Part 60

Mr. DULLES. The Soviet being the first and the American being the second?

Mr. PAINE. That is correct. That being then the crux of the matter and the reason this is the matter to be changed, if we were to follow the logic of the discussion, many arguments seemed to approach at that kind of a point where it is just logic or reason just didn't seem to work or hold water in this case, and we were left then with the starkness of his statement that this was an unforgivable moral sin, and he called it a moral sin or I questioned him to that effect, and so he thought it was a moral sin and he thought he was moral by adhering to that doctrine.

Representative FORD. Did he appear to enjoy these give and takes between you and himself or did he resent them as you proceeded in your discussions?

Mr. PAINE. I don't think he resented them. I noticed at times he got quite hot under the collar and I noticed that he was holding his, staying on a steady keel even better than I was, as though he had had considerable practice in sticking to, controlling himself, holding his position and not getting ruffled.

Representative FORD. But in this process over a period of time during these four discussions he never deviated from his basic thesis?

Mr. PAINE. Yes. Of course, as I said to the others, I don't believe whether you were here, we only had about four talks altogether, and I later came to realize that if he were to have abandoned any one of these or have abandoned that one in particular, that would have undermined his whole philosophy, would humanly itself quite unreasonable to expect a fundamental exchange within an evening, just because of a logical compulsion or logical argument or something.

Mr. DULLES. Did you get the impression that he felt both systems, the American system and the Soviet system involved the exploitation of man by man except it was a different exploiter?

Mr. PAINE. I gathered--I was irked because it seemed to me the difference that he accepted as a sufficient difference, the one in the Soviet Union was impersonal, that he was not, in other words--he admitted in the Soviet Union that the tax rate which was a general term then for the amount of money or reward that is not returned of what a man makes, was higher in the Soviet Union. He agreed that that could be true, and didn't seem to be dismayed at that. So I did not find criticism of the Soviet Union on that score.

And in fact he didn't--I didn't discover in what ways he would like to try to change the Soviet Union except he didn't like the restrictions on his freedom there. Neither did he see there was any connection between the restrictions on freedom there and the freedom we have here without control of how the relationship between men would be governed.

Mr. DULLES. Did he ever go into the question of the relative position of labor in the United States from the point of view of its freedom of bargaining and the control of labor in the Soviet Union? Did that ever come up?

Mr. PAINE. No. I think, I can't remember whether it was a conversation I had directly with him or immediately after, I was following this idea that here we feel we have quite a different attitude about exploitation. Somebody--he felt exploited and he thought all the working class was exploited, and he also thought they were brainwashed, and he also thought that churches were all alike, all the religious sects were the same and they were all apparatus of the power structure to maintain itself in power.

When I pointed out that our church was financed by people like myself, when I contribute so many dollars to the church, he just shrugged his shoulders. It didn't--his views still stood and it also permitted him, I think, gave him the moral ground to dismiss my arguments because I was here just a product of my environment and I didn't know better and he had the word from the enlightenment, that he knew the truth and therefore I was just spouting the line that was fed to me by the power structure.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think you mentioned before that he had wanted to put you in a category, categorize you. Did he indicate to you during that first conversation that he had concluded what category?

Mr. PAINE. No; it was over several conversations, I suppose it was the last conversation we had, he couldn't put me in a category and he named about seven or eight categories.

Mr. LIEBELER. What were they?

Mr. PAINE. I wasn't a Bircher, I wasn't a liberal, a Communist, a Socialist, probably something to do with religion, something like that, atheist.

Mr. DULLES. He didn't say whether you were a Republican or Democrat?

Mr. PAINE. I don't believe he was concerned about that.

(Laughter.)

Mr. PAINE. No; I am sure he would see no distinction between the two parties.

Mr. LIEBELER. So he concluded that he was unable to categorize you?

Mr. PAINE. Yes. And I also felt as soon as he had realized that that he could then dismiss me as not something that functions in this world, not one of the forces or the opposing camps he has to contend with.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned that your wife became bothered or Oswald proved bothersome to your wife. Could you tell us in what way Oswald was bothersome to Mrs. Paine?

Mr. PAINE. Well, I think one of the most outstanding was in this discussion of religions and I was trying to suggest that religions did embody many of the values of many people and so the conversation was trying to talk about those values quite apart from--I think the Russian, I think Marina's view of religion is quite primitive--never mind Marina. Ruth was bothered by his logic or argument being of no avail. She would be content, you know if he had followed the laws of debate or something, you present evidence and he presents opposite evidence and you try to answer, let one answer the other. But when he couldn't answer he would just state his belief and there he followed the Communist line.

He talked something about feudalism, or the church being more powerful in feudalism than it was today and he tried to explain why that was.

