letter I received from Larrie, he said--he mentioned that the NIC, the

leadership, Frank McGee, was anti-Jewish, and it might be best if I changed my name in order to bring myself down to where I can associate with these people.

(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.)

Representative BOGGS. Do you have a copy of that letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Let me take a look here. With your permission, I would like to read into the record a paragraph----

Mr. JENNER. To what are you referring now, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is a letter sent by Larrie Schmidt to Larry Jones.

Mr. JENNER. And it is in longhand, is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recognize the handwriting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is Larrie's.

Mr. JENNER. It consists of seven pages, which we will mark Commission Exhibit No. 1036.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Before you read from the letter, how did you come into possession of the letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Jones gave it to me.

Mr. JENNER. Over in Germany?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Over in Germany; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And the envelope which I now have in my hand, from which you extracted the letter, is postmarked Dallas, Tex., November 5.

Representative BOGGS. What year?

Mr. JENNER. 1962. Is that the envelope in which the letter, Commission Exhibit No. 1036, was received by Mr. Jones? I notice the letter is addressed to Mr. Jones, SP-4 Larry Jones.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. We will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A--that is, the envelope.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A for identification.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. On the third page, last paragraph, he has marked "One bad thing, though. Frank gives me the impression of being rather anti-Semetic. He is Catholic. Suggest Bernie convert to Christianity, and I mean it."

"We must all return to church. These people here are religious bugs. Also no liberal talk whatsoever--none." Larrie had a flare for the dramatic.

Mr. DULLES. When he mentions "these people" who does he mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The NIC. And at this point I was ready to drop out of the organization completely, but thought better of it, because I am a perennial optimist. I felt once I got down there--it is like changing your wife after you marry her. You figure everything will work out.

Representative FORD. This CUSA organization in Munich--did it have any local Munich affiliation at all? I mean German affiliation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; none whatsoever. Strictly an American proposition.

Representative FORD. All among GI's, with the one exception of----

Mr. WEISSMAN. GI's or, one or two hangers-on, American civilians over there.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

You stated at one point in your testimony that you did not care to become associated with some of the organizations you had discussed. You named the John Birch--you thought it was too extreme. Yet you stated earlier that it was your intention to infiltrate these organizations. How do you explain this inconsistency?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is difficult to explain. The situation being as fluid as it was--you find that without anything solid to go on, you have got to change your stand a little bit in order to just get started.

Senator COOPER. Let me ask you something else. You said that you all had thought that to be able to fully pursue your political objectives, you needed to have a certain financial independence, is that correct?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Did you intend to get some financial support from these organizations, in addition to political support?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; not directly. We felt that after we had accomplished our goal--this is assuming we would accomplish our goal--any treasury that they had through membership dues or what-have-you would then be a common treasury, a CUSA treasury.

Senator COOPER. You had the idea that you could infiltrate and get control of these organizations, then you would have a source of revenue through their treasury, or through whatever treasury you were able to build up?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Did you think, also, in terms of contributions to these organizations from individuals?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It had been discussed--never very completely. It had just been brought up. But we didn't know exactly what we were going to do, really.

Senator COOPER. Was there any discussion about the support of these organizations--about the financial support of these organizations, that they might be a source of funds?

Mr. WEISSMAN. You mean from individuals who would contribute?

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Was there any discussions as to what individuals were supporting these organizations?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Just those that we had occasionally read about in Life or Look or Time--people like Hunt, H. L. Hunt.

Mr. JENNER. Of Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Of Dallas, Tex.--the oilman. In other words, people who are known to be conservative, sympathized with the conservative philosophy. And we didn't know at the time--in fact, I still don't know personally whether or not they do contribute. I just know it is said they do. But whether they do or not, I have no idea.

Representative BOGGS. It has been established, I presume, who paid for this newspaper advertisement.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this is something else. I am still not sure of who paid for it.

Mr. JENNER. The newspaper advertisement is Commission Exhibit No. 1031.

Representative BOGGS. Did you bring the money in to pay for it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Representative BOGGS. Do you know where you got it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I know where I got it. But I don't know where he got it from. I got it from Joe Grinnan.

