Johnson, the other comment on the first page of Exhibit
No. 5 which you made was, and I quote: "The Russians had wanted one or
two defectors from the U.S. exhibition of 1959 to counter the negative
propaganda they had been suffering from the more or less frequent
defections of East-bloc persons to the West." Could you first identify
the exhibition you are referring to, and then give the basis for your
statement of what the Russians wanted?

Miss JOHNSON. Right. I am speaking of the U.S. exhibition at Sokolniki
Park in Moscow that had been opened by Vice President Nixon in July of
1959, which ran for 6 weeks, which brought a great many Americans to
Moscow for periods, fairly long periods of time, in the capacity of
employees of the fair, setting up pavilions, setting up exhibits, some
guides. And I didn't know this, but I had the impression that they had
encouraged Webster to defect.

I may be quite mistaken about that. Webster was an employee of
the fair, and I thought perhaps they wanted one. That was just an
assumption. Oswald, however, I again bored in quite a bit in my talk
with him as to whether they were encouraging him, and he said they were
neither encouraging or discouraging. He was very anxious as to whether
they were going to let him stay, and this did strike me as a little
unusual. I thought they would encourage it. And I didn't know whether
he was just a very anxious person, hence anxious, or whether they were
keeping him on tenterhooks, not for tactical reasons at all but because
of genuine doubts about having him. My only conclusion could be--it was
at the time--that Nikita Khrushchev just had been to see Eisenhower;
that they were not encouraging defections because of the political
atmosphere. I didn't realize that it might be anything personal about
Oswald. I assumed that it was the atmosphere.

Mr. SLAWSON. When you first approached Oswald to ask him for an
interview--could you describe that?

Miss JOHNSON. I knocked on his door, expecting to be let in. But I
wasn't let in. He came out. He came to the door and I stayed in the
hall. He stayed in the doorway as I recall it, and I asked him if he
would let me talk to him; expected he would say no, from what Mr.
McVickar had told me. But he said quite quickly yes, he would come, and
he said he would come to my room. He didn't invite me to his, and he
named an hour for that evening when he would come, and he did come that
evening just at the time he said, and he stayed.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you see into his room to see whether he was alone at
that time?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I had the impression he was alone, but I didn't see
that anyone was there. Had somebody been sitting in his room, I think
I could have seen them. My guess is that his bed would have been out
of sight, but that the chairs in which anybody would have been sitting
with him might have been visible. But he may have had the door open
sufficiently little or at such an angle that I couldn't have seen had
he been alone.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did you know at the time that Miss Aline Mosby, a
newspaper reporter, I believe, for the Associated Press at that time----

Miss JOHNSON. For the United Press International.

Mr. SLAWSON. United Press--had spoken to Oswald several days earlier?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I had been told he wasn't talking to people, and I
hoped that he hadn't talked to anyone else.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did you ever learn from Oswald that he had spoken to Miss
Mosby earlier?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I never heard from anyone until after November
the 22d, 1963, although Mr. McVickar had said that I could ask Mr.
Korengold about him. That was a tip that perhaps he had talked to
somebody at UPI, but I didn't want to tip the UPI that I was on to it
because I thought that would reinvigorate their efforts. So I never did
speak to anybody except Mr. McVickar.

Mr. SLAWSON. While we are back on Mr. McVickar, I don't think we
established for the record absolutely clearly whether there was
anything in Exhibit No. 911 besides the date and the day which you felt
should be corrected?

Miss JOHNSON. No; not at all. There is a postscript at the bottom
which is dated November 19. So far as I recall, this doesn't reflect
another conversation. It simply reflects an afterthought on the part of
Mr. McVickar, or conceivably a second conversation between me and Mr.
McVickar. He may have asked me more questions, and this may reflect a
little additional.

Mr. SLAWSON. But it does not reflect a second conversation between you
and Lee Harvey Oswald; is that correct?

Miss JOHNSON. No.

Mr. SLAWSON. I asked you if that was correct?

Miss JOHNSON. It is correct. It does not reflect a second conversation
with Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. SLAWSON. Now then, we can get back to your interview with Lee
Harvey Oswald that evening. I have some questions here, but I want
you to feel free to interject any comments of your own at any time.
Of course we have as exhibits many of your previous statements and
articles reflecting your thinking about this before coming here today,
so we can both, I think, confine ourselves to elaborations or possible
corrections or discussions around the points that you have already set
down in the exhibits. The first thing I would like to bring up is a
point you touched upon briefly already in the exhibits, that Oswald
seemed to be greatly concerned with economics, and that you weren't,
and that consequently a great deal of the time in the interview was
taken up you might say with noncommunicative thought, or speech rather.
I wonder if you would define what you mean by economics, and elaborate
on that a little bit?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, since I liked Mr. Oswald, and since Mr. McVickar
had pointed out to me that there was a narrow line between my duty as a
correspondent and duty as an American, I hoped to establish some kind
of communication with him, although I was really trying to write a
story about him. I went outside my duty in the sense that I did try to
establish some kind of communication. I rather quickly perceived that
the best way to do this was to follow his lead and discuss economics.
That is what interested him more than anything. He wasn't interested
in talking about politics. He hadn't seen enough of Soviet society to
discuss it very concretely, nor was I in a position to point out to him
too much about its shortcomings, because I was a correspondent there,
because my room wasn't a really private place for conversation, and so
I tried really to point out its shortcomings in economic terms which
seemed to be the surest way of reaching him, and it was the subject on
which he had the most interest.

My notes therefore don't really reflect a great deal of that part of
the conversation, because it meant nothing to me storywise at the time.

It wasn't what I was going to write about. And I wasn't too interested
in it really. I was just trying to talk with him. And so when I talked
to him, what I said wasn't recorded in the notes, and the gist of his
reply was--of his replies were--that is about the exploitation of
the worker. I tried to point out to him that in the stage of primary
accumulation any society has to take more from the workers. They
have to be paid less than they really create. So there is poverty
and injustice everywhere. It was by way of trying to say to him that
things were not so good in the Soviet Union if he just would look,
because I wanted him to think before he did it. I assumed his act was
irrevocable and I was very sorry for him. So all this was couched in
economic language, which takes up time, and in which I wasn't really
too interested. I did feel that when he left that if I only understood
economics more--had only taken more interest in it when I studied it,
I had only studied it a bit more--that I could have answered him,
talked with him in terms that he could really respect, and that it
might have caused him to think more about his action and might even
have caused him to hesitate, and might have built up his respect for me
sufficiently that I could become someone whom he would have come back
to talk to and could have been some help to him.

And I felt that I had failed him in the sense that I could not talk
to him in the one language that he really wanted to talk in and was
interested in. I did as much as I could along those lines, but I felt
that it had been inadequate in the situation in my own desire to help
him.

Mr. SLAWSON. You used the term "economics." Do you mean by that,
economics in the sense of a Marxist versus Capitalist discussion,
terms like you used, "primary accumulation," "exploitation," and so on?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes, a little better than exploitation, more in primary
accumulation, and comparing the two systems. If I had been good at
comparing the two systems and using economic verbiage--I guess that
what I am saying is that if I had had long words about economics, been
able to throw them around with some authority, he would have respected
me. He did respect words, long words, language, and if I had seemed to
have a key to some occult science that he didn't know about but was
interested in, that this would have compelled his respect and might
have brought him back. But I had taken a course in Soviet economics at
Harvard where they had waived the requirement that you had studied the
American economic system, and I had done all right in the course, but
that really was where my economic training began and ended, and I just
barely sustained my interest through the course.

I regreted very much after that conversation not having ever really
studied economics formally, at least not knowing the terms.

I am so uninterested in it that if somebody tells me the words I forget
them. It was that bad with me. This was the only real occasion where I
was very sorry.

Mr. SLAWSON. In Commission Exhibit No. 911, which is John McVickar's
memorandum to files about his conversation with you, he quotes you
as saying, "Miss Johnson remarked that although he used long words
and seemed in some ways well-read, he often used words incorrectly as
though he had learned them from a dictionary."

Was that in reference to these economic discussions you had with Oswald?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. I think really he didn't use long words too
much about economics. I felt if I could have, I could have made an
impression. Words were important to him. And he was not qualified, mind
you, for a technical discussion of economics.

It wasn't that he was qualified for it. If I had been, I felt I would
have had a value to him.

Mr. SLAWSON. I wish you would elaborate on this: What kind of knowledge
you felt Lee Oswald had on economics, and his general ability to engage
in abstract argument and discussion.

Miss JOHNSON. He liked to create the pretense, the impression that he
was attracted to abstract discussion and was capable of engaging in
it, and was drawn to it. But it was like pricking a balloon. I had
the feeling that if you really did engage him on this ground, you
very quickly would discover that he didn't have the capacity for a
logical sustained argument about an abstract point on economics or on
noneconomic, political matters or any matter, philosophical. Actually
the conversation kept coming back to him, and this was not only my
desire for an interview. It was the way he led it. He really talked
about himself the whole time.

Whatever he was talking about was really Lee Oswald. He seemed to me
to have really zero capacity for a sustained abstract discussion on
economics or any other subject, and I didn't think he knew anything
about economics.

In fact, if I had been a little smarter I would have just used the
economic words that I could have remembered, compelled his respect and
he wouldn't have known that I didn't know anything.

Mr. SLAWSON. You said that you did not get into much political
discussion with him.

Miss JOHNSON. No, we didn't. Partly I couldn't engage him directly on
the Soviet Union because I had a poor status there as a correspondent.
I worked for the weakest of the American agencies. I was always in
danger of being expelled with my visa expiring. Even then I was only on
a 1 month visa, and at that only because of the spirit of Camp David. I
had just barely gotten back in the country.

I was just there on sufferance, and I really couldn't show my hand
politically, tell him anything I thought politically. He also didn't
seem interested in a pointed political discussion about either society.
He seemed to be able or willing to discuss in generalizations rather
than in direct terms, a comparison of the two societies or anything
like this. The point where I felt I could engage him was on economics,
and here we did go in for some comparisons of the two societies. That
was all. But politics we hardly discussed, except when he brought it
up. And he didn't bring it up in terms of people at all.

(Short recess.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I wonder if you would search your memory
with the help of your notes and make any comments you could on what
contacts Lee Oswald had had with Soviet officials before you saw him,
any remarks he made or things you could read between the lines, and so
on.

Miss JOHNSON. I was looking for contact between him and the secret
police, and I wanted to find out if there had been such contact, and
if so, how much and was he aware of it. And I came away impressed only
with the fact that he was secretive, and not at all certain what his
contacts had been, but assuming that there had been some, whether or
not he was aware of it.

He was very reticent as to who he had seen, what agencies they
represented. I asked him whether he had told Intourist of his
intention, and his answer, which is on the record somewhere, I asked
him if they were encouraging him, and he said they treat it like a
legal formality. They don't encourage and don't discourage you.

"They do of course warn you that it is not easy to be accepted as a
citizen of the Soviet Union." They were investigating the possibility
of his studying.

I assumed that the police had told him he wasn't to see any of us, and
that they would tell him when he left the hotel at the end of the week
not to tell any one before he left. I asked him if Intourist knew about
his intentions and he refused to answer.

He said he had had an interview with an official of the Soviet
Government a few days later. I assume that means after his arrival. But
"official of the Soviet Government" meant nothing and I didn't know
what agency that official represented.