I had then suggested that maybe science was instrumental as an alternative explanation to his explanation but instead of supporting further his view, which just didn't make sense to me, he just restated it. Well, this kind of thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Upset your wife?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; you just couldn't enter the conversation deeper.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember any other conversation, you and Oswald had during this first evening that you met?

The CHAIRMAN. From the first day, are you going back to?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. PAINE. I think we probably spoke, I was trying still to find common ground with him, and I think we probably spoke critically of the far right. It even seems to me we may have mentioned Walker.

I had been bothered at the time that Walker had--I guess it doesn't do any good to enter into the matter because I don't remember his response.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you mention Walker's name during the first meeting?

Mr. PAINE. My memory is very foggy. But I would take it as--this was an impression.

Mr. LIEBELER. Give us your best recollection, and I want to ask you again this was in early April 1963, that you had this conversation, is that correct?

Mr. PAINE. It was that first meeting when we had them over to dinner and Ruth can give you the date of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. For the benefit of the Commission the record indicates it was about April 2, 1963, that that occurred. Tell us to the best of your recollection what the conversation about General Walker was at that time?

Mr. PAINE. I think he had mentioned, a friend of ours had a German wife and she just achieved her citizenship papers, and this had been done at the ceremony and General Walker had been invited to lead the singing, conducted by June Davis who is somewhat old and slipped into error of calling him Judge Walker every once in a while, and it somewhat offended this friend of ours who was aware of why she liked this country, freedoms, and liberties and values that are expressed here. And she was rather sorry that Walker should take it upon himself to define, to these stupid foreigners or these ignorant foreigners, what this country stands for. So I think I mentioned this episode to him.

Representative FORD. Him being Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. Oswald, and I think he smiled and nodded his assent. I don't think he said any--I don't think he made any important remarks about Walker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember anything that he said about Walker at all?

Mr. PAINE. I think that is the only time, probably the only time we mentioned Walker.

Mr. DULLES. To refresh my recollection, there was about 2 days or----

Mr. LIEBELER. 8 days before.

Mr. RANKIN. It was on the 10th.

Senator COOPER. Did he indicate in any way that he knew about General Walker at that time?

Mr. PAINE. We seemed to agree at least superficially that in thinking the far right was unfortunate in its thoughts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say anything or do anything that would lead you to believe that he planned an attack on General Walker?

Mr. PAINE. Absolutely not.

Senator COOPER. Did he indicate in any way that he knew about General Walker's activities and beliefs and position on public affairs?

Mr. PAINE. When I went to the ACLU meeting he then got up, stood up and reported what had happened at the meeting of the far right which had occurred at convention hall the day before, U.N. Day, they called it U.S. Day, and I think Walker had spoken then.

From this I gathered that he was doing more or less the same thing--I thought he was, I didn't inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups being familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were as I was.

Senator COOPER. Is that prior to the conversation you have talked about?

Mr. PAINE. No; this is after this conversation.

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. PAINE. This is after this conversation and I only had this, this was the only concrete evidence I had of how he spent, might have spent some of his time. It happened in the ACLU meeting in late October. I suppose he was familiar with the right-wing groups and activities, and movements. And certainly familiar with Walker; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Confining the Senator's question to the meeting in April, he didn't indicate in any way that he was familiar with Walker's attitude or activities?

Mr. PAINE. He was familiar with Walker. He knew who Walker was, there was no doubt about that. We were talking about Walker.

Representative FORD. To find some common ground.

Mr. DULLES. He didn't say he knew where Walker lived or anything of that kind. That didn't come up?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate any understanding to you at that April meeting of Walker's attitude?

Mr. PAINE. I don't think he singled out Walker as--I had the impression that he was quite familiar with Walker and probably familiar with the names of various right-wing groups, shall we say, the Christian Science, not the Christian Science, I have forgotten the names of various organizations.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you relate to Oswald this story about Walker speaking at the meeting or the ceremony at which the immigrants were given their citizenship?

Mr. PAINE. I believe I did; yes. I believe that is what I said about Walker at the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was his response to that?

Mr. PAINE. And I think he didn't say much. I think he smiled and nodded his head and did that kind of thing. He may have said just a few words.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you take it that Oswald agreed with the views that you expressed?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, after this first meeting----

Senator COOPER. May I interrupt you again, I don't want to interrupt your train too much but I think you had said that during this conversation that you did have some discussion about right-wing groups.

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Senator COOPER. And their position and activities, and so forth. In that discussion were individuals named or members assumed to be members of that group?

(At this point Representative Ford left the hearing room.)

Mr. PAINE. It is possible we would have mentioned Welch. I don't think I would have mentioned Welch, I didn't know anything specifically about the John Birch Society at the time.

Senator COOPER. Was Walker, he was talking about Walker?