Mr. JENNER. Joseph P. Grinnan, Room 811, Wilson Building, Dallas, Tex., independent oil operator in Dallas.

Representative BOGGS. How did you happen to get it from him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Joe was the volunteer coordinator for the John Birch Society.

Representative BOGGS. And how did he hand it to you--in a check or cash?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In cash.

Representative BOGGS. How much was it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a total of $1,462, I believe. We had 10 $100 bills one day, and the balance the following day. Now, as far as I know, Joe didn't put any of this money up personally, because I know it took him 2 days to collect it.

Representative BOGGS. Do you think you know where he got it from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I really don't know.

Representative BOGGS. He didn't tell you where he got it from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he didn't.

Representative BOGGS. But you are convinced in your own mind that it wasn't his money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; because he seemed to be--he didn't seem to be too solvent.

Representative BOGGS. Did you solicit him for this money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I didn't.

Representative BOGGS. Who did?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe--well, I believe Larrie did. I think the idea for the ad originated with Larrie and Joe.

Representative BOGGS. And Larrie solicited the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I don't think so. I think it was Joe who originally broached the subject.

Representative BOGGS. How did you happen to end up with the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was an expression of confidence, you might say, that Joe Grinnan had in me.

Representative BOGGS. Did you write the copy?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I helped.

Representative BOGGS. Who else?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie.

Representative BOGGS. So Joe Grinnan gave you the money, and you and Larrie wrote the copy?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We wrote the copy before that.

Representative BOGGS. And then you paid for it. What was this committee? Are you the chairman of that committee?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this is an ad hoc committee. I think we finally thought of the name--as a matter of fact, we decided on it the same morning I went down to place the original proof of the ad.

Representative BOGGS. What do you mean an ad hoc committee?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was formed strictly for the purpose of having a name to put in the paper.

Representative BOGGS. Did you have many of these ad hoc committees?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is the only one that I was involved in; that I know of.

Representative BOGGS. Were there others?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of.

Representative BOGGS. Did you ever ask Joe where this money came from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; Joe was pretty secretive. I frankly didn't want to know. I was interested, but not that interested. And it didn't--it would have been a breach of etiquette to start questioning him, it seemed.

Representative BOGGS. Have you ever heard of H. R. Bright, independent oil operator?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Representative BOGGS. Did you ever hear of Edgar Crissey?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Representative BOGGS. Did you ever hear of Nelson Bunker Hunt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is H. L. Hunt's son. I knew that he had gotten it from three or four different people, because he told me he had to get $300 here and $400 there, but he did not say where.

Mr. JENNER. The "he" is Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Grinnan; right.

Representative BOGGS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. Did you suggest that this advertisement had been drafted before he collected the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And you used this advertisement as the basis for the collection of the money, or was it used for this purpose, as far as you know?

Mr. WEISSMAN. As far as I know; yes.

(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. May I see the ad for a moment? There are a few things I would like to point out in this.

Mr. JENNER. Give the exhibit number, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is Exhibit No. 1031.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us the genesis of the advertisement, the black border, the context, the text, the part which Mr. Grinnan played, you played, and Mr. Schmidt played in drafting it, how it came about, what you did, in your own words. How the idea arose in the first place--and then just go forward.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, after the Stevenson incident, it was felt that a demonstration would be entirely out of order, because we didn't want anything to happen in the way of physical violence to President Kennedy when he came to Dallas. But we thought that the conservatives in Dallas--I was told--were a pretty downtrodden lot after that, because they were being oppressed by the local liberals, because of the Stevenson incident. We felt we had to do something to build up the morale of the conservative element, in Dallas. So we hit upon the idea of the ad.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please tell us who you mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Me and Larrie, Larrie and Joe, and then all of us together.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. WEISSMAN. And I originally--well, I took the copy of the ad to the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. JENNER. Please, sir--we wanted the genesis from the beginning. How it came about, who participated in drafting it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. About a week or so before placing the ad, Larrie and I got together at his house.

Mr. JENNER. The ad was placed when?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The first payment was made on the 19th or 20th of November.