Also I had the impression, in fact he said, he hoped that his
experience as a radar operator would make him more desirable to them.
That was the only thing that really showed any lack of integrity in
a way about him, a negative thing. That is, he felt he had something
he could give them, something that would hurt his country in a way,
or could, and that was the one thing that was quite negative, that he
was holding out some kind of bait. That also indicated his extreme
naivete, because they have plenty of radar operators, and I doubted
that anything in that realm would be of use to them, although perhaps
he knew codes and things.

I didn't know anything about that.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you elaborate a little bit on that radar point. Had
you been informed by the American Embassy at the time that he had told
Richard Snyder that he had already volunteered to the Soviet officials
that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps, and would give
the Russian Government any secrets he had possessed?

Miss JOHNSON. I had no idea that he had told Snyder that, but he did
tell me--I got the impression, I am not sure that it is in the notes
or not, I certainly got the impression that he was using his radar
training as a come-on to them, hoped that that would make him of some
value to them, and I----

Mr. SLAWSON. This was something then that he must have volunteered to
you, because you would not have known to ask about it?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, again I am not very military minded, and I couldn't
have cared less, you know. But somehow along the line, if it is not in
my notes then it is a memory, then it is one of the things I didn't
write--well, one thing is you know I tend to write what I thought I
might use in the story. But I wasn't going to write a particularly
negative story about him. I wasn't going to write that he was using it
as a come-on so I might not have transcribed it just simply for that
reason, that it wasn't a part of my story.

But it definitely was an impression that he--and it was from him,
certainly not from the Embassy, that he was using that as a come-on,
and I sure didn't like that. But it didn't occur to me he might have
military secrets. I just felt, well hell, he didn't have much as a
radar operator that they need, although even there I didn't know.

Maybe there was some little twist in our radar technique that he might
know. It showed a lack of integrity in his personality, and that I
remembered. What he might or might not have to offer them I didn't know.

About the other point, police interest, I assumed the police would
be the first people to be interested, and that whether he knew it or
not, he had talked to somebody from the police, that he was getting a
favorable room rate because of this interest. That is what I was after
the whole time. But I was struck only by his secretiveness in answer to
this, and I couldn't make out whether he had something to hide, whether
he didn't know really what the situation was, or whether he was simply
a very secretive person.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he tell you that he had this information which he
was, you might say, holding out as bait to the Soviets, or that he
had already given to the Soviet Government whatever expertise or
information he might have had as a radar operator?

Miss JOHNSON. I think he told me--could you repeat your question?

Mr. SLAWSON. Well, I will put it in a different way. I wonder whether
your memory is that Oswald was telling you that he had this information
which he had not yet given to the Soviet Government, and hoped to use
it as a means of convincing them to take him, or whether he had already
given it to them?

Miss JOHNSON. No; he didn't tell me that he had any specific
information, that he offered it, that he had told them, or that he
would tell them. It was not that explicit. It was something like
if his experience as a radar operator would be of any use to them,
perhaps they would let him work as a radar operator. It was a little
more pointed than that, because I realized that he was going to make
available his radar experience, and that he did want to use it as a
come-on.

It was a tiny bit, a little bit more pointed than that, but it was more
in that category. If anything he learned as a radar operator in the
Marines would be useful to them, he would give it to them, and he hoped
to continue his training, something like that.

But it is not in my notes. It is memory, and it is the most negative
recollection of him I had.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he make any comments to you about having been
interviewed by any Soviet newspaper reporters or radio reporters or
anything of that type?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, of course that is an obvious question I ought to
have asked him, since a visiting foreigner very quickly does get that
kind of attention, but I didn't ask him.

Mr. SLAWSON. You did, I think, according to the statements you have
made in these exhibits, ask him whether he had had any contacts with
American Communists or other Communists before he came to the Soviet
Union?

Miss JOHNSON. I wasn't as suspicious about this as I had been on the
Soviet police angle, but he awakened my suspicions by his reticence. He
seemed to have something to hide, and once again I didn't know whether
he had something to hide or whether he was just very secretive, because
I asked him what books he had read, and he wouldn't say. Yet he was
certainly trying to give me the impression that he was a book-learned
boy, and this comes about page 11 of my notes. We were talking about
books, and we were talking about his contact with American Socialists
or Communists about the same time.

So perhaps the way that the conversation led from one to the other gave
me the impression that he wasn't naming books because he didn't want
to hurt authors by suggesting that they had had anything to do--he was
taking full responsibility--that they had had anything to do with his
defection. But you would think he would have mentioned books because he
was giving the impression that he was a boy who paid a lot of attention
and he really read books.

Then Socialists and Communists, I wasn't too suspicious although I
should have been. How did he get there? It wasn't easy at all for him
to do. I was more impressed, awed by it, than I was inquisitive about
where he might have been coached.

But he awakened me to the point that I should be inquisitive because of
the very fact that he eluded, naming names, specified that he had no
contacts with American Communists, going out of his way to stress it. I
am sure that this part of our conversation was quite a bit longer than
came out in my notes. Again you know I had no idea that he was going to
ever be at all important. But it was he who put the emphasis on lack
of contacts with American Communists. He said American Socialists were
to be shunned by anybody with an interest in progressive ideology. I
probably brought them up rather than the Communists first, just as his
interest in Socialist literature.

He answered, "Well, they were to be shunned." This was an emphatic
reply to what was probably a very vague, general, unemphatic question.
And he called them "a dormant flag-waving organization."

So that woke me up and I asked him what about American Communists,
and he said--he was very emphatic here and again probably at more
length than was in the notes--that only through reading literature and
observing, but he wouldn't name what literature, American Communists
"(I never saw an American Communist)" he said, and I put that in
parentheses because I was that uninterested, really. I didn't make it
anything but a parenthetical observation, but only through reading did
he conclude it was best. In other words it was he who had tried to
emphasize that there had not been people involved.

Retrospectively I see that this was important, that there may have been
people involved.

Mr. SLAWSON. You say retrospectively you see that it was important. Do
you mean by that that you see now it was very important to him that he
establish to you that he had come only on his own?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, I saw then that it was important to him to
establish this to me. My story reflects whatever importance I gave it
at the time. But if I knew about him then a tenth of what I know now,
I would have tried to pin him down even more on it, that he might have
had coaching.

It is also the sort of thing that comes out more clearly when
you look at your notes and you think about a person afterwards,
just-how-did-he-get-here kind of a thing.

How does a boy like this who doesn't know his way around Moscow find
his way here? But at the time I was talking to him, I had less interest
really than in any help he may have had on the Soviet side.

Mr. SLAWSON. Trying to divorce what you now know from what you knew
then, did he go into any detail at all about his life before he came to
Russia, his life in the Marine Corps particularly?

Miss JOHNSON. The only details there were about his experience abroad.
He said literally nothing about his experience in the Marine Corps in
the United States except that he was studying Russian then. He did
speak about his experience in the Marine Corps abroad in Japan, in
the Philippines, and he indicated that he hated to be part of it, you
know, "oppressing power." He said he had been part of an invasion of
Indonesia in March 1958, that there was a Communist-inspired social
turnover, that they had to sit off the coast in ships with enough
ammunition to intervene. He was told that they might have had to go in
in Suez in 1956.

He had been in Japan and the Philippines, and he hated to participate
in what he viewed as American imperialism, but details of his life in
the Marine Corps he didn't go into at all.

Mr. SLAWSON. At that time did you yourself speak a fair amount of
Russian?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. Were you able to judge his facility in that language?

Miss JOHNSON. No; because our conversation was totally in English. It
was he who volunteered about his linguistic competence, and I think
that he said that while the Berlitz method had helped him learn to read
and write, and I queried "write" because writing is even harder than
speaking, it hadn't taught him to speak. And he indicated considerable
helplessness in the language. There are a number of things not in the
notes, such as perhaps this, about the language, there was more than is
in the notes.

His helplessness about the city, the fact that he had only been on one
walk by himself is not in my notes, but it is in my story. There are a
few things like that that weren't in the notes, but that came across
very clearly. I had the feeling that he felt quite helpless in Russian,
not that he hadn't studied it but he simply didn't find the study was
useful in his day-to-day getting around the city.

Mr. SLAWSON. Your article quotes Oswald as saying that he used Berlitz
methods in learning the language. Does your memory have anything to add
to that as to what exactly he might have meant?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. This was another point where he struck me as really
rather elusive about an innocent enough subject. I see on page 3,
he said, "I started learning Russian a year ago along with my other
preparations."

Well, his saying "along with my other preparations" took my interest
at the time. What were they? Whether I tried to find out more about
what they were and failed and therefore that is not in the notes, but
he threw it out and he then didn't really deliver as far as detailing
them. He said, "I was able to teach myself to read and write from
Berlitz. I still have trouble speaking."

So I said, "Well, how did you teach yourself to read and write from
Berlitz? Did you just get a textbook or did you go into some city
nearby for lessons at a school?" And he wouldn't answer, and that
struck me as one hell of a--I mean a strange thing to be elusive about.
Why, learning a language is just something you can tell somebody, so I
thought.

So I said, "Practice or a teacher? Did you have a teacher or did you
just do it from practice?" And he wouldn't say. And then that got me
sufficiently curious that I asked him on what money he had come to the
Soviet Union. That was my next question. He did have a way of a little
bit piquing your curiosity and then failing to deliver.

He liked to play cat and mouse with your curiosity.

Mr. SLAWSON. Can you go into and describe what kind of assurances
Oswald said he had been given at that time about his ability to stay
indefinitely in the Soviet Union, or lack of assurances?

Miss JOHNSON. This was a point on which his anxiety was patent, and he
said almost at the beginning of the interview, "They have confirmed the
fact that I will not have to leave the Soviet Union, be forced to leave
even if the Supreme Soviet refuses my request for Soviet citizenship."

This came up repeatedly in the conversation, that he was anxious, that
he had been very anxious that he would be forced to go--what was your
question exactly again?

Mr. SLAWSON. I think you are already addressing yourself to it. I am
interested in what Oswald told you about how sure he was at that time
that he would be permitted to stay in the Soviet Union.

Miss JOHNSON. Well, he had by that time been told that he wouldn't have
to leave, and as it had obviously been very recently that he had been
told. It was obviously also an enormous relief to him but he hadn't
quite recovered from the anxiety he had felt before the assurance,
because it kept coming up again and again. In fact, he even----

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you state for the record what kept coming up again
and again? I mean, what did he tell you he had been told?

Miss JOHNSON. The fact that he could stay in the Soviet Union as a
resident alien even if he did not receive Soviet citizenship, that
he wouldn't have to leave the country. It came up almost as a leit
motif of this conversation, his anxiety about staying, and his recent
reassurance by them that he could remain as a resident alien had not
altogether quelled the anxiety which was still alive, even though the
assurance was there.

He was holding on to it and repeating it, you know, reiterating it as
though it gave him something to hold on to. In fact, he did give this
as a reason for his talking to me, that he no longer was afraid that by
talking to a foreigner he would be compromising his ability to stay. In
other words, all the time I was also curious really as to just what he
was. Was he a publicity seeker? Was he doing it for that reason? And so
he said he wouldn't have talked, that he would have given no statement
to the press, which was a rather pretentious way I guess of describing
his utterances up to that time, if the Embassy hadn't already released
it, and he wouldn't have said anything to anyone if they hadn't
released it.

This was another reason for his being mad at the Embassy. Then he went
on to say as another reason for talking--he was already inconsistent
there--he would like to give his side of the story and give the people
of the United States something to think about.

