Part 65

Mr. FAIN. The fact that he had been given the unfavorable discharge? I believe now, I don't recall just exactly whether I asked him right at that time whether there had been any disposition of that, and maybe I did.

Mr. STERN. The third paragraph on page 4 refers to that, and I just wondered if you could say more about it.

Mr. FAIN. Yes; he just advised about the matter of having been given an undesirable discharge had not been reviewed. We did ask him that because he brought it up and mentioned it before.

Mr. STERN. Did he seem----

Mr. FAIN. He didn't know when it would be heard at that time. He said he didn't know when it would be heard.

Mr. STERN. Did he seem angry about it, the status?

Mr. FAIN. No; just answered it and didn't seem ruffled.

Mr. STERN. At any point in the course of the interview did he display anger or irritation?

Mr. FAIN. The only point he did, was when we asked him again why he went to the Soviet Union in the first place, and I didn't like his answer there. That is set out on the bottom of page 5. He still declined to answer questions as to why he went to the Soviet Union in the first instance. He said he considered it nobody's business why he wanted to go to the Soviet Union. Finally he stated he went over to Russia for his own personal reasons. He said it was a personal matter to him. He said, "I went and I came back." He said "It was something that I did." So he just bowed his neck and apparently wasn't going to tell anything further at all on that point.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question? On the bottom of the earlier page, page 1, where it stated that Oswald was interviewed when he first arrived at the Soviet Union, and he stated he was interviewed when he was about to leave by representatives of the MVD, he was quite clear about the MVD and not the KGB?

Mr. FAIN. That is right; he indicated the MVD.

Mr. DULLES. And he clearly said MVD?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; he described it as being--handling criminal matters among the population generally, is the way he described it.

Mr. DULLES. That might be. That is really the Ministry of the Interior, and the KGB is the secret security services, which has been sometimes controlling and sometimes has been under the Ministry of the Interior.

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; he indicated to us just the ordinary way. In other words, I gathered from him that the police interviewed him when he came in, and also he said the police interviewed him when he left. But he said he made no deals with them or with any intelligence agents of the Soviet system.

Representative FORD. On page 2, Mr. Fain, are written two words. One is "Texas," is that, and another is "Noloc."'

Mr. FAIN. I have no knowledge of who put that on or how that came there. I guess that looks like maybe "Texas" up there at the top.

Representative FORD. Would the second be "no location." Is that an abbreviation for that?

Mr. FAIN. That probably has reference to somebody's notation. It may have been on the desk over there; no location for the uncle, no city stated for his location.

Representative FORD. Would that be something added by someone other than yourself?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; I did not make that notation. I have no knowledge as to who did. It was made in Dallas.

Mr. STERN. Mr. Fain, apart from the question of why he went to the Soviet Union in the first place, was he reluctant to answer any other questions that you put to him?

Mr. FAIN. As I recall it, he answered the other questions fairly readily, and he appeared to be a lot more relaxed than he was the first time.

Mr. STERN. Throughout the interview?

Mr. FAIN. With the exception of this, he kind of bowed up there, and said, it was a personal matter as to why he went over there. He said he came and he went back. Just a little bit insolent. He said it was nobody's business.

Mr. STERN. How long did this interview last, Mr. Fain?

Mr. FAIN. I don't recall exactly, but I expect we talked to him about an hour, maybe an hour and 15 minutes, something like that.

Mr. STERN. How does that compare with the length of time of your first interview with him in your office?

Mr. FAIN. As I recall, the first interview, and again I don't recall it exactly, but I was of the opinion we talked to him for maybe an hour and a half, and maybe 2 hours. It was close to 2 hours because we couldn't cover all the questions in a lesser period of time. We approached the things in different ways and from different angles, and to see if he wouldn't give us the information.