Representative FORD. Was this after the announcement of the President's visit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Representative FORD. You knew that President Kennedy was to be in Dallas on November 22?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. A week before that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right; we had started working on the ad. Larrie and I got together. And I said, "What are we going to put in it?"; because I didn't have the vaguest idea. And Larrie brought out a list of questions, 50 questions, that were made up for some conservative--I think it might possibly have been one of Goldwater's aides had just listed 50 questions of chinks in our foreign policy, you might say, weak points. And we just picked some that we thought might apply to President Kennedy and his foreign policy. Because the 50 questions went back quite aways. And all of the questions except for two I had a part in saying okay to. The two that I had no part in was----

Mr. JENNER. Read them, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Was the 11th question----

Mr. JENNER. Are those questions numbered?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; but I will read it to you. It says "Why has the foreign policy of the United States degenerated to the point that the CIA is arranging coups and having stanch anti-Communist allies of the U.S. bloodily exterminated?"

This was handed in at the last minute by one of the contributors. He would not contribute.

Mr. JENNER. By whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have no idea. But he would not contribute the money.

Mr. JENNER. Was this one of the men who gave money to Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; this is my understanding.

Mr. JENNER. And did Mr. Grinnan tell you this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he said "This has to go in."

Mr. JENNER. He said that to you in the presence of whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe Bill Burley was there, and Larrie Schmidt.

Mr. JENNER. Where was this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Joe Grinnan's office.

Mr. JENNER. In Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas; yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is room 811 of the Wilson Building?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and I was against this particular question, because I frankly agreed with the coup. But it is a question of having all or nothing.

Another question that was put in here--I forget exactly when--which I wasn't in favor of, which we put in after the proof was submitted to Joe Grinnan for his approval, is "Why have you ordered or permitted your brother Bobby, the Attorney General, to go soft on Communists, fellow travelers, and ultra-leftists in America, while permitting him to criticize loyal Americans, who criticize you, your administration, and your leadership?"

Now, this struck me as being a States rights plea, and as far as our domestic policy goes, I am a pretty liberal guy. So I didn't agree with that.

Mr. JENNER. Who suggested that question?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't remember. I just remember that it came up--I didn't like it. But the fact was that it had to be in there.

Mr. JENNER. I would like to keep you on that for a moment. Was it a suggestion that had come from a contributor, or did it originate in your group?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I really don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. Or Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall if it originated with Larrie or Mr. Grinnan or with someone else. I really don't know.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man is Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say in his very early thirties.

Representative FORD. That suggestion, the last one, didn't come from you, however?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Which?

Representative FORD. The one you just read.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Oh, no.

Representative FORD. Because of your own liberal domestic philosophy?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. The only question in here that is entirely my own is the last one, and this is because I was pretty steamed up over the fiasco in Cuba and the lack of followup by the administration.

"Why have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the spirit of Moscow?" I will still stand by that question.

As far as the copy at the top of the letter, appearing before the questions, as far as I know, this was written by Larrie Schmidt. He showed it to me. I said, "It is a little rough, but if we are going to get our money's worth out of the ad, I guess it has to be."

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I stand over near the witness?

Representative FORD. Surely.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you.

When you say the copy at the top of the ad, does that include the banner, "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas."?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you are referring to all that portion of the ad which is Commission Exhibit No. 1031, down to the first question?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. The idea of the black border was mine.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. I was going to ask you that. Why did you suggest the black border?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I saw a proof of the ad--drew a mockup, the advertising man at the newspaper office drew a mockup, and it was the sort of thing that you just turned the page and pass it by, unless you had something to bring it out. And I suggested a black border. He put a one-eighth inch black border around. I said try a little heavier one. He went to a quarter inch black border and I said, "That looks okay," and we had the black border.

Mr. JENNER. I take it from your present statement that you worked with a copywriter or advertising composer at the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. His name was Dick Houston.

Mr. JENNER. How many editions did this ad run for the $1,463?

Mr. WEISSMAN. One edition. It came out on the evening edition, on the 21st, and the morning of the 22d.

Mr. JENNER. Just one paper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. One edition, one paper.