And then on top of that, that having been assured "I would not have to
return to the United States I assumed it would be safe for me to give
my side of the story," and at the time I underlined the word "safe."
Why did he think it would be unsafe, and "my side of the story"? He
is assuming that the Embassy is giving out a negative story about
him. He was paranoid. I mean he assumed that they were saying nasty
things about him and he wanted to set the record straight. This told me
something about him already at the beginning of the interview, that he
really was a little bit paranoid.

Mr. SLAWSON. I have intentionally asked you of your impressions on this
point, without giving you some other information that we have, and I
now want to give that information to you and see whether in the light
of this, what is your interpretation of Oswald's attitude at that time.

His historic diary, which is Commission Exhibit No. 24, has an entry
that on November 15 he interviewed Aline Mosby. That is incorrect,
probably a day late. It was probably the 14th or the 13th. On November
16, which he places as the day after he interviewed her, he has the
following entry:

"A Russian official comes to my room, asks how I am, notifies me I can
remain in U.S.S.R. 'til some solution is found with what to do with me.
It is comforting news for me."

Miss JOHNSON. That was the 16th.

Mr. SLAWSON. But I say, do not take the dates correctly except that one
date comes after another, because he also placed the interview with
Mosby the 15th, which we know must have been at least as early as the
14th, and possibly as early as the 13th.

Miss JOHNSON. In other words--yes; but that might help account for the
fullness. Either he is lying; i.e., really he is misled, or not lying
but confused about his reason for talking to me, and I think he was.

Mr. SLAWSON. But I think that the significance of the entry is that the
promise that he could stay was very distinctly qualified.

Miss JOHNSON. "Until some solution----"

Mr. SLAWSON. "Is found what to do with me."

Miss JOHNSON. That is interesting: "until some solution." The way he
put it to me was, and he put it more than once, it is in the notes,
"even if they refuse that, I won't have to leave."

I imagine that his talking to me for so long, however, could be partly
because he did feel the heat was off him in some way. That might be one
reason. Another thing is that leads me to date my own interview the
17th, because for some reason I have the feeling that that information
has been conveyed to him on the day before I talked to him.

Mr. SLAWSON. I don't think this is a basis for your dating your
interview on the 17th, because I think he has everything moved up a day
here. He puts the Mosby interview on the 15th which we know was on the
14th, so he probably puts the Russian officials coming to his room on
the 16th when it probably occurred on the 15th.

Miss JOHNSON. That would be a Sunday. But Soviet officials do do things
on Sundays. They definitely do. But even so, it is more likely that
that happened on the 14th, Mosby on the 13th. That is possible, too.

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes.

Miss JOHNSON. So they had just simply said until--in other words, he
is inexact for all his legalism. Either he is confused and inexact, or
he was misleading purposely. He may have misunderstood the official,
thought the official was promising more than he was.

Mr. SLAWSON. It could be, except that this of course is his diary
entry, so he must have known what he was writing there, unless he wrote
it down much later. In other words, it is possible that he made the
entry in the diary at a much later time when he then realized that the
promise had been qualified, and was under the impression when he spoke
to you that he had received an unconditional promise. But the reason
I brought this up was whether with the insight that he may have known
when he spoke to you, that he had not quite received the unconditional
promise he purported to have received, does this give you any further
insight on him? I don't want you to just speculate here.

Miss JOHNSON. Well, whether he viewed publicity as actually perhaps
helping his case, or whether enjoying the sense of importance that
publicity gave him, he was rationalizing it by thinking that he was
manipulating the situation to his advantage by having a little more
publicity.

This is the only thing I wonder. Or possibly it was simply relief. He
did use the word "safe," that he felt it would be safe.

Mr. SLAWSON. I think we have about got out all on that point we can.
Could you elaborate a little more on Oswald's attitude toward the
Embassy's reluctance to permit him to renounce his citizenship, on what
he felt the Embassy was doing here, and what your impression was what
the Embassy was doing?

Miss JOHNSON. My impression from talking to John McVickar was that the
Embassy had tried to give him a cooling off period, to be sure he knew
what he was doing, but that it had also written him, informed him in
writing that he could renounce his citizenship and he had a perfect
right to come in and do so. The Embassy's behavior had been correct,
and on the side it was trying to be humane, giving him time to think
out what he was doing.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he show you the letter the Embassy had written him?

Miss JOHNSON. He showed me two letters, and I think he asked me
something about them. I was very amused, because the Embassy was his
scapegoat, and he did keep bringing it up. But this contrasted with
really the correctness of the letters that he showed me from them, and
it contrasted with the rather kindly attitude that Mr. McVickar had.
And then on top of that he kept saying he shouldn't be too mad at them,
but he indicated that he was very very mad at them indeed.

He said November 1 he had written a letter of protest to the Ambassador
protesting the way Snyder had carried out his duties, and had received
a letter back, and he then gave me, showed me the letter. But my
impression is that he showed me two letters.

Mr. SLAWSON. Perhaps I can refresh your recollection a little. I am now
on page 6 of your exhibit No. 5, in which you quote from a letter from
the State Department which he showed you.

Miss JOHNSON. This is Mr. Thompson's letter. He did show it to me. I
remember now that he showed me the letter.

Mr. SLAWSON. A letter from Mr. Thompson?

Miss JOHNSON. From Ambassador Thompson. Well, I am not sure. He said he
wrote a letter of protest to the U.S. Ambassador, and he received this
letter back. But it may have been that the letter was signed by Mr.
Snyder.

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes. Do you think that your recollection of two letters
may be that one he wrote and the other he received, or do you
distinctly remember that he received two which he showed you?

Miss JOHNSON. I thought he showed me two things, but the only one I
wrote anything about was the Embassy's reply, and either my memory
has miscarried and he only showed me one letter, or I simply don't
recollect what the other one was.

Mr. SLAWSON. Is it correct that the Embassy reply you are referring to
is the one that is quoted on page 6?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. Of your exhibit No. 5?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he show you any communications he had received from
his family or anybody else?

Miss JOHNSON. No. He told me that--again there is a little more here
than is in the notes but it is partly a matter of impression. He was
avoiding hearing from them, and they called him, and he said it was to
ask him to come back, and he wouldn't answer. How did he know they were
asking him to come back if he didn't answer? He was full of those kinds
of contradictions, but that he was avoiding them. As far as I recollect
he didn't show me anything from his family.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he tell you why he was avoiding communications with
his family?

Miss JOHNSON. No.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he----

Miss JOHNSON. Well, maybe he felt his resolve was shaky. I felt his
resolve was shaky, and maybe he felt so too, and he was afraid if he
talked to them they would talk him out of it.

Mr. SLAWSON. In one of your exhibits you comment on his reply to one
of your questions, that if he was so adamant on wanting to renounce
his American citizenship, he could do so by going back to the Embassy,
and that he had been so informed in the letter. His reply to that,
according to your exhibits, was that they would simply give him the
same runaround again. Do you have anything to add to that?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, it has come up. It is in the notes several times
here, and I may not catch it each time. But I think I have already
spoken for the record my impression that he was really not consistent
about the Embassy, or I might say just putting it a little more
strongly and editorially, he was not quite honest, because he claimed
he was so mad he wouldn't go back, yet he was so firm in his resolve as
a great big man, that he was going to give up his citizenship, you know.

But I pointed out to him that this seemed to me to be pique, boyish
pique. Whether I actually said it, you know, I probably didn't quite,
but that is what I thought. He was indulging himself. If he was really
so resolved to give up his citizenship, then why let a little thing
like annoyance over his October the 31st interview stand in the way of
doing this, which he felt was an important principle and act? And I did
point out to him the discrepancies in a gentler way than I honestly
thought. The answers in my notes reflect his response to this, not the
way that I put it to him, that he wouldn't go back because of this and
that.

He did show me the letter, but my impression is that he wanted to know
whether I thought that the letter was proper treatment. Showing it
to me was to me an indication of his very legal approach, legalistic
approach to things, and it seemed to me of course nothing exceptional
about the letter. You see there he knew what he could do, and he was
in light of that refusing to go to the Embassy. That seemed to me
very immature, and from the standpoint of his stated principles, very
inconsistent.

Mr. SLAWSON. I just have one final question here. I would like to bring
together----

Miss JOHNSON. Excuse me, could I add something there?

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes.

Miss JOHNSON. And that really was one more thing that led me to think
that he was less than certain about his attempt to defect. Well,
leaving himself this loophole was it seemed to me important, it seemed
important at the time, and he knew he was doing it, because I pointed
it out to him. He knew he was doing it, and he got out of it by
whatever it was he said to me. I can't isolate all the comments in the
notes, but they are all there. He got out of it, but he knew he was
doing it.

Mr. SLAWSON. But you felt that all these comments then were more
or less excuses made up in his own mind, either consciously or
unconsciously, that he was--excuses for not going back to the Embassy
to make this final step of dissolving his citizenship?

Miss JOHNSON. And that behind what appeared to me to be boyish pique
lay something else. He was leaving himself a way out, and I was fully
aware of it at the time.

Mr. SLAWSON. We previously have discussed how much he probably was
paying for his hotel room at various times, and for his meals. I bring
to your attention one of your statements in the exhibits, that he said
he had been living on Intourist vouchers for 10 days, and we have
already gone into what 10 days probably meant. Did he make any other
comments that would relate to how much money his attempt to defect was
costing him?

Miss JOHNSON. Finance was certainly something I talked to him about,
and it was something he was notably elusive about, and again he said
he was paying the standard rate. "I want to make it clear they are not
sponsoring me." Naturally I wanted to know on what money he got there,
and it was in response to this that he told me the itinerary by which
he came, by which he said he came, that is from New Orleans to Le
Havre, to Helsinki. He gave me his route.

Whether it was the true route I don't know, but he gave me what he said
was the route, and the method of transport. He said he left from New
Orleans September 19. I wasn't absolutely sure that was the date he
gave me, on a Friday by ship. Actually the 19th was a Saturday. And
he might have left on the 18th. That it took him 12 days to get to Le
Havre, that he booked a flight to Helsinki but you couldn't fly to
Helsinki from Le Havre. You would have to fly from Paris.

Mr. SLAWSON. Actually he flew from London. He went from Le Havre to
London and then Helsinki.

Miss JOHNSON. By the same ship?

Mr. SLAWSON. No; by airplane I believe. Anyway he disembarked on the
ship at Le Havre, as he told you, then went from there to London I
believe by airplane, although I am not certain. But then he went by
airplane from London to Helsinki.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; actually he got his visa in London probably.

Mr. SLAWSON. Well, I do know some of these facts, but I would like you
to go on the best of your recollection.

Miss JOHNSON. He said nothing about London at all. I never was sure how
the hell he got to Helsinki, but he said he went by train from Helsinki
to Moscow, and he repeated that for 10 days he had been on those
vouchers.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he indicate to you anything about how he got his visa?

Miss JOHNSON. No; not at all. I may well have asked him too. A question
and a nonreply, though, are not recorded in my notes, but I may well
have asked him. On the other hand I think I would have remembered if he
had said anything. If he just evaded the way he evaded a lot, I might
not have put it down, because evasion was really quite characteristic
of him. But of course I was curious where he got it, and how. And
I do have $30 written down here as the rate. You know there was a
businessman's rate of $12 a day at that time, and also the $30 rate I
am telling you is as of that time because it is now $35. But I do have
$30 written down, so I assumed that he specified that he was there at
the $30 rate those 10 days, not the $12. No; he said nothing about a
visa, and of course I was curious.

Mr. SLAWSON. I have no more specific questions, Miss Johnson. If you
have anything at all to add, or any further comments you want to make,
please go ahead and do so.