Mr. STERN. Would you read over these three pages of your memorandum of the interview, pages 4, 5, and 6 of the report, and see if there is anything you would like to add or clarify, any detail that occurs to you now that you didn't cover there, any flavor or color of the interview that you wouldn't ordinarily put in your report that you can tell us about?

Mr. FAIN. All right, sir; it is in there. It is indicated in the last paragraph.

Mr. STERN. On what page?

Mr. FAIN. Page 6. Really there is no point in repeating, but he did play down during the entire interview--he seemed to be just a little bit derisive of our questions, and hesitated to bring out whether or not the Soviet intelligence officials might have been interested in him or might have contacted him, and he downgraded or played that down. He just didn't think he was that important; in other words, that they would want to contact him.

Mr. DULLES. How was he on that point, was he strong on that point, did he press that point?

Mr. FAIN. No; there wasn't anything remarkable about that different from the other. He saw no reason why the Soviets would want to contact him. He didn't feel like he was of any importance to them. He said that he would cooperate with us and report to us any information that would come to his attention.

Mr. DULLES. On the bottom of--excuse me.

Mr. FAIN. That is all right; I was through.

Mr. DULLES. On the bottom of page 1 of your report, page 4 of the exhibit, it is indicated that this report was made by Special Agent Arnold J. Brown and by you. Do you recall who dictated the report?

Mr. FAIN. I did.

Mr. DULLES. And was it concurred in by Special Agent Arnold J. Brown?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. He saw it?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. He concurred in it?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; he saw the dictated, the finished document and initialed it.

Representative FORD. What kind of covering letter did you send with this to the Dallas office, if any?

Mr. FAIN. There would be none because this is closed. In other words, there didn't seem to be any evidence that he had a potential for violence or anything like that, and we just closed the case, and this went over there very likely without any transmittal.

Mr. DULLES. Where is there an indication here that the case was closed?

Mr. FAIN. "C." This letter "C" under the synopsis is a symbol we use just to save typing time, it stands for closed.

Representative FORD. Who makes that determination?

Mr. FAIN. As to whether the ease would be closed or not?

Representative FORD. Yes.

Mr. FAIN. It was my determination and my recommendation it be closed. Of course, the report goes to the supervisor's desk in the Dallas office, and if he concurs he lets it go on through, and if he declines he would send it back for additional investigation or other action, whatever he deemed appropriate.

Mr. DULLES. Was there a written recommendation that this case be closed other than this?

Mr. FAIN. No; other than this, no.

Mr. DULLES. That "C" is all?

Mr. FAIN. Yes.

Representative FORD. Is that "C" put on by you?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; in my dictation.

Representative FORD. In your dictation?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; to show the case closed.

Mr. DULLES. Did you get any approval or disapproval of that, or, if it is not disapproved, you consider it conclusive?

Mr. FAIN. Well, if it is going to be disapproved, I would hear probably the third day, or if he wanted to get on the telephone and call me to do something additional that he thought ought to be done, then I would be told to do some additional work on it.

Representative FORD. What is the significance of the third day? Is this the usual time or what?

Mr. FAIN. No; I was just thinking about the mail time. You get a communication out, for instance, if I mailed this report it would get there the next day, and they would review it and then they would mail it out and I would get it the third day.

Representative FORD. Just the communication time.

Mr. FAIN. That is right; that is right.

Mr. DULLES. Did you get any comment back at all on this report from headquarters?

Mr. FAIN. No; I did not.

Mr. STERN. Would you elaborate, Mr. Fain, about your conclusions on this case and your evaluation of Oswald the man as of the time of your second interview. What led you to your recommendation?

Mr. FAIN. An evaluation as to what?

Mr. STERN. From the viewpoint of the investigation you were conducting. You told us how you felt about him on the first interview, and you felt a further interview would be necessary.

Mr. FAIN. Well, I felt in the second interview he was more relaxed, and I felt he answered the questions more readily and with less evasion.