Mr. JENNER. That is only the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. It was not in the other Dallas papers?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. The Times Herald?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No. We felt--we didn't even go to the Times Herald. We felt they would not even print it, because they are a very liberal paper, and we felt it would be a waste of time. We were convinced that the Morning News was conservative enough to print it. And they did.

Mr. JENNER. So the Dallas Morning News people were quite aware of the composition of the ad, and worked with you in putting it in final shape?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; as a matter of fact, I had asked to show it to a Mr. Gray, who was the head of the advertising department, and they said no, that wouldn't be necessary, they just have to submit it to a judge something or other, a retired judge who was their legal advisor, and who would look at the ad to see if there was anything libelous in it, so to speak, or anything that the Morning News could be sued for. And I assume they did this, because they didn't let me know right away whether or not they could print it.

When I came back that afternoon, or the following morning--I don't recall which--and they said everything was okay, that it would go.

Mr. DULLES. When you spoke of the head of the advertising department, that is the advertising department of the News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Of the Dallas Morning News; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, you have read two questions with which you disagreed.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You have read a question, which is the last in the advertisement.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Of which you are the author, and you said you would still stand by that particular one.

Mr. WEISSMAN. A hundred percent; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, are there any others with which you had a measure of disagreement, or any other which you now would not wish to support or, as you put it, stand back of?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There was one other that I thought was being a little rough on the President, but which I didn't particularly agree with a hundred percent.

Mr. JENNER. Identify it, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was in the question that read, "Why has Gus Hall, head of the U.S. Communist Party, praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your reelection in 1964?

I personally thought that the selection of this particular question tended to put President Kennedy in a light where he is voluntarily accepting this support--in other words, sort of calling him a Communist, which I felt he was not. And, at the same time, though, I had a reservation about making a big furor over it, because of the fact, if nothing else, if the President did read it, he might realize something, and he just might do something about it, in foresaking the support. So I let it go at that.

Mr. DULLES. When you spoke, then, of selection from a list--was that the list to which you referred before, which I believe you said came from the Birch Society?

Mr. JENNER. A list of 50 questions.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; as far as I know it didn't come from the Birch Society. It was just some political material that Larrie had collected rafts of--he had books and folders. It was something he pulled out and said, "Maybe we can use this." And we went through the 50 questions. We were in a hurry, and this seemed to be the easiest way out, as far as getting some text, some composition for the ad.

Representative FORD. So the final selection rested with Larrie, Mr. Grinnan, and yourself, with the exception of this one contributor who insisted on one?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, let's put it like this. I signed my name to the ad. But you might say the final selection rested with the contributors. I had to go along with them, because if I said I won't go along with it, or I won't sign my name, there would have been an ad anyway--the ad would have been printed anyway. Larrie would have put his name to it.

Now, let me tell you this. It will be a very short story.

Bill and I had decided about a week after we got to Dallas that Larrie was full of hooey, that we could not go along with this guy.

Representative FORD. What do you mean by that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, everything he is doing he is doing for himself, and if we happen to fit in, it was fine. And he was getting an awful lot of recognition and publicity. We felt if this guy got any stronger, he would be able to move us out, or control us. So when the idea for the ad came up I said, "Okay, I will put my name to it," because I felt any recognition that came would then be in my favor, and if we took advantage of this, and because these organizations would have to back me personally as representing them, I could then denounce the anti-Semitism, the anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, and they would have to back me up, or else I would just tell the whole story about this thing. And I felt that this was going to be my move to get back to the original philosophy of a completely democratic type of organization.

And I had discussed--Bill and I, I might say, were a partnership unto ourselves. We had decided one way or the other we were either going to get out of Dallas or run the thing ourselves, because we didn't like the way it was going.

Mr. DULLES. Did Larrie object to your being the one to sign the advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; in fact, Larrie was sort of afraid to sign it, because when he came out and said he was part of the Stevenson demonstration, his life had been threatened, and he had all sorts of harrassing phone calls and so on. And he wanted to avoid this. But if it was a question of printing an ad or not printing it, he would have signed it.