Miss JOHNSON. No; I don't.

Mr. SLAWSON. Thank you very much for coming here.

Miss JOHNSON. Thank you.




TESTIMONY OF ERIC ROGERS

The testimony of Eric Rogers was taken on July 21, 1964, at the Old
Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by
Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Eric Rogers, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Rogers, I am an attorney on the staff of the
President's Commission. I think I met you one day.

Mr. ROGERS. I remember you; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I wanted to ask you a few questions about Oswald. I
am questioning you under authority granted to me by the Commission
under Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint
resolution of Congress, No. 137.

You are entitled to have an attorney if you want to and you don't have
to answer any questions if you feel that they are incriminating.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can't answer what I don't know. I will tell you
just what I told them, you see. That's all I saw.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Rogers, am I correct in understanding that you lived
at 4907 Magazine Street during the period last summer when----

Mr. ROGERS. I did; a few months.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you move there?

Mr. ROGERS. It was around in the--in July, around July.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald there?

Mr. ROGERS. He was there for a short period of time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You lived right next door to Oswald?

Mr. ROGERS. My apartment was in the front and my window was right
next--near his apartment.

Mr. LIEBELER. You met Oswald and came to know him? Did you ever meet
him?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I never met him. He didn't bid the time to anyone.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him or anything?

Mr. ROGERS. No; never did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know what his name was?

Mr. ROGERS. Just by mail coming in the box on the front.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to his wife?

Mr. ROGERS. She spoke Russian. She did bid the time of day, that's all,
but he didn't. He wouldn't bid the time to no one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they ever have any arguments that you know of?

Mr. ROGERS. Some spats, but in Russian, looked like. You know what I
mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. They spoke Russian and you couldn't understand what they
were saying?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald have any visitors at his
apartment?

Mr. ROGERS. He had no one. Had some kind of a dark fellow asked where
he lived.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he appear to be a Cuban?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; Spanish type of person.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that in August, do you remember?

Mr. ROGERS. Around that time. I believe it was around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you remember anybody else that visited Oswald at
his apartment?

Mr. ROGERS. Probably at the time they had this--you know--Fair Play
for Cuba, something like that. I think they were radio interviewers,
I think. Looked like local people. Didn't look like--heard him saying
something about wanting to play on radio. That's all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember any other ones?

Mr. ROGERS. Not that I know of unless I was at work. I wasn't there all
the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your wife was in the hospital part of this time, is that
correct?

Mr. ROGERS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you work at that time, sir?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I wasn't working at that time. See, Mr. Liebeler, I am
on pension, you see. I am only allowed to make so much a year because
of the pension, you see.

Mr. LIEBELER. I see. Did you ever see Oswald sitting on the front porch?

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, yes; with books, reading.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he read a lot?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see any rifle or firearms of any type in his
possession at that time?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I never. We did see one time some--the mailman brought
a big package in. I wouldn't say what it was, of course. I guess they
checked that through the mail.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that?

Mr. ROGERS. It was in the summer, some time before he left, somewhere
around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald's apartment had a little porch in the front?

Mr. ROGERS. Screened porch.

Mr. LIEBELER. It had blinds in it, too, that you could let down, did it
not?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it would have been possible for him to have sat in
that porch and you couldn't see him very well from the street?

Mr. ROGERS. He wouldn't discuss anything on the porch. He would go in
the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been possible to sit in that porch and drop
the blinds so that people couldn't see you?

Mr. ROGERS. It could be possible. I don't know. I never--I seen him
sitting down there and go in and out, coming in and out.

Mr. LIEBELER. We talked to you previously out at the apartment, and
my recollection is that you told us that some time in September, I
believe, that a station wagon came and picked up Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. ROGERS. That was the time he left town.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. ROGERS. The station wagon was visible. I called my wife. I said
"Well, he must be leaving." They were packing all the things. Probably
left the next night or sometime like I told you, the following night
after. Had the two things in his hand and goggles on like he was
running out of there. I don't know what he was doing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about those goggles. Were they something like
sunglasses? Describe them.

Mr. ROGERS. I don't know. I couldn't say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see what license plates the station wagon had on
it?

Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Liebeler, I couldn't tell you on that. Kind of a
gray station wagon. He was putting the packing, everything in that
himself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know when the station wagon left?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I told my wife--she said she might have left early in
the morning before we got up, with the lady.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that she might have left with the lady?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Then he left that night or late afternoon. Went out in
a hurry. Left all the lights on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was in the station wagon? Was there another lady?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the station wagon leave?

Mr. ROGERS. We didn't see it leave, but it wasn't there when he left.
There was nobody else evidently.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Oswald at all after the station wagon left?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I didn't see him until that night. He slipped out of
there. He was going out to catch the bus across the street. The bus
stop is right across the street from us.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did see Oswald come out of the apartment in the
evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. We was sitting on the porch at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it is clear to you that Oswald did not leave with the
ladies in the station wagon?

Mr. ROGERS. No; he didn't leave with them in the station wagon. It was
the following evening he left on the bus with these two handbags.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was in the evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He ran across the street and got on the bus?

Mr. ROGERS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he get on the bus at the bus stop?

Mr. ROGERS. Bus stop on the corner right opposite.

Mr. LIEBELER. Toward the center of the city?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the bags that he had in his hand when he went
out?

Mr. ROGERS. My wife seen some of them.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing pictures to witness). Let me show you some
pictures and see if these look like it.

Mr. ROGERS (indicating). This middle one, I know that ain't the type
there. That's not the type.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture of a
bag that has been marked as "Commission Exhibit No. 126," and ask you
if that looks like the bag.

Mr. ROGERS. That's it. That's it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like one of the bags?

Mr. ROGERS. That looks to me like it was.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). Now I show you a picture
which we will mark Rogers Exhibit No. 1, showing two views of a bag.
Does it look like the one Oswald had?

Mr. ROGERS. You mean--he had two of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many did he have?

Mr. ROGERS. He had two of them in my estimation, each one in one hand.
They looked like these here to me, to my knowledge. I mean, yes. I
don't think it was this type [indicating]. I would say this type
[indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are pointing to No. A-1, which is a picture of
Commission Exhibit No. 126 and do you think he had two bags that looked
like "Commission Exhibit No. 126." Did he carry both in one hand?

Mr. ROGERS. One in each hand.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you can tell, he did not have a bag similar to
Rogers Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. ROGERS. No, no. It was kind of daylight. You could see. You know
what I mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you sure that he didn't have one like Rogers
Exhibit No. 1? Is it a different size?

Mr. ROGERS. It was--they both look like the same size, and they were
well packed. They were well stuffed. I know they wasn't light. I don't
know what he had in them.

Mr. LIEBELER. So in your estimation, he had two bags like Exhibit 126?

Mr. ROGERS. If I am not mistaken, they are the two bags that my wife
and I identified when they came over to the house, somebody from
Oklahoma. He was transferred down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. An FBI agent?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. They actually brought the bags over?

Mr. ROGERS. They had the pictures like this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he show you pictures like these two that I have got
here?

Mr. ROGERS. Sure did.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had bags like Exhibit 126?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. This is the type. That's the green type of looking
luggage.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say again that he did not have a bag that looked like
Rogers Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did Oswald leave as far as you can tell on the same
day that the station wagon left, or on the next day?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, they packed that night and, yes; they left on the
same day, the following evening.

Mr. LIEBELER. They packed the station wagon on one day and the next day
you looked out and the station wagon was gone?

Mr. ROGERS. He left that following evening. I figured he was moving. I
don't know. If he was moving, he was supposed to tell the landlord.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he talk to the landlord about it?

Mr. ROGERS. No; but she knew about it. He didn't talk to her. He didn't
talk to nobody. He would give you the money and wouldn't say nothing.
He was quiet himself, that's all.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I am going to show you a
picture that has been marked "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if
you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. ROGERS. Wait. Let me get my glasses on. I can see better this way.
[Examining picture.] No, Mr. Liebeler, I don't think. I don't think.
No; I don't think I know any one in there.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that
has been marked "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize
any individual that is in that picture.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, maybe he did identify him, but I never saw this man.
No. That's when this happened? Mr. Garner did, but I didn't. No, I--if
he did come around, I wasn't there. If I did, I would tell you, you
know.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that
has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A," and ask you if you recognize
that man.

Mr. ROGERS. No. I seen plenty people, but I don't know him either. If I
did, I would tell you.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Under oath, I tell you just exactly what I tell you, the
same thing. As far as the boy is concerned, you know, he never spoke to
anybody. Go in and out, eat and clean. Didn't nobody knew his business.

Mr. LIEBELER. He kept pretty much to himself?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.




TESTIMONY OF JAMES LEHRER

The testimony of James Lehrer was taken at 10:45 a.m., on July 24,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.


Mr. LIEBELER. Will you please stand and take the oath? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. LEHRER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the
staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of
President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the
Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by President Johnson's
Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of
Congress, No. 137. Under the Commission's rules governing the taking of
testimony, you are entitled to 3 days' notice and to have an attorney
here if you want to, and you are entitled to the usual privileges and
rights concerning self incrimination and that sort of thing as far as
answering my questions are concerned. I know that you have not had 3
days' notice of this, but I understand that you are here voluntarily
and that you are prepared to proceed without an attorney; is that
correct?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please state your name.

Mr. LEHRER. James Lehrer [spelling], L-e-h-r-e-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. When and where were you born?

Mr. LEHRER. May 19, 1934, Wichita, Kans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mr. LEHRER. Dallas; 3709 West Beverly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you outline your educational background for us,
please?

Mr. LEHRER. High school, graduate of Victoria College, University of
Missouri.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you major in at the university?

Mr. LEHRER. Journalism.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you presently employed by the Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you worked with them?

Mr. LEHRER. Nearly 3 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your job over there?

Mr. LEHRER. I am a reporter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you cover a specific beat?

Mr. LEHRER. I cover the Federal beat, labor, and politics--some
politics.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do before you went to work with the Dallas
Times Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. I was with the Dallas Morning News about 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before that?

Mr. LEHRER. I was in the Marine Corps. I went there directly from
school into the service.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then you came to work for the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. LEHRER. I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you went to work for the Dallas Times Herald and you
are employed by them now?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have received information that you were in the office
of the Dallas Times Herald on the morning of November 28, 1963; is that
correct?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us when you got there and what you did
that morning and what you saw?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, it was Thanksgiving and I got there about 7 or 7:30,
something like that, and I don't remember specifically any stories
that I worked on on that day. It was just a routine day, not a routine
day--a holiday is not routine, because you don't work the whole day on
a holiday, so I only worked until around noon that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You got to the office about 7 o'clock?

Mr. LEHRER. About 7 or 7:30--something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Hunter Schmidt, Jr.?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is he also employed as a reporter by the Dallas Times
Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he was at that time?

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see him in the office that morning?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with the fact that a story appeared in
the Dallas Times Herald on this day concerning a gunshop in Irving,
Tex., at which Oswald was supposed to have had some work done on a
rifle?

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you aware of how that story came into the office of
the newspaper?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes; in a general way. The desk, or the city desk, which
consists of the city editor and the assistant city editor or the
rewrite staff--somewhere they got a tip that there was a fellow in
Irving who had mounted the sight or knew something about it. It was
given to Hunter to check out. I happened to be sitting over there. I
do not normally work physically on the city desk, but all of us had
been working on the assassination aspects and it had been a lot of my
responsibility in particular, because so much of it was on my beat at
that time, and somebody said they got this guy and they gave it to
Hunter to check out and I was sitting right next to Hunter and when he
checked it out--in other words--when he called.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he do--do you remember?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, he just--he was talking to somebody on the telephone
and he was given the checkout and he had the man's name before he
called and he called somebody on the phone and I was doing something
myself--I wasn't writing a story, but I was sitting there and he was
talking to this guy, talking to somebody on the telephone, let's put it
that way, and when he got through he said something about, "Yeah--this
is it; that's right."