Mr. PAINE. He was the only one whose name was mentioned.

Senator COOPER. Are you sure whether or not Oswald made any comment at any time during this conversation about Walker?

Mr. PAINE. I don't remember, as I say, I remember it very vaguely but I remember telling that instance of his conducting that ceremony. But--and Walker was known, I knew that Walker was known to Lee. And at least it achieved a certain feeling of similarity there, even though the similarity was only superficial in our views and feelings about it. I don't think he went on to describe any--it was mostly a ploy on my part to curry him or make him feel more at ease.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was clear to you at that time that both you and Mr. Oswald had an adverse view of General Walker and did not think favorably of him, is that correct?

Mr. PAINE. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you heard of Lee Oswald before you had occasion to go and pick him up that time and bring him to your house for dinner?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; I heard about him as soon as Ruth had been invited to this party back in February, whenever it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the basis of your wife's interest in the Oswalds and of your interest in the Oswalds?

Mr. PAINE. Everett Glover invited us knowing that Ruth was studying Russian and that--asked us if we would be interested in meeting this--they were presented to us as an American who had defected to Russia and decided he didn't like it and came back and brought a Russian wife with him. Would we like to meet these people? Yes, that sounded interesting.

Mr. DULLES. Was this the Fort Worth group?

Mr. PAINE. No; this is in Dallas.

Mr. DULLES. Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. After this first meeting with Lee Oswald when was the next time that you saw him?

Mr. PAINE. That would be after he returned, when Marina was living with us, when he returned, we thought he returned from looking for work from Houston but apparently it had been his trip to Mexico.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us the circumstances of how you met him and what happened at that time?

Mr. DULLES. Could we have the date of this?

Mr. LIEBELER. This would have been what, early October or late September of 1963?

Mr. PAINE. I think Marina was there about a week, at least a week before he came, if she came the 24th of September, which comes to my mind, it would be in the early part of October. I would normally appear at the house on Fridays, sometimes occasionally on Sundays, I would come on Friday evening, and----

Mr. LIEBELER. You were separated from your wife at this time?

Mr. PAINE. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you had your own apartment at Arlington, Tex.?

Mr. PAINE. Grand Prairie.

Mr. LIEBELER. Grand Prairie.

Mr. PAINE. I don't particularly remember, the occasions don't stand out one from another. The first two meetings, I think were before he found work, and at first I talked a little bit about the problem of finding work with him.

Mr. DULLES. These were the first two meetings after the preliminary meeting?

Mr. PAINE. Yes. While Marina was staying with us.

Mr. LIEBELER. Go through your testimony, Mr. Paine and tell us as best you can recall how many times you saw Oswald after his return from New Orleans, up until the time of his assassination?

Mr. PAINE. I think I saw him every weekend on Friday; I think he was there except for the weekend, before the assassination, exceptional.

I would arrive on Tuesday or Wednesdays and, of course, he was not there and there was Ruth and Marina. I would simply come in on Sunday when he was generally there.

Also, I quite specifically remember on the long holiday he had some period there, I don't remember, what celebration it is, when Bell did not have that day off and he did, so he was there that morning, a Monday morning on that date of that holiday, perhaps you can feed me the date.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would that be November 8th, 9th and 10th, 1963?

Mr. PAINE. I think that is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that the last time you saw him?

Mr. PAINE. That would be correct; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, tell us the circumstances about how Oswald arrived in Irving upon his return from New Orleans as best you can recall it, what happened, what was said.

Mr. PAINE. I must not have been there when the phone call arrived but I think Ruth reported it to me so that Ruth said that Marina was very pleased, very happy to receive this call, a surprise or something. I think I had at one or two times seen her answer a call from him, and I observed she was glad to have this call from him but I wasn't there when he first called, I don't believe.

Mr. DULLES. Was that the call from New Orleans to Irving?

Mr. PAINE. No; that is the call from somewhere in Dallas to Irving asking if he could come out. I don't know of a call from New Orleans to Irving.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he subsequently come out to the house in Irving that weekend?

Mr. PAINE. Then he came out that weekend. I suppose he came out on a Friday and it was probably before I got over there, I arrived about six.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember if he was there when you arrived home that weekend?

Mr. PAINE. I don't remember that. I think he was there; yes. I think he was there because otherwise I would have seen that meeting. I did not see them first embrace each other.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say anything to you about where he had been?

Mr. PAINE. No; I thought I knew where he had been. Ruth had told me he was looking for work in Houston.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ruth had told you that before this date?

Mr. PAINE. I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. There was no conversation among any one at that time about Oswald having been in Mexico.

Mr. PAINE. No; it was a complete surprise to Ruth and myself. When we saw this letter where he mentioned having been to Mexico, Ruth took it as an example of his colossal lying.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about this letter, what were the circumstances surrounding that?