Representative FORD. But as far as any organization of any kind being responsible for this ad, it was not true. There was no organization that backed this ad? There were four or five of you that really promoted it and finally raised the money for it and put it in the newspaper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is not quite accurate. You might say when you get right down to it, in the final tale, the John Birch Society printed that ad, not CUSA.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us why, now. Please expand on that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, in order to get anywhere in Dallas, at least in the area of conservative politics that we were in, you had to, you might say, cotton to the John Birch Society, because they were a pretty strong group, and still are, down there. And----

Mr. JENNER. Who is the head of that now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The Birch Society?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I never met the fellow. They had a paid coordinator. I don't recall his name offhand. But, anyway----

Mr. JENNER. Were you in his offices?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; Joe Grinnan, as a matter of fact, is the only man in the hierarchy of the Birch Society in Dallas that I met.

Larrie was a member of the JBS, and Bill and I didn't like it, but we saw that he was out for himself as much as anything, and this was a way to help himself along anyway, both politically and financially. And he convinced us of the method to his madness. But as I said we wanted to move Larrie out when we found he was more JBS than he was CUSA, and he was willing to go along with them completely, and forget about the CUSA goals.

Representative FORD. Your allegiance was to CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. In other words, I would have used the John Birch Society as a vehicle, as planned. But I would never have gone up on a soapbox to support them.

Mr. DULLES. Who were the members of the American Fact-Finding Committee, if any?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the members would be myself, Bill Burley, Larrie Schmidt, Joe Grinnan--just the people immediately involved.

Mr. JENNER. That was a name and solely a name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Solely a name.

Mr. JENNER. There was no such organization?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. And you used it for convenience on this advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. As a matter of fact, when I went to place the ad, I could not remember the name. I had it written down on a piece of paper. I had to refer to a piece of paper for the name.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever used that name before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did your group ever use it thereafter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. Have you now named all of the people who played any part in, to the best of your recollection--in the idea for the publication of, the actual drafting of the ad, and its ultimate running in that edition of the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There is only one other individual that I could name. He was there at the reading of the final proof, before the ad was printed. That was Joe Grinnan's brother, Robert P. Grinnan.

Mr. JENNER. Is he an older or younger brother?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe he is an older brother.

Mr. JENNER. What business is he engaged in?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Oil and real estate.

Mr. DULLES. Who took out the post office box 1792, Dallas 21, Tex., that appears under your name here on this advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill, Larrie, and I went to the post office together. I signed for the box.

Representative FORD. Do you recall the date?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was the same--the morning--the same morning I originally went to get the ad laid out at the Morning News.

Representative FORD. Has it been discontinued?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The box? Yes; I received a communication from Larrie. He said the box time had run out. They had extended it for 3 months after that, and then it was--as far as I know, it is nonexistent now.

Senator COOPER. May I ask this question: Would you state now to this Commission the idea of printing this ad was conceived by you and Larry Jones--what is the other's name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

Senator COOPER. Alone, and there was no stimulation from any outside group or organization. Do you state that under oath?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There was stimulation.

Senator COOPER. From whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I assume from the Birch Society. In other words, I think the idea for the ad, for the something to do on the occasion of President Kennedy's visit--I think the idea for the something to do came from the Birch Society--whether Mr. Joe Grinnan or someone else, I don't know.

Senator COOPER. Was it communicated as an idea to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie communicated the idea to me, said what do you think. I said, why not?

Senator COOPER. Which one of this group did the idea come to?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know.

Senator COOPER. It didn't come to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it didn't come to me personally originally, no.

Mr. DULLES. What is the basis of your evidence of saying this was the Birch Society? How did you know that? Where did you get that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, it came to a point where everything we were doing we had to go talk to Joe--big brother. And that is just the way it worked out.

Mr. JENNER. This is Joe Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. They were getting a grip on us, and Bill and I felt that we had to bust this grip somehow.

Mr. DULLES. Was he prominent in the Birch Society?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he was known.

Mr. DULLES. Joe Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he was known as a coordinator.