Or, it was words to that effect, and then I looked at his notes, you
know, and said, "That's a hell of a story," or something like that, and
about that time somebody said, "Don't talk about it, write it." So he
gave it to, I think it was--I'm not sure about this, but I think it was
in a general story of the assassination developments of that day, which
we were running every day, and I think a rewrite man may have taken the
notes and written the story. I don't recall seeing Hunter write the
story.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the name of the man that Schmidt was talking
to?

Mr. LEHRER. I can only assume it was Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. What leads you to that assumption?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, it was just circumstantially--I believe it was. I
mean, he was given this name and the information that this man is
supposed to have mounted the sight on Oswald's rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the name he was given was Dial Ryder; is that right?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right; that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he was told to check that story?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he proceeded to do it?

Mr. LEHRER. He proceeded to do it. He dialed a number and got
somebody on the line and started talking and when he got through,
he said, "That's right." I looked at his notes--I don't have a
specific recollection of what the notes said, but I remember that he
had some quotes there, I mean, he had some information in the notes
that verified the story, and at that time--one of the reasons I was
interested in it--I was working on the story we finally ran the next
day on the FBI looking for where Oswald might have possibly test
fired this rifle, so that was one of the reasons I was particularly
interested in it, because I wasn't coordinating our assassination
coverage, but I was vitally involved in it, I would say, at that time,
and I was working on this, and I think he gave the notes to a rewrite
man. I'm not sure, but I don't know what happened after that.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you have the specific recollection that
Schmidt engaged in a conversation over the telephone for some period of
time at a time when he was supposed to be checking out this story of
the gunsmith in Irving?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. After this conversation was over, he indicated to you
that the story checked out?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequently that day the story, in fact, appeared in the
newspaper, indicating that there was evidence to show that Oswald had
taken his rifle to this particular gunshop.

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this situation with Schmidt recently?

Mr. LEHRER. No; actually, I talked to him about it briefly this morning.

He was somewhat--he didn't recall who was sitting next to him and I
told him I had, because I didn't think there was any problem, and
I just mentioned that. Now, the FBI--one thing--as far as that's
concerned--and as far as the fact that somebody might think that Hunter
and I got together on this--the day the FBI got this, and apparently
it was sent down by the Commission who said, "Check this out"--that
Ryder apparently--there was some question about it--and the FBI came
up there and a guy by the name of--well, there were two agents from
Oklahoma City who were working a special on the assassination at that
time--just the assassination story. It was Petrakis and some other
guy--I don't remember the other guy's name, but they came up and talked
to Ken Smart. You see, there was no byline on the story and they said,
"Who wrote the story?" and Smart apparently said he didn't know and
they went back and looked in the files and that indicated who wrote
it and so Ken came over to me and showed me the story with Petrakis
and this other guy there, and he said, "Did you write the story?" And
I said, "No, Hunter Schmidt wrote the story"; that's how they found
out Hunter even wrote it--where he got the information was when I told
him and so then we talked about this thing briefly, you know, and Ken
said, "Apparently Ryder is saying that he didn't talk to anybody at
the time," and I told Smart and Petrakis and this other fellow here
that I was sitting right next to the fellow and that he was talking to
somebody and I assumed it was Ryder and then I hadn't even mentioned it
to Hunter, because Hunter was not in the office that day and Petrakis
finally got ahold of him at home on the phone, I believe, or talked to
him later and Hunter didn't even know until this morning.

As I say, then Hunter told me that--it was you, I believe, that told
him that there was a witness who could verify that there was such a
conversation and he said, "Who is that, what are you talking about?"
And he said, "Why didn't you tell me before?" I said I didn't think
there would be any problem--I just mentioned it to Martha Jo in passing
here one day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say this morning Schmidt told you he had been over
here last night and he had been questioned?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you the details of his experience last night?

Mr. LEHRER. A little bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you that Mr. Ryder had been in here?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes; that Ryder was here.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in point of fact and indicating for the record,
the way the information came most recently to my attention, that you
had overheard this, because Mrs. Martha Jo Stroud, an assistant U.S.
attorney in this office, told me that you had come over here after we
had asked Schmidt to come over and testify.

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you mentioned to her in passing that you thought
probably we wanted Schmidt to come over so we could ask him about this
newspaper story that was written in connection with the Irving Sports
Shop; isn't that right?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, specifically, when Martha Jo called Hunter and told
him that somebody from the Warren Commission wanted to talk to him on a
certain day, Hunter came over to me and said, "Somebody from Washington
is coming in," and you know, I didn't know that anybody was coming in.
You know, you are unannounced on your trips here and this is part of my
responsibility to cover Warren Commission people when they come and I
try to do it, and I said--we discussed, "Maybe they want to talk to you
about this deal, because the FBI had talked to you before," and so the
next day when I was down talking to Martha Jo, we were talking about
it and I indicated to her this was probably what it was. I told her
what it was probably about and I said there was no problem--I was just
sitting there and just sitting there very casually.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any doubt in your mind whatsoever that
Schmidt actually talked to Ryder that morning, do you?

Mr. LEHRER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are aware of the fact, of course, that Ryder denies
talking to this man?

Mr. LEHRER. That's what I understand.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have no information that would suggest any reason
why Ryder would deny this?

Mr. LEHRER. I can't think of any reason unless he denies the
information, if he just denies the technicality that he didn't talk
to a newspaperman or didn't talk to Schmidt specifically, that's one
thing; if he's denying the whole bit, that's conceivable.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; he doesn't deny the whole bit, he just denies that he
was the one that gave that story out.

Mr. LEHRER. I see; I don't know what it could be in that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of any reason why Schmidt might be lying
about it?

Mr. LEHRER. No; he had nothing to gain by it. It was just a story, and
my goodness, we were working--I mean--there were a multitude of stories
and a multitude of checking out and we were deluged just like everybody
was with rumors and things of this and that and he would have no reason
to write something that wasn't true. The fact is, he didn't even have
his name on it, so he didn't have anything to gain by it.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you very much.

Mr. LEHRER. Thank you.

Mr. LIEBELER. We appreciate your cooperation.

Mr. LEHRER. All right.




AFFIDAVIT OF BARDWELL D. ODUM

The following affidavit was executed by Bardwell D. Odum on July 10,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows:

I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity
since June 15, 1942.

On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a
Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a
photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to
the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was
staying.

In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all
background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where
the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts
made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette
and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose.

I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to
identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if
he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald's
room and knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door
slightly and, upon being informed that I wished to speak to Marina
Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was completely exhausted and could
not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me to the motel
room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and
Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and
could not be interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite
Oswald the photograph in question. She looked at it briefly and stated
that she had never seen this individual. I then departed the Executive
Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald and the exhibition of the
photograph took place while I was standing outside the door to the room
and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar.

Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a
photograph.[G] I have examined these copies and they are exact copies
of the photograph of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs.
Marguerite Oswald on November 23, 1963.

Signed this 10th day of July 1964.

    (S) Bardwell D. Odum,
        BARDWELL D. ODUM.

    [G] The photograph referred to in the above affidavit of
        Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum appears in the exhibit
        volumes as Odum Exhibit No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES R. MALLEY

The following affidavit was executed by James R. Malley on July 14,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, _ss_:

I, James R. Malley, Inspector, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, being first duly sworn, depose as follows:

In accordance with a request by Mr. Howard P. Willens, a member of the
staff of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy, I transmitted to the Commission on February 11, 1964, a copy
of a photograph of an unidentified man which was made available to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Prior to transmitting the aforementioned copy of this photograph to
the President's Commission, I used a scissors and trimmed from the
photograph all background which surrounded the head, shoulders and arms
of the unidentified individual. I did this, inasmuch as the Central
Intelligence Agency had previously advised that it had no objection to
this Bureau furnishing a copy of this photograph to the President's
Commission with all background eliminated.

I have examined a copy of Commission Exhibit 237, which is attached,[H]
and it appears such exhibit was made from the copy of the photograph
of the unidentified individual which I cropped and transmitted to Mr.
Willens on February 11, 1964.

To my knowledge, the identity of the unknown individual depicted in the
copy of the photograph which I transmitted to Mr. Willens on February
11, 1964, has not been established.

I have reviewed records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this
particular matter and such records disclose that a duplicate copy
of this same photograph was cropped in a different shape to remove
background by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum of the Dallas Office of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was then exhibited to Mrs.
Marguerite Oswald by Special Agent Odum on November 23, 1963.

Signed this 14th day of July 1964, at Washington, D.C.

    (S) James R. Malley,
        JAMES R. MALLEY.

    [H] The photograph referred to in the above affidavit of
        Inspector James R. Malley is identical to Commission
        Exhibit No. 237 and appears in the exhibit volumes.




AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD HELMS

The following affidavit was executed by Richard Helms on August 7, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF VIRGINIA,
 _County of Fairfax, ss_:

Richard Helms, being duly sworn says:

1. I am the Deputy Director for Plans of the Central Intelligence
Agency.

2. I base this affidavit on my personal knowledge of the affairs of
the Central Intelligence Agency and on detailed inquiries of those
officers and employees within my supervision who would have knowledge
about any photographs furnished by that Agency to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.

3. I have personally examined the photograph which has been marked
Commission Exhibit No. 237, a copy of which is attached to the
affidavit of Inspector James R. Malley, dated July 14, 1964, and the
photograph attached to the affidavit of Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum
dated July 10, 1964.

4. Those photographs are partial copies of a photograph furnished by
the Central Intelligence Agency to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
on November 22, 1963. They are referred to as partial only because, on
information and belief, Odum and Malley personally trimmed or cropped
their copies of the photograph to exclude the background against which
the individual portrayed in these photographs is depicted in the
original photograph.

5. The figure portrayed in those photographs is the same individual
portrayed in the original photograph.

6. The original photograph was taken outside of the continental United
States sometime during the period July 1, 1963 to November 23, 1963.

Signed this 7th day of August 1964.

    (S) Richard Helms.
        RICHARD HELMS.




AFFIDAVIT OF PETER MEGARGEE BROWN

The following affidavit was executed by Peter Megargee Brown on May 13,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF NEW YORK,
 _County of New York, ss_:

Peter Megargee Brown, being duly sworn, says:

I am a member of the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, counsel
for the Community Service Society and am familiar with the papers and
records in the possession of the Society relating to Lee Harvey Oswald.

This firm has caused a search of the files of Community Service Society
under my supervision which reveals one file entitled "Marguerite
Claverie Oswald #219055". The foregoing file is now in the possession
of the deponent. To the best of my knowledge this file contains the
only papers relating to Lee Harvey Oswald in the possession or control
of the Community Service Society. Accordingly under my supervision
photostatic copies have been made of this entire file, such copies
being attached to this affidavit.

In information and belief the attached photostatic copies[I] are of the
entire file and comprise all the papers relating to Lee Harvey Oswald
in the possession and control of the Community Service Society or its
counsel.

Signed this 13th day of May 1964.

    (S) Peter Megargee Brown,
        PETER MEGARGEE BROWN.