Mr. PAINE. He had written a letter using her typewriter and her desk to a party I don't know.

Mr. DULLES. That is Ruth's typewriter and desk?

Mr. PAINE. Ruth's typewriter and he left the rough draft of the letter on her desk, not folded, just out there on her desk, in English. Ruth had given me the impression it was there for a couple of days. Actually it was there for a day and a half or so. I think he wrote it on Saturday and we then moved the furniture on Sunday night.

Mr. DULLES. This would be Saturday, November what?

Mr. PAINE. This might be that holiday November. I don't remember for sure about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Paine, you and I discussed this question yesterday and I asked you whether you recalled seeing Oswald again after you had discussed this letter with your wife. What did you tell me?

Mr. PAINE. I thought probably not but we figured out the dates from my probable reaction that I read that letter and then had I encountered him again I would have had a different, I would have had questions or feelings or something in response to this letter and since I didn't encounter him with those feelings I must not have seen him again.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that would place the date of your seeing this letter as approximately shortly after the weekend of November 8, 9, and 10?

Mr. PAINE. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Commission Exhibit 103 and ask you if you ever saw the original of this letter and if you did to tell us the circumstances surrounding that event.

Mr. PAINE. Yes; I saw this letter. I remembered most of the contents. I apparently didn't remember that he didn't use his real name, I was reading something else at the time and Ruth handed me this letter and it took a while--I didn't read it as thoroughly as I could have.

Mr. DULLES. Could you tell us just briefly the contents of this letter just for the record?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir; apparently it is a draft of a letter that Oswald wrote in his own hand. The Commission does have a copy of the actual letter, and it was a letter to the Russian Embassy, I believe in Washington.

Mr. DULLES. The Russian Embassy in Washington?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir; in which he tells them about his trip to Mexico and his political activity on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I believe it includes the words "notorious FBI," which is no longer interested in his political activity in Texas.

Mr. DULLES. Was this letter ever sent?

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe it was.

Mr. DULLES. There was a letter sent like this? You said you had the original?

Mr. RANKIN. It is in evidence.

Mr. DULLES. What was sent, a letter like this?

Mr. RANKIN. A redraft.

Mr. DULLES. A redraft.

Mr. PAINE. Typewritten copy.

Mr. LIEBELER. This letter refers to the fact that Oswald had been in Mexico, does it not?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; it tells of his visit to the Cuban Consul and the Soviet Embassy there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your wife call that to your attention when she showed you this letter?

Mr. PAINE. We took it, she took it, and I likewise took it as somewhat of a fabricated story, I didn't suppose he had been down to Mexico. I read "Dear Sirs" there, I read "Dear Lisa." I thought he was writing to a friend, and Ruth pointed out to me after I had given the letter back to her, Ruth was somewhat irked that I didn't take more interest in the thing. I think I might have--no, I don't know as I might have since I might have dismissed it as a lie but anyway Ruth was irked and didn't show it to me again and I asked her now what was in that letter that I didn't see and she didn't tell me.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was all prior to the assassination?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did she say to you?

Mr. PAINE. Ruth was quite bothered by that letter, and apparently had--apparently I hadn't really taken it in. I said, "The heck with it. Yes; it is a fantastic lie, isn't that amazing that he will fabricate such stories here."

Mr. LIEBELER. What did she say?

Mr. PAINE. No; she said--she approached me and said, "I never realized how much he could lie" or that he was a liar or something like that, and "I want you to read this letter." So I put aside the thing I was reading in which I was more interested and read most of the letter, not the latter part about having used another name.

And then I thought it was too personal, "Dear Lisa," so I thought he was telling her, being rather braggadocio telling about his exploits which were rather imaginary and I put it out of my mind. Then later Ruth asked me what did I think about it----

Mr. LIEBELER. This was before the assassination that she asked you this?

Mr. PAINE. I think so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it later the same day?

Mr. PAINE. No; I think it probably was another day but I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did she say?

Mr. PAINE. Well, she was--I think I said, "Let me see that letter again," and she said, "No; if you didn't absorb it, never mind." So, heck, if she felt that way, I wasn't going to bother. My first impulse was to throw it aside and pay no attention to it. If she felt that way I continued to do it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who brought the letter up the second time, did Ruth bring it up?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; Ruth brought it up.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether there was any event that caused her to bring it up or did she bring it up out of the clear blue sky or what?

Mr. PAINE. I don't remember having slept with her but I have the impression she brought it up while I was in bed anyway. So it might have been, just be, I was staying late that night also, I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that Oswald had given Marina a charm made out of a Mexican peso at the time that you read this letter?

Mr. PAINE. No; I didn't.