Representative FORD. This one question that was inserted at the insistence of one of the contributors, which reads as follows: "Why has the foreign policy of the United States degenerated to the point the C.I.A. is arranging coups and having staunch anti-Communist allies of the U.S. bloodily exterminated"--to what does that refer? Do you have any specific information?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I know it specifically refers to the Vietnam thing, with the overthrow of Diem, and the subsequent murder of the Diem people.

Representative FORD. Was that said to you at the time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was not said to me at the time. But I had mentioned it various times, and this was definitely, as far as I am concerned--this was definitely the reason for placing that. As a matter of fact, this had occurred not too long after that, I believe.

Mr. DULLES. Who was it that insisted on the insertion of that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Joe Grinnan handed me this piece of paper. It was written on a piece of scrap paper. I could hardly decipher it, myself. And he said, "This has to be in. Go back and have them change the ad."

So I had to run back to the Morning News, with this other insertion. This is just the way it happened.

(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)

Representative FORD. I understand that you made a downpayment on the ad.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Representative FORD. And then went back and paid the rest in full?

Mr. WEISSMAN. A thousand dollars the first day, and $400-odd on the second day.

Mr. DULLES. Were both payments made before publication?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Dulles called attention to the post office box number.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That stimulates me to ask you this: Did you receive any responses to the advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Oh, did I? Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, tell us about that and also, before you start, do you have any of those responses?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not with me. All that I received I have at home.

Mr. JENNER. And indicate to us the volume that you have at home.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have approximately 50 or 60 letters; about one-third of which were favorable, and the rest, two-thirds, unfavorable. The favorable responses, all but one came before--they were postmarked, the envelopes were postmarked before the President was assassinated. And the threatening letters and the nasty letters came afterward.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive any contributions?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I still have a check to the American Fact-Finding Committee in the amount of $20. Since we never opened a bank account, I just sort of kept the check as a souvenir. There was one $2 contribution----

Mr. JENNER. Cash?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right--from a retired train engineer, or something.

Mr. JENNER. And that is----

Mr. WEISSMAN. For the Wabash Railroad.

Mr. JENNER. Were those the only contributions?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At least that you know anything about?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. In all the letters I received the first time we went to the box. I only went to the box once, that was, I believe, the Sunday morning following the assassination.

Mr. JENNER. The 25th of November?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About; yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Did anybody have the key to the box in addition to yourself?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Up to that point, only I had the key. After that, I left Dallas on Wednesday, I believe----

Mr. JENNER. I misspoke--it was the 24th of November rather than the 25th.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I left Dallas on the following Wednesday. And at that time I didn't see Larrie personally--he couldn't get to the apartment that Bill and I were staying at for some reason or another. And I left all the dishes and things he had given us to use while we were there, and in one of these dishes I left the key to the box.

Since that time, communications I received from Larrie, he says the tenor of the letters had changed, they are more favorable than unfavorable in the ensuing weeks and months. Of these letters--he sent me one that called me all sorts of names, a lot of anti-Semitic remarks, and he sent another, and he gave excerpts in one of his personal letters, of letters that he received in support of the position of the ad.

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand that you got all the letters that came in up to Wednesday after the assassination, and that your associates have the rest, or Larrie, I presume, has the rest?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know who has the rest. I don't know if it is Larrie or Joe.

Mr. DULLES. Larrie had the key.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I left him the key--I left him access to the key. I received the letters written during the 2 days following the assassination--the Friday afternoon and Saturday following the assassination--because I picked the mail up the following Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. Having in mind all your testimony up to the moment, I would like to take you back to the telephone conversation that you had with Larrie Schmidt, in which he made the reference to Stevenson, following which, that is following this conversation, you eventually came to Dallas.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And this conversation, as I recall it, the telephone call, was in the month of October 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. It was the evening of the Stevenson demonstration. According to the letter I think it was the 24th of October.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, one of the members of the Commission is interested in having you repeat that conversation in full, to the best of your recollection.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Since it is recollection, it is going to change somewhat in words, but in tenor it will be the same.

Mr. JENNER. You do your best.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie called me on the telephone and he was very excited, and he had described what had transpired in Dallas----

Mr. JENNER. Tell us what he said, please. That is what we are interested in.

Mr. WEISSMAN. He just said----

Mr. JENNER. And his part in it, if any.