    [I] The attached photostatic copies referred to in the above
        affidavit appear in the exhibit volumes as Brown Exhibit
        No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF GARY TAYLOR

The following affidavit was executed by Gary Taylor on August 4, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Gary Taylor, 3948 Orlando Court, Apartment 111, Dallas, Tex., being
sworn, say:

1. As I testified in my deposition, I went with Lee Harvey Oswald on or
about November 4, 1962, to a gasoline service station in Fort Worth,
Texas, where Oswald rented a U-Haul trailer which we were to use and
did use in transporting Oswald's household goods and paraphernalia from
Mrs. Hall's home in Fort Worth to the Oswalds' Elsbeth Street apartment
in Dallas.

2. The rental charge for the trailer was about $5.00 and was paid by
Oswald. I made the cash deposit to secure the return of the trailer. I
returned the trailer that afternoon and picked up the deposit.

Signed this 4th day of August 1964.

    (S) Gary E. Taylor,
        GARY E. TAYLOR.




AFFIDAVIT OF FRANCIS L. MARTELLO

The following affidavit was executed by Francis L. Martello on July 31,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

I, Lt. Francis L. Martello, Police Headquarters, 2700 Tulane Avenue,
New Orleans, La., being first duly sworn, depose and say:

1. I am a Lieutenant in the New Orleans Police Department.

2. When a suspect is arrested, an arrest report is filled out. The
notations concerning the height and the weight of the suspect are the
figures supplied by him.

3. When a suspect is booked, he is fingerprinted, photographed, weighed
and measured. Thus, the weight figure on the Bureau of Identification
Card would be the result of an actual weigh-in.

Signed this 31st day of July 1964, at New Orleans, La.

    (S) Francis L. Martello,
        Lieutenant FRANCIS L. MARTELLO.




AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN CORPORON

The following affidavit was executed by John Corporon on July 29, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

John Corporon, being duly sworn, says:

1. My name is John Corporon. I am and have been since at least August
1, 1963, head of the news department of WDSU-TV and radio, New Orleans.

2. As such I am familiar with the programs broadcast over both WDSU-TV
and WDSU radio.

3. Mr. William Stuckey has never had any TV or radio show known as
"Latin American Focus" on that station or, to the best of my knowledge,
any other radio or TV station.

4. In August of 1963 Mr. Stuckey had a radio program called "Latin
Listening Post" which was broadcast some of the time over WDSU radio.

5. Lee Harvey Oswald appeared briefly on Stuckey's radio program known
as "Latin Listening Post" on August 17, 1963.

6. To the best of my knowledge Oswald never appeared on any other TV
or radio program in connection with Mr. Stuckey or any other program
either over radio or television in the City of New Orleans with the
exception of a radio program known as "Conversation Carte Blanche" on
which Oswald appeared on August 21, 1963 and on a brief TV news program
following the broadcast of "Conversation Carte Blanche" on that date.

Signed this 29th day of July 1964.

    (S) John R. Corporon,
        JOHN CORPORON.




AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. J. U. ALLEN

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. J. U. Allen on June 12,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
 _County of Claiborne, ss_:

Mrs. J. U. Allen, Port Gibson, Claiborne County, State of Louisiana,
being duly sworn, says:

1. I am secretary of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy, a boys military academy
at Port Gibson, Mississippi, and I am in charge and custody of its
books and records.

2. I have examined the records and files of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy
for the years 1945 through 1948, both inclusive, which are kept in the
regular and usual course of business under my supervision. It appears
from those records that John Edward Pic and Robert Lee Oswald, half
brothers and sons of Marguerite Oswald (and for a portion of the period
1945 through 1948 was Mrs. Edwin A. Ekdahl), entered Chamberlain-Hunt
Academy in September 1945, on transfer from Davy Crockett School in
Dallas, Texas. They continued as students during the school years
1945-1946, 1946-1947, and 1947-1948. Said records show that John Edward
Pic was transferred to Arlington Heights High School, Fort Worth,
Texas, in September 1948. The records do not show the school to which
Robert Lee Oswald was transferred at the end of the academic year
1947-1948.

3. The Exhibits marked Chamberlain-Hunt Academy Exhibits Nos. 1 to
4[J] are Verifax copies of the records of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy
respecting the attendance of John Edward Pic and Robert Lee Oswald as
students at said Academy. Said Exhibits were prepared under my personal
supervision and direction.

4. Included in the files of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy are various
items of correspondence. Chamberlain-Hunt Academy Exhibits Nos. 5 to
15 are true and correct Verifax & Thermofax copies of said items of
correspondence. The Verifax copies were prepared under my personal
supervision and direction.

Signed this 12th day of June 1964.

    (S) Mrs. J. U. Allen,
        Mrs. J. U. ALLEN.

    [J] Chamberlain-Hunt Academy Exhibits Nos. 1-15 were
        subsequently relabeled Allen Exhibits Nos. 1-15,
        respectively.




AFFIDAVIT OF LILLIAN MURRET

The following affidavit was executed by Lillian Murret on June 3, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

Lillian Murret, being duly sworn, says:

1. Affiant is the sister of Marguerite Claverie Oswald.

2. In the month of May 1945, Marguerite Claverie Oswald sent affiant a
snapshot photograph of herself and her husband, Edwin A. Ekdahl, taken
on their marriage day, May 5, 1945.

3. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1 is the original of the aforesaid
snapshot photograph. Affiant recalls the physical appearances of her
sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald and of her newly wed husband Edwin
A. Ekdahl as of the year 1945. The lady pictured in the snapshot
photograph, which is Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1, is affiant's sister
Marguerite Claverie Oswald. The gentleman pictured in the photograph
(Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1) is Edwin A. Ekdahl, the husband of
Marguerite Claverie Oswald. The photograph is in each instance an
accurate and true photographic representation of Mr. and Mrs. Edwin A.
Ekdahl as they looked and appeared in May of 1945.

4. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1, when received by affiant in May
1945, bore on the reverse side the inscription or endorsement: "May
5th--Happy Though Married." Affiant is familiar with the handwriting
of her sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald. The aforesaid longhand
inscription on the reverse side of Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1 is in
the handwriting of affiant's sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald.

5. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1 is in the same condition now as it was
when received by affiant in May of 1945.

Signed this 3d day of June 1964.

    (S) Mrs. Lillian Murret,
        LILLIAN MURRET.




AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. BURCHAM

The following affidavit was executed by John W. Burcham on June 19,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Travis, ss_:

I, John W. Burcham, sometimes referred to as Jack W. Bucham, being duly
sworn, say:

1. I am a resident of Austin, Texas, and am Chief of Unemployment
Insurance of the Texas Employment Commission at Austin, Texas.

2. Burcham Exhibit No. 1, consisting of 63 pages, is a photostatic
copy of my report of November 26, 1963, respecting the interstate
unemployment compensation claim of Lee Harvey Oswald and of the various
claimant payment records and documents described in said report.

3. Burcham Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 have been personally examined by
me. From my knowledge of procedures and operations of the Insurance
Department of the Texas Employment Commission, Burcham Exhibit No. 2
appears to me to be the copy of the Form B-12 mailed to L. H. Oswald
by the Texas Employment Commission on April 16, 1963, and Burcham
Exhibit No. 3 appears to be the document mailed by the Texas Employment
Commission along with the final payment mailed to L. H. Oswald
notifying him this was his last payment.

Signed this 19th day of June 1964.

    (S) John W. Burcham,
        JOHN W. BURCHAM.




AFFIDAVIT OF EMMETT CHARLES BARBE, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr., on
June 15, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr. of New Orleans, La., being duly sworn, says:

1. I am employed by William B. Reily Company, Inc., as Maintenance
Foreman. The William B. Reily Company plant is located at 640 Magazine
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. I have been employed by that Company
for five years. During the year 1963 I was serving as Maintenance
Foreman.

2. William B. Reily Company is engaged in the roasting, grinding,
canning, bagging, and sale of coffee. In its roasting, grinding,
canning, and bagging operations a great deal of machinery consisting
of chains, conveyer belts, motors, blowers, automatic hoppers,
grinders, etc., distributed over some five floors of the premises is
employed in said operations. Said machinery must be kept well greased
and oiled. This work required the full time of one man.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald became employed by William B. Reily Company,
Inc. as a greaser and oiler maintenance man on May 10, 1963. His
employment terminated on July 19, 1963. During the latter portion of
his employment, I served as his immediate supervisor. As his supervisor
I was aware of Oswald's performance or lack thereof of his duties.

4. There were occasions from time to time when I was unable to locate
Oswald in and about the premises and learned that he was in the habit
of absenting himself from the premises without leave and visiting a
service station establishment adjacent to the Reily Coffee Company
known as Alba's Crescent City Garage. Furthermore, Oswald had become
quite indifferent to the performance of his duties. I spoke with him
from time to time about his absences and his indifferences, all to
no avail. Ultimately I recommended to my superiors that Oswald be
discharged. My request was granted and he was discharged on July 19,
1963.

Signed this 15th day of June 1964.

    (S) Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr.
        EMMETT CHARLES BARBE, Jr.




AFFIDAVIT OF HILDA L. SMITH

The following affidavit was executed by Hilda L. Smith on June 15, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

I, Hilda L. Smith, 1205 St. Charles, Apartment 813, New Orleans, La.,
being first duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I was employed by the Louisiana Labor Department, Division of
Employment Security, Employment Service, and Unemployment Compensation,
630 Camp Street, New Orleans 12, Louisiana, on April 29 and April 30,
1963.

2. I interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald when he applied for his initial
Interstate Claim.

3. I recall that when I interviewed him, he was very evasive. He was
very abrupt and I considered him unusual. I only saw him this one time
since others handled his Continued Interstate Claim.

4. The signature appearing on the attached Interstate Claim, labelled
Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit No. 2 is my signature.[K]

Signed this 15th day of June 1964.

    (S) Hilda L. Smith,
        HILDA L. SMITH.

    [K] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit No. 2 was
        subsequently relabeled as Smith Exhibit No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF J. RACHAL

The following affidavit was executed by J. Rachal on June 22, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

J. Rachal, of New Orleans, La., being duly sworn says:

1. My name is J. Rachal. I am now and have for a number of years
past been employed by the Louisiana Department of Labor, Division of
Employment Security, Professional Unit.

2. In my capacity as Placement Interviewer in the Professional Unit
of the Louisiana State Employment Security Division of the Louisiana
Department of Labor, I had occasion to become acquainted with one Lee
Harvey Oswald. I recall his being in my office and at my desk on April
26, 1963, which was his initial visit.

3. At that time Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit number 1[L] was
filled out, in part by Mr. Oswald and in part by me. Said Exhibit
number 1 is the Registration Card so made out by Lee Harvey Oswald and
myself, recording Oswald's registration as an unemployed worker who had
come from Texas and was seeking employment in New Orleans.

4. The hand-printing, with the exception of the block entitled "Skills,
Knowledge, Abilities, and Experience," and the notations in the block
entitled "Special information and employment counseling statement," and
the letters "RIF" in the upper right-hand corner of the inside face
of Exhibit number 1, is that of the applicant, Lee Harvey Oswald. The
writing other than that of Lee Harvey Oswald is that of affiant. The
signature appearing at the foot of the inside face of Exhibit number 1
is that of affiant. Exhibit number 1 is part of the books and records
of the aforesaid Division of Employment Security of the Louisiana
Department of Labor, kept in the usual and regular course of business.