However, he still didn't seem to want to go into the reasons why he went over there in the first place, and why he wouldn't do it. Evidently he had his own reasons for giving those answers. I don't know whether he just wanted to be--maybe he was just inherently insolent, and that is just typical of his personality is all I could figure out.

Mr. STERN. Will you tell us again the purpose of your investigation, what you were after.

Mr. FAIN. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether or not he had been contacted by the Soviet intelligence agencies, whether he had been given an assignment or not, whether they had made any deal with him, and whether, as a demand, for permitting his wife to accompany him--you see, for a long time, they told him he couldn't take her apparently, and there was quite a period that he was waiting to get her, and he refused to come back to the United States unless his wife came back with him. We wanted to find out whether or not the Soviets had demanded anything of him in return for letting her come on over.

Mr. STERN. As to that, had you formed a conclusion, after the second interview?

Mr. FAIN. As to--on that point?

Mr. STERN. Yes.

Mr. FAIN. Well he answered it and said, "No." He played it down all the way through. In other words, that was the main purpose we were talking to him, was to try to ascertain that point. He downgraded it all the way through, and belittled himself. He said, "I was not that important."

Mr. STERN. Was your recommendation that this case be closed, a recommendation that indicates that you had reached a conclusion on the question of your investigation?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; even though he was arrogant and cold, from his answers, I couldn't see any potential for danger or violence at that point.

Mr. DULLES. Did Special Agent Arnold J. Brown concur in your decision with regard to marking the case "C," closed?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; I remarked to him we were just going to close it, and he saw the finished report and initialed the report.

Mr. DULLES. He saw that conclusion and concurred in it?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. STERN. In terms of your FBI procedures, what is the difference between marking a case closed or marking it pending?

Mr. FAIN. Well, if it is a pending case, there is additional work to be done on it.

Mr. STERN. Specific additional work?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; specific leads to be done on the case.

Mr. STERN. And closed means that there are no such specific leads, is that right?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; that is right; it is closed.

Mr. STERN. But does that mean that the case is in dead storage somewhere?

Mr. FAIN. Not forever; no. If there is any reason for reopening it, it could be reopened the next day if necessary or the next 3 days or any time. But this assignment had been completed. He had been interviewed. That was the purpose of this contact, to interview him, and set forth the results of re-interview, and that was all that was to be done.

Mr. STERN. Are cases frequently reopened?

Mr. FAIN. Cases are reopened constantly. If there is any reason for reopening it, it certainly would be reopened.

Mr. STERN. Is it fair to say then that in this kind of situation, "closed" is really a shorthand for "no further work to be done at this time"?

Mr. FAIN. Correct, correct.

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCLOY. What is the date of this last report here?

Mr. FAIN. The date of this was August 30, 1962.

Mr. McCLOY. August 30, 1962.

Mr. STERN. Mr. Fain, do you recall discussing Lee Harvey Oswald with his brother Robert Oswald about this time?

Mr. FAIN. Discussing his brother with him?

Mr. STERN. Did you ever talk to Robert Oswald about any of your conclusions regarding Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. FAIN. Certainly not. I contacted him on August 14, but that was for the purpose of locating his brother for interview.

Mr. STERN. Is it possible that you might have said to him at some point, "I have interviewed your brother and I don't think he presents a problem," or "I do"? I don't suppose you would say that.

Mr. FAIN. Positively not. I never made that statement to him at any time.

Mr. STERN. This would be contrary to your operations?

Mr. FAIN. That would call for a conclusion, and we wouldn't discuss a matter like that with anyone, especially a relative.

Mr. STERN. With any unofficial person?

Mr. FAIN. Official--that is right. Of course with my supervisor and some official who is entitled to it, but I certainly did not talk to Robert Oswald about anything like that.

Mr. STERN. Do you have any indication from your interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald or from anything else you knew about him, from your investigation, that he was dangerous or potentially violent?

Mr. FAIN. No, sir; no, sir; if there had been any indication that he was potentially dangerous or violent or had a potential for violence, we certainly wouldn't have closed it.