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that he had helped organize this demonstration and it went off beautifully, there is going to be national publicity, the newspapers were all over the place, he had given statements to the news media, to the television. He said he was on TV and radio, and had given out statements, and that he was--it seemed that he was going to be heading for, not trouble, but a good deal of difficulty because it seems that he was the only one that came out as one of the organizers of the demonstration, who openly came out and said so.

Mr. JENNER. And identified himself with the demonstration?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. He said he had--what did he say--something to the effect that he had a bunch of his people down there, the University of Dallas students.

Mr. JENNER. Did he identify them as students?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. I met the students several weeks later when I got to Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. The students he had employed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That had participated in the demonstration; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he describe what the demonstration was insofar as his part and his group's part in it was?

(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, just to the effect they had picketed and carried signs and made some noises inside the auditorium. Not he and his group, but that the picketers had raised quite a hullabaloo inside the auditorium.

Mr. JENNER. Were they his picketers?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. This he didn't specify. I had assumed----

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you get in that respect?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I had assumed his picketers were part of it.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. You were repeating to the best of your recollection that telephone conversation.

Mr. WEISSMAN. The gist of the conversation; yes.

Mr. JENNER. As best you are able to recall.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. I really cannot swear to its 100 percent accuracy, but I would say it is 75 percent accurate anyway.

Mr. JENNER. Have you now exhausted your recollection as to all that was said, in substance?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In substance; yes.

Mr. JENNER. In the course of that conversation.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it he urged you to come to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He did.

Mr. JENNER. That this Stevenson incident had stimulated things to the point that CUSA--you members of CUSA should come to Dallas, and everything was ripe?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said we can pick up the ball and start running.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you and Mr. Burley then went to Dallas, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. We left on the 2d of November.

Mr. JENNER. And that would have been following the receipt of the letter of October 29, which we have identified as----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1032.

Mr. JENNER. How did you get there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I drove in my car.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Burley accompany you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you stop off anywhere on the way?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We stopped at his mother's house in South Carolina for about 4 or 5 hours.

Mr. JENNER. And when you reached Dallas, did you find a room, or what did you do?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That night we stayed at Larrie's house. We got there about 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. JENNER. Where does he live?

Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time he was living at the Eden Roc Apartments, in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Is he a married man?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was.

Mr. JENNER. I take it he was separated from his wife at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No, no. He has been divorced since.

Mr. JENNER. But he was living with his wife at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, is Mr. Burley a married man, also?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I spoke with him just the other day. His divorce will be final in about 6 weeks, he thinks.

Mr. JENNER. He was married at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; separated.

Mr. JENNER. Where was his wife living?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In West Virginia, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. He had a family, did he not, several children?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Four or five children.

Mr. JENNER. You stayed with him at the Eden Roc Apartments?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. That is, with Mr. Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And then you and Mr. Burley arranged a room somewhere, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We rented an apartment. I think we stayed with Larrie for 2 days, 2 or 3 days. Then we rented an apartment in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Where was that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall the address offhand.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, approximately where are we now, as a matter of time in this period?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is----

Mr. JENNER. That you rented the apartment.

Mr. WEISSMAN. About the middle of the first week after we arrived in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Which should be approximately what date?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About the 7th or so of November.

Mr. JENNER. What did you do thereafter in the way of furthering the business of CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, we were thinking of buying a fourplex, a four-family apartment house.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you going to get the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We could have gotten a loan, we hoped, with no downpayment, because of the fact we are GI's, through the FHA, or VA, and we were counting on that. So we were looking around. We had also planned to take over a private club, manage a private club, with an option to buy it.

Mr. JENNER. What club was that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. That was in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you become acquainted with that possible business opportunity?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this had been broached by Larrie. This was one of the big disappointments. We had been promised by Larrie we wouldn't have any trouble making a living, that he had jobs and everything set up for us. That is one of the reasons I chucked my job in New York. I figured we would be able to survive down there.

We got to the Ducharme Club, after a day or two, and it was a miserable hole in the wall that you could not really do anything with. But we were still dickering with the owner on the potentials.