5. Exhibit number 1 reflects that Lee Harvey Oswald first called at
the Unemployment Division on April 26, 1963, and at that time was
interviewed by me and supplied the personal data and prior employment
and experience facts recited on Exhibit No. 1.

6. Upon noting that Oswald had listed Photographer as one of his
skills, I telephonically contacted the George Reppel Studio, 5220
Elysian Fields, to determine if they needed the services of a
photographer. Upon learning that they could employ the services of a
photographer, I directed Oswald to report to that company for possible
employment, and I recorded that reference on the reverse side of
Exhibit number 1. A few days later I recontacted the studio and learned
that Oswald had not appeared there.

7. Exhibit number 1 also reflects the fact that on April 29, 1963,
Oswald again reported to the Unemployment Compensation Office at 630
Camp Street, which is the claims office, and filed an interstate claim
against the State of Texas for unemployment compensation. This was a
reactivation of his claim. I had learned from my earlier interview that
Oswald had therefore been employed for relatively short periods of time
at Fort Worth, Texas, and Dallas, Texas. The letters "RIF" appearing
in the upper right-hand corner of Exhibit number 1 are an abbreviation
for the words "Reduction in Force." The presence of those letters on
Exhibit number 1 means that Oswald advised me that the reason for
his termination of employment at Jaggars, Chiles, Stovall of Dallas,
Texas, was a reduction in force, a prerequisite to a valid claim for
unemployment compensation.

8. I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt,
and tie on the occasion of our initial interview. On July 22, 1963, he
was more casually dressed.

9. Oswald returned after the April 29, 1963, visit to our office on
July 22, 1963. Between the April 29 and July 22 dates, the application
card had been green-lined in the right hand column either because the
applicant had not come in in four weeks or his claim had been cancelled
or terminated sometime during that period. Sometime subsequent to July
22, 1963, Oswald's application card was again green-lined for one of
the two reasons above stated. This application card is marked Exhibit
number 1.

10. I recall that Oswald returned some time, either late in July or
the forepart of August 1963, seeking employment assistance. In the
meantime, the incident involving the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had
come to my attention. I had seen Oswald on a television broadcast
showing him distributing Fair Play for Cuba handbills. There was
reference in the broadcast to his having lived in Russia, marrying
a Russian girl, and returning to this country. I discussed the
matter with my supervisor, Miss Hope Kristofferson. As a result, it
was determined that we should not undertake to furnish employment
references for him. This was the last contact I had with Mr. Oswald.

11. Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit numbers 10 and 11[M] are also
records of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of
Labor of Louisiana in New Orleans. The forms themselves are identical
with Exhibit number 1, and the recorded information is substantially
identical with the information set forth in Exhibit number 1. Exhibits
numbers 10 and 11 were prepared in another section of my Division and
reflect the fact that on May 28, 1963, Oswald was referred to Commerce
Pictures Company of New Orleans for possible employment as a developer,
and the initials "NR" appearing in green crayon on the reverse side of
Exhibit number 10 reflect the fact that Oswald did not report to the
Commerce Picture Company. Serial number 259 appearing under the heading
"Remarks" on the same line on which the green crayoned letters "NR"
appear means that the unemployed person failed to respond and that his
unemployment compensation would be delayed one week to make further
determination of the applicant's status.

12. Inasmuch as Oswald was an interstate claimant and the libel was
against the State of Texas, his weekly appearances for the purposes
of keeping his interstate claim alive were furnished to the Texas
Employment Commission in Austin, Texas, and they in turn would issue an
unemployment check which would be mailed directly to Oswald. Oswald's
weekly appearances at our office were recorded on Form 1-B-2.

Signed this 22d day of June 1964.

    (S) John Russell Rachal,
        J. RACHAL.

    [L] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit No. 1 was
        subsequently relabeled Rachal Exhibit No. 1.

    [M] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11
        were subsequently relabeled Rachal Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3,
        respectively.




AFFIDAVIT OF BOBB HUNLEY

The following affidavit was executed by Bobb Hunley on June 16, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

I, Bobb Hunley, employed by the Louisiana Labor Department, Division of
Employment Security, Employment Service, and Unemployment Compensation,
630 Camp Street, New Orleans 12, La., being first duly sworn, depose
and say:

1. That I recall handling Lee Harvey Oswald's Interstate Claims at the
Division of Employment Security office.

2. Generally there is a line of claimants with their IB-2 forms which
they have previously filled out. I sign them and fill in blanks four
through eight.

3. I recall nothing unusual about Lee Harvey Oswald. He usually wore a
T-shirt and light windbreaker.

4. We do not check to see if the claimant has contacted the places
listed in item 14 of the IB-2 form. Thus, I have no knowledge of
whether Oswald contacted the employers he listed.

5. The signatures appearing on the attached Interstate Claims, labelled
as Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and
the Interstate Request for Recommendation of Monetary Determination,
Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit Nos. 3 and 6 are my signatures.[N]

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

    (S) Bobb W. Hunley,
        BOBB HUNLEY.

    [N] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 4-9 were
        subsequently relabeled Hunley Exhibits Nos. 1-7,
        respectively.




AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT J. CREEL

The following affidavit was executed by Robert J. Creel on June 26,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF LOUISIANA,
 _Parish of Orleans, ss_:

Robert J. Creel, of New Orleans, La., being duly sworn, says:

1. My name is Robert J. Creel. I am employed by the State of Louisiana,
Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security, Employment
Service and Unemployment Compensation, 630 Camp Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana, and have been so employed since prior to the year 1962.

2. I am familiar with the records and documents maintained by said
Division of Employment Security.

3. The several Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 12 through
19,[O] both inclusive, which have been submitted to me and which I have
examined are either original or exact copies of records of the State
of Louisiana, Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security,
Unemployment Insurance Service, maintained by it in the usual and
regular course of business. Said exhibits relate to the interstate
claim of Lee Harvey Oswald against the State of Texas, and record the
investigation and disposition of said claim by the State of Louisiana
and the State of Texas.

Signed this 26th day of June, 1964.

    (S) Robert J. Creel,
        ROBERT J. CREEL.

    [O] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 12-19
        were subsequently relabeled Creel Exhibits Nos. 1-8,
        respectively.




AFFIDAVIT OF HELEN P. CUNNINGHAM

The following affidavit was executed by Helen P. Cunningham on June 11,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham, being duly sworn, says:

1. I am in the employ of the Texas Employment Commission as an
Employment Counselor. As appears from my deposition I had occasion in
my official capacity to counsel with Lee Harvey Oswald. I am familiar
with the official books and records of the Texas Employment Commission
maintained at its Dallas, Texas, office. Cunningham Exhibit No. 4 is
the original copy of the Counseling Record Card which was prepared in
the course of and in connection with the counseling service rendered by
me.

2. All of the handwriting appearing on both sides of the Counseling
Record Card is in my hand and consists of entries made by me at the
time I interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald on October 9 and 10, 1962. The
entries under the portion of the exhibit entitled "Counselor's Notes"
reflect that Oswald was referred on October 10, 1962, for a position
at Harrell and Huntington, architects, for a position as messenger at
$1.50 an hour, and thereafter to Jaggars Printing for a position as
photo-printing trainee at $1.35 an hour. The entry "10-15-62" on the
face of the Counseling Record Card reflects the fact that Oswald had
obtained employment at Jaggars Printing and that the case was closed
successfully.

3. On the face of the card is reflected the fact that Mr. Don
Brooks, Counselor in the Industrial Division of the Texas Employment
Commission, interviewed Oswald previous to October 9, 10 and 11, 1962.

4. As it appears from the entries in my hand on the reverse side of
Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, I recorded the fact that I obtained Oswald's
"General Aptitude Test" battery results from the Fort Worth office of
the Texas Employment Commission. I concluded after examining the GATB
obtained from the Fort Worth office and after interviewing Oswald that
because he was in great financial need for immediate employment, that
I should classify him for clerical work and I noted on the face of the
card the proper clerical code, being 1-X 4.9. I also recorded the fact
that on October 11, 1962, Oswald was referred to Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall
Printing Company as a photo-print trainee and that Oswald was
enthusiastic about the possibility of his being employed. I also
recorded the fact that Oswald reported on October 15, 1962, that he had
obtained the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall position and that he was pleased.

5. In my counseling with Oswald and as appears from my entry under the
heading "Other Plans" Oswald told me that he hoped to develop through a
work-study program at Dallas College or Arlington State qualification
for responsible junior executive employment but that this must be
delayed because of his and his family's immediate financial needs and
responsibilities.

6. The notation "D. Brooks" appearing on the face of Cunningham Exhibit
No. 4 refers to Don Brooks, who is identified above; my signature
appears to the right of the notation of Mr. Brooks' name. I wrote "D.
Brooks" name on the face of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4.

7. Cunningham Exhibits 1-A, 2-A and 3-A are, respectively, originals of
Cunningham Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

8. The green-ink entry on the facing side of Cunningham Exhibit No.
1-A, "10-30-62", means that on that date it was confirmed that Oswald
was employed. The succeeding entry being "4-8-63" records the fact that
Oswald came to the Commission on that date, seeking employment; he
having lost his position with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. The succeeding
entry "4-12-63" records the fact that Oswald visited the Commission
offices in further pursuit of employment. The succeeding entry, which
is in green crayon, "5-8-63" when considered with the entry dated
"5-3-63" in the referral section of the exhibit, records the fact that
on that day Oswald was mailed a call-in card for possible referral to
Texas Power and Light Company for a position as meter reader but failed
to respond. The next entry on the face of Cunningham Exhibit No. 1-A
which is "Ri-10-3-63" records the fact that his case was reactivated as
of that date and the final entry "10-17-63" in green crayon records the
closing of his case due to his having obtained employment. This entry
is related to the final entry in the referral section of Cunningham
Exhibit No. 1-A which recites under the heading "Remarks" that at 10:30
a.m. on October 16, 1963, it was ascertained by Robert L. Adams that
Oswald had obtained employment.

Signed this 11th day of June 1964.

    (S) Helen P. Cunningham,
        HELEN P. CUNNINGHAM.




AFFIDAVIT OF THEODORE FRANK GANGL

The following affidavit was executed by Theodore Frank Gangl on June
16, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Theodore Frank Gangl, 7903 Mohawk Drive, Dallas, Tex., being duly
sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am Plant Superintendent for the Padgett Printing Corporation,
1313 North Industrial, Dallas, Texas.

2. On October 4, 1963, I interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald, who had applied
for employment in response to an advertisement the Padgett Printing
Corporation placed in the local newspaper. We were seeking a typesetter
in the composing room.

3. Oswald was well dressed and neat. He made a favorable impression on
the foreman of the department to whom I introduced Oswald. Since Oswald
had worked in a trade plant I was interested in him as a possible
employee.

4. Oswald filled out the application. Padgett Printing Corporation
Exhibit No. 1[P] is a photostatic copy of the original application
which was filled in during the course of my interview with Oswald. The
original application was prepared and maintained among the records of
Padgett Printing Corporation in the usual and regular course of its
business. The exhibit is a copy of the application as it was when it
was completed by me on or about October 4, 1963. It is entirely in
Oswald's handwriting except for my initials in the blank, "Interviewed
by", the date, the word "over", and the handwriting on the reverse
side, all of which are in my handwriting.

5. Oswald said he could be reached at the Irving, Texas, phone number
he listed on the application, and he suggested particular periods of
the week he would most likely be available to respond to a telephone
call.

6. Shortly after the interview, I called Mr. Stovall at
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald had previously worked. Mr.
Stovall was not there, so I spoke with somebody who had worked with
Oswald there. He implied that Oswald's fellow employees did not like
him because he was propagandizing and had been seen reading a foreign
newspaper.