Mr. McCLOY. You felt he constituted no security risk to the United States?

Mr. FAIN. Well, we couldn't prove that he was a member of the Communist Party in Fort Worth; had no report that he was a member of the party.

Mr. McCLOY. Quite apart from the party, from party membership, was it your conclusion that he was--he did not constitute a security risk?

Mr. FAIN. I couldn't see any potential for violence.

Mr. McCLOY. I am not talking about potential for violence. I am talking about security risk. You know what I mean by that. You are an experienced security officer.

Mr. FAIN. Well, I am suspicious of any Communist, obviously, and I think any Communist is a threat because I think they are atheistic, materialistic; I don't think they know what the truth is, and from that standpoint I would think he is--but he wasn't, we couldn't say. The checks we made were to the effect that he was not a Communist, was not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. McCLOY. Was not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. FAIN. But he went to Russia. Of course, we couldn't get him to tell us why he went. We tried on two occasions. He said it was personal with him. He wanted to go over there the first time, and in that first interview he said, "I don't care to relive the past."

Mr. McCLOY. I understand that. But if you had doubts about his security, about his loyalty to the United States, or put it the other way, or if you think he might have been a security risk to the United States, should you have closed this case?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; we would have closed it because there was no reason to keep it open. We had the information. We reinterviewed him, no potential for violence appearing.

Mr. McCLOY. That isn't the test, is it, whether he can be capable of intrigue or he can be capable of espionage without violence. He could be a security risk without violence, couldn't he?

Mr. FAIN. Well, that might be, of course. Of course--if we knew then what did happen, was going to happen, we certainly wouldn't----

Mr. McCLOY. I am not talking about hindsight. I am talking about as of that time whether in your judgment this man was no longer, in your judgment, to be considered as a security risk to the United States. I am not trying to place any blame or criticism here. I am just trying to get the state of your mind as of the date of that report, whether that included your belief that he was not a security risk.

Mr. FAIN. Well, we like to let our reports stand for themselves, in other words on the situation, the answers given. In answer to your question, I would have been rather satisfied if he would have told me why he went over there and if he weren't so evasive.

Mr. McCLOY. You got an impression he was evasive and he was not telling you the truth?

Mr. FAIN. Well, he was inclined to be haughty and arrogant, and even though he was insolent, and that could have been, of course, a part of his personality makeup, that type of individual.

Mr. McCLOY. Let me ask you this: If you had felt in spite of his answers that he was a security risk, would it have been incumbent upon you to report to your superiors that he was, and that you thought he ought to be continued under surveillance?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; if he would have met the qualifications we considered that he had been a security risk, and had a potential for any violence or dangerousness, why, we certainly would have stayed on him.

Mr. DULLES. And you would not have marked the report as closed, the case as closed.

Mr. FAIN. Well, I closed it because my investigation was completed. The assignment was to interview him and the case at the end of the interview with the information we obtained the case was closed. The man had found a job, he was working, he was living in this duplex with his wife, and he was not a member of the Communist Party. Of course, it was true he had been to Russia. He denied any contacts with a Soviet intelligence agent. He denied that he had any contacts. We considered all the facts and circumstances and closed the case, and that is what I did.

Mr. McCLOY. If you had not come to that, would you have put in another lead for another interview?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Would it have been incumbent upon you to recommend to your superiors that he be continued under surveillance?

Mr. FAIN. I could have recommended that he be reinterviewed but I frankly didn't see any point in doing that.

Mr. McCLOY. I understand that. But assuming you did find some derogatory information, or some facts that made you fear that he was a security risk beyond a recommendation for further interviews, what would be your province to do? Would it be your province to recommend surveillance?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; if there had been some facts there to indicate that he was----

Mr. McCLOY. A potential danger?

Mr. FAIN. A potential danger to the security of the United States, and for instance if we had found that he was a member of the Communist Party and meeting with them, made some contact with them, I certainly would have stayed right on it.

Mr. McCLOY. You would have recommended that he be kept under surveillance then?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. That is all I am getting at.

Representative FORD. Are you through, John?

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Representative FORD. On the top page of Commission Exhibit 824 it says, and I quote, "Oswald and wife unknown to confidential informant." Did you make that check?

Mr. FAIN. I did. I checked with the confidential security informants that we had there, and they said this man was not known to be a member of the party, and the party had not discussed him for membership purposes or anything like that.

Representative FORD. Do you have in this area, or did you have at that time in this area reliable confidential informants?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir; yes, sir. Excellent informants.

Representative FORD. During your experience in Fort Worth or otherwise, did you ever have a case similar to the Oswald case, a defector who had returned to the United States?

Mr. FAIN. No, sir.

Representative FORD. This was your only one?

Mr. FAIN. I had read in the newspapers about them occurring in various areas in the United States but this was the first one I had handled.

Representative FORD. This was the only one of a similar nature that you handled?

Mr. FAIN. I believe there were some cases back there too. We did handle one or two of those where the man in the service had made some kind of a remark, and we had interviewed him when he returned. I remember two or three of those cases when he returned to this country.

We contacted him to ascertain what his employment was, what his status was, what his present residence was, what his present attitude was, and whether or not he would report to us if he were contacted under auspicious circumstances abroad or otherwise. We worked on several of those, that type of case.

Representative FORD. Your contacts with these confidential informants, were they prior to or subsequent to this interview with Oswald?

Mr. FAIN. This was subsequent. This was the day following. I had also previously interviewed them.

Representative FORD. I think there was a somewhat similar statement in one of your other reports.

Mr. FAIN. I believe in the other report, yes, sir.

(At this point, Chief Justice Warren entered the hearing room)

Mr. DULLES. Do you recall any other instances where you have marked a case closed where headquarters has come back and suggested that it not be closed and that further investigation be made?

Mr. FAIN. Right now, I can't specifically recall any instances, but it has been done, and if the supervisor felt additional work should be done we would have no hesitancy in doing it.

Mr. STERN. Mr. Fain, your recommendation about closing a case is checked by how many supervisors that you know?

Mr. FAIN. One on the security desk there before it goes on here to the seat of Government.

Mr. STERN. This is one on the security desk in Dallas?

Mr. FAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. STERN. Then what happens?

Mr. FAIN. Then the report goes on into Washington here, to the FBI.

Mr. STERN. As far as you know is it checked again here?

Mr. FAIN. Oh, yes.

Mr. STERN. And by whom or by what kind of official?

Mr. FAIN. Well, they have a desk up here that has that function, too, you see. I don't know just, Mr. Belmont can probably answer that better than I can because I am not familiar at all with the workings of it up here. But I know they are rigidly checked and rechecked.

Mr. STERN. Now, at the time you filed this report, in view of the fact that you didn't see, as you testified, any further work to be done at this time----

Mr. FAIN. That is right.

Mr. STERN. Could you have put the case in any other status besides "Closed"? Is there any other administrative procedure that might have been available to you under the circumstances where you had nothing further, no further work to recommend at the time?

Mr. FAIN. Any other status? I could have put it, of course, in a pending status and set out some leads.

Mr. STERN. No, no; assuming you didn't see any further work to be done, any further leads at that time, under your administrative practices?

Mr. FAIN. No; if the work has been completed, we put the recommendation that it be closed and as I say, of course, that is no ironbound thing, to keep it from being reopened. It can be reopened any time, any of these security cases, the very next day, if necessary or the next 5 days or the next month, anything comes in on it or we get any specific reason for reopening it, it certainly is reopened.

Representative FORD. A few minutes ago I asked you a question about checking with confidential informants. Did this check involve only confidential informants in Fort Worth as far as the Communist Party was concerned, or would it have a broader check?