7. I later talked with Mr. Robert Stovall, who is a friend of mine, and
he said Oswald could not get along there and he could not adapt himself
to the type of work assigned to him.

8. As a result of this conversation I wrote the comments that appear on
the back of the application and decided that we would not hire him.

9. I called Oswald at the Irving, Texas, telephone number he had
written on the application and told him that we had hired somebody with
better qualifications.

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

    (S) Theo. F. Gangl,
        THEODORE F. GANGL.

    [P] Padgett Printing Corp. Exhibit No. 1 was subsequently
        relabeled Gangl Exhibit No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF GENE GRAVES

The following affidavit was executed by Gene Graves on June 16, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Tarrent, ss_:

My name is Gene Graves and I am employed as a secretary with the Leslie
Welding Co., Inc., 200 E-North Vacek, Fort Worth, Tex.

I certify that the attached copies[Q] of time cards of Lee Harvey
Oswald are true and correct.

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

    (S) Gene Graves,
        GENE GRAVES.

    [Q] These attachments were subsequently relabeled Graves
        Exhibit No. 1.




AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. ADAMS

The following affidavit was executed by Robert L. Adams on August 4,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Robert L. Adams, being duly sworn, say:

1. I am now, and during all of the year 1963 was an employee of the
Texas Employment Commission as an employment interviewer. As appears
from my deposition, I had occasion, during the month of October, 1963,
to refer Lee Harvey Oswald to several employment opportunities that had
come to the attention of the Texas Employment Commission.

2. I am familiar with the official books and records of the Texas
Employment Commission maintained at its Dallas, Texas, office.
Cunningham Exhibit 1-A is the original of the Texas Employment
Commission employment, application, counseling, and referral card or
record, familiarly known as an "E-13," respecting Lee Harvey Oswald.
It was prepared and maintained in the usual course of the business
and services rendered by the Texas Employment Commission. The entries
thereon are true and correct.

3. Cunningham Exhibit 1-A is a single-fold card. The last three
lines of entries on the lower portion of the inside (when folded) of
Cunningham Exhibit 1-A are in my hand. All of those entries were made
by me.

4. At the time that my deposition was taken, I did not have before me
either Cunningham Exhibit 1-A or a copy or duplicate thereof. However,
since that time I have had an opportunity to examine Cunningham Exhibit
1-A. This has served to refresh my recollection of my contacts with Lee
Harvey Oswald and the job employment opportunity references which I
made for him on October 7, 9, and 15, 1963.

5. As appears from the last three sets of entries in my hand on the
lower portion of the inside pages of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A:

(a) On October 7, 1963, the Texas Employment Commission had on hand
an order from the Solid State Electronics Company of Texas for a
sales clerk at an indicated compensation of $350 per month, for
permanent employment, for which they desired the Commission to refer an
applicant. On that day I called BL3-1628, which is the telephone number
in Irving, Texas, that appears on the face of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A. I
was told that Oswald was not in. I left a message with the person who
answered, requesting that Mr. Oswald contact me. The entry "Left MSG to
call under the column headed "Remarks" is my notation of the fact that
I made the telephone call and left the message on October 7, as I have
just stated. Oswald contacted me the next day either by telephone or
in person in the Commission offices. My present recollection does not
serve me to say which. I had in the meantime contacted the prospective
employer and discussed with him the matter of Oswald's qualifications
for the position they had in mind. As a result of that conversation,
I had received authority to send Oswald for an interview. Since I had
authority to refer Oswald, I did not call the prospective employer
again, but sent Oswald directly. Accordingly, the word "Direct," which
I wrote in the column headed "Remarks," records that fact. Later that
day I personally checked with Solid State Electronics Company of Texas
and was advised that Oswald had followed through on my job reference,
had been interviewed, but had not been hired. The initials "NH" that
appear under the column headed "Results" mean "Not Hired." I made that
entry when I learned that Oswald had responded to the job opportunity
but had not been hired.

(b) On October 9, 1963, I referred Oswald on a clerk trainee job
opportunity at $1.25 an hour with the Burton-Dixie Company of
Dallas. I made this reference directly, that is, while he was in the
Texas Employment Commission offices. Later that day I checked with
Burton-Dixie Company and learned that Oswald had responded to the
reference but had not been hired. The word "Direct" appearing under
the column headed "Remarks" is my recording of the fact that I referred
Oswald directly to the employer on this order.

(c) On October 15, 1963, I was advised by Mr. Roy of Trans Texas
Airways that the company was contemplating expansion and that he would
need possibly as many as twelve or fourteen ramp agents, as they
are called by the airlines industry; we call them baggage or cargo
handlers. He advised me of the minimum qualifications and asked me to
send out job applicants who met them. He advised that the salary was
$310 per month and that the employment was permanent. Oswald was one of
the possible applicants whom I referred for interview on this order.
My best recollection is that on that day I called the BL3-1628 Irving,
Texas, telephone number listed on the face of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A.
I learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not
there. I left a message with that person that Oswald should contact
me at the Commission. My further recollection is that the following
morning at 10:30 o'clock I again called the BL3-1628 Irving, Texas,
number and learned from the person who answered that Oswald was not
there and that he had in the meantime obtained employment and was
working. I thereupon made the entry, appearing in the column headed
"Remarks," which reads: "Working 10:30 A 10-16 RLA," in order to record
the information I had received as a result of my telephone call. On the
following day, October 17, 1963, I "green dated" the face of Cunningham
Exhibit 1-A. This means, as appears from the face of Cunningham Exhibit
1-A, that I entered in green crayon the date October 17, 1963, which is
our way of recording the fact that the applicant is no longer available
for employment. The initials "NR" appearing under the column headed
"Results" mean "Non-report" or, in other words, that the man referred
on the job application did not report. I included that designation
under the column headed "Results" as a result of the information I
received when I made the foregoing telephone call at 10:30 in the
morning of October 16, 1963. Inasmuch as I did not talk with Oswald
either by telephone or in person in connection with this job order, I
do not know whether he was ever advised of this referral, but under the
circumstances I do not see how he could have been.

Signed this 4th day of August 1964.

    (S) Robert L Adams,
        ROBERT L. ADAMS.




AFFIDAVIT OF IVAN D. LEE

The following affidavit was executed by Ivan D. Lee on June 1, 1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 STATE OF TEXAS,
 _County of Dallas, ss_:

I, Ivan D. Lee, being duly sworn, depose as follows:

In my performance of duties as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, I was assigned to take photographs of the rear of Major
Edwin A. Walker's residence at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas,
Texas.

On February 1, 1964, accompanied by Special Agent W. James Wood, I
proceeded to the alley area located behind the residence of Major
General Walker and took photographs from an automobile of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation proceeding slowly through the alleyway. These
photographs were taken at approximately 10:00 a.m. on February 1, 1964.
At approximately 10:30 a.m., I returned to the area on foot and took
two photographs, looking south by southwest down the alleyway behind
Major General Walker's residence toward Avondale Street, Dallas. After
returning to the Bureau automobile, we proceeded through the alley
once again at approximately 10:45 a.m. and took another photograph
of the rear of the residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker. At
approximately 11:15 a.m. another trip was made through the alley and
another photograph was taken of the rear of the residence of Major
General Edwin A. Walker.

Photographs numbered on the back as DL 36[R] depict rear views of the
residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker, and is the same residence
as depicted in Commission exhibit number 5 and marked as FBI inventory
number 369. Photographs numbered as DL 35[S] depict the alleyway
looking south by southwest from the Church of Jesus Christ Latter
Day Saints parking lot which is located adjacent to and north of the
property of Major General Edwin A. Walker. In the left hand side of the
photographs of the alleyway, a driveway is noted, which is the driveway
leading to the back of Major General Edwin A. Walker's residence.

I used a Federal Bureau of Investigation owned 35 millimeter Robot
camera in taking the above photographs.

Signed this 1st day of June 1964, at Dallas, Tex.

    (S) Ivan D. Lee,
        IVAN D. LEE.

    [R] This photograph was labeled Ivan Lee Exhibit A.

    [S] This photograph was labeled Ivan Lee Exhibit B.




AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES D. CROWLEY

The following affidavit was executed by James D. Crowley on June 12,
1964.


 AFFIDAVIT

 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
 ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, _ss_:

James D. Crowley, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

On August 13, 1961, he was duly appointed an officer in the Department
of State, as a specialist in intelligence matters; that he has
continued to serve in that capacity since that time, and that he has
personal knowledge of the matters related in this affidavit:

1. I am one of the officers in the Department of State responsible for
disseminating throughout the Department various reports, memoranda
and documents which are received from other United States Government
agencies.

2. The first time I remember learning of Oswald's existence was when I
received copies of a telegraphic message, dated October 10, 1963, from
the Central Intelligence Agency, which contained information pertaining
to his current activities. I requested that a search of the Office
of Security records be made on October 11, 1963, to determine if the
Department had received any information previously. Based on a quick
review of the Office of Security file on Oswald, I disseminated copies
of the Central Intelligence Agency message to the various offices
within the Department which were interested in receiving this type of
material.

3. I also briefly reviewed Oswald's Office of Security file on November
14, 1963. Although I am not certain, I believe the impetus for this
review was either my receipt of a Federal Bureau of Investigation
report dated October 31, 1963 on Lee Harvey Oswald or my receipt
of a Federal Bureau of Investigation report dated October 25, 1963
on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee--New Orleans Division. Both of
these reports were received in the Intelligence Processing Section on
November 8, 1963.

4. In both instances, I reviewed the Office of Security file in a
routine manner and had it returned to the Office of Security File Room
the same day in which it was charged to me.

Signed this 12th day of June 1964.

    (S) James D. Crowley,
        JAMES D. CROWLEY.




Transcriber's Notes:


Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be
due to mispronunciations were not changed.

Some simple typographical errors were corrected.

Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.

Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.

Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.

Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of
conversation?") retained.

Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.

Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed.

Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be
periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at
the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at
the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so
faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and
corrected, but some almost certainly remain.

In the source for this Volume, the name "De Mohrenschildt" sometimes
is printed in quoted material or Affidavits as "de Mohrenschildt"
or "deMohrenschildt", and all variations have been retained here.
In another Volume, which contained testimony from Mr. and Mrs. De
Mohrenschildt, "De" always was capitalized and was a separate word.

Footnotes have been repositioned to immediately follow the Affidavits
or other information that reference them.

The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be
available at Project Gutenberg.

The Preface and Contents refer to "Mrs. J. V. Allen" but the name in her
Affidavit is "Mrs. J. U. Allen". None of these were changed here.

Page 67: "enclosed is an envelope" probably should be "in".

Page 70: "Mr. Pic. Is just a letter marked Exhibit No. 34." is a
misprint for "Mr. Jenner."

Page 94: "merely to with the argument" probably should be "to win".

Page 212: "Out Intourist Guide's name" was printed that way.

Page 282: "ribbons in here hair" was printed that way.

Page 288: "I wasn't in her being down there at the time." was printed
that way.

Page 301: "The testimony of Maj. Eugene D. Anderson was taken" was
misprinted with the initial "A" instead of "D"; changed here for
consistency with other instances.

Page 373: "put an Americano came too" possibly should be "name".

Page 437: "from a 22 caliber rifle" was printed without a period
before "22".

Page 439: "carlot" was printed that way.

Page 473: "Jack W. Bucham" was printed with that way, not as "Burcham".