Mr. DULLES. What did this club purport to do?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a private club. They sold liquor and beer over the bar to members.

Mr. DULLES. Entertainment?

Mr. WEISSMAN. They had a dance floor and jukebox.

Mr. JENNER. Who--do you recall the names of any of the people interested in the Ducharme Club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The owners?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. WEISSMAN. The only one I know of is Leon Ducharme, the owner.

Mr. JENNER. Did Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein have any interest in this club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; not as far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with the Carousel Club when you were in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I was never in it, and I still don't know where it is.

Mr. JENNER. You were never in it; you don't know where it is. Did you hear of it when you were there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. As a matter of fact, in the entire 3-1/2 weeks or so that Bill and I were in Dallas, we didn't go to the movies at all. The only two clubs that I can recall that we went into was the Lavender Lounge----

Mr. JENNER. Where is that located?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall the street.

Mr. JENNER. It is downtown, is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it is not downtown. This is--it was about two blocks from our apartment. And it is about, I guess, a good 30-minute walk to downtown from there. And the only other club would be the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. Where was that located?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was on Haskell Avenue, in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. How far from the downtown area, if at all?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, to make it conveniently, you should take a bus. Otherwise, about a 20-minute walk.

Mr. JENNER. From the Ducharme Club to the downtown area of Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir; and the reason we went to the Ducharme Club after the fact we decided we were not going to take it, was that that was a place we could get credit for beer. Larrie had a charge account there. And that was the extent of our association with that place.

Mr. JENNER. Now----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Now, in the Lavender Lounge, the reason we went there, is we were dickering with the owners of the Lavender Lounge----

Mr. JENNER. Name him.

Mr. WEISSMAN. L. S. Brotherton. We wanted to lease a club that he had that was closed down, called the Beachcomber, in a suburb of Dallas. And we had been in there several times and had talked to him about leasing this. In other words, we were looking for something that would give us an income so we could operate a little bit. And that never worked out. He wanted too much money, and we didn't have it.

Mr. JENNER. In any of these negotiations that were carried on by you or your associates, was the name Jack Ruby ever mentioned as having any possible interest whatsoever in any of those groups?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of the name Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein up to--at anytime prior to November 24, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; never.

Mr. JENNER. And do you have any information or any knowledge or any notion or feeling that Larrie Schmidt or any of your associates knew of or had any association with Jack Ruby or otherwise known as Jack Rubenstein?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think I can state pretty emphatically no.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any communications of any kind or character, written notes, telephone calls, or otherwise, that you know about or knew about then to or from Jack Ruby?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear of the name Jack Ruby?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think he shot Oswald some time in the afternoon or the morning--since Bill and I had neither a radio or TV in the apartment--we were in the apartment all day.

Mr. JENNER. All day that Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; we had heard about it that night.

Mr. JENNER. That is the 24th of November 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. If that is when Oswald was shot.

Mr. JENNER. And you first became aware of Oswald being shot the night or evening of the 24th?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I don't recall exactly how. I think Larrie telephoned us, and told us that.

Mr. JENNER. This is the first time we have mentioned the name Oswald. Had you ever heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald prior to your going to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of the name Lee Harvey Oswald at any time prior to November 22, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was the name ever mentioned in your presence?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. I take it from what you have said that you did not know a man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We were sitting in a bar, right after President Kennedy's assassination.

Mr. JENNER. This was the 22d of November 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was Bill Burley, myself, and Larrie. We had made--we were to meet Larrie and Joe Grinnan at the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. For what meal?

Mr. WEISSMAN. For luncheon. We were supposed to meet him at 12:30 or 1 o'clock, I forget which--about 1 o'clock. And I had a 12:30 on the button, as a matter of fact--I had an appointment to sell a carpet out in the Garland section of Texas--it was a 2:30 appointment. And I was in a hurry to get to meet Larrie and finish the lunch, and whatever business they wanted to talk about I didn't know. So I looked at my watch. I remember specifically it was 12:30, because at that time Bill had been driving my car. He had quit the carpet company and was looking for another job. He had looked at a franchise arrangement for insecticides. He picked me up. He was waiting for me from 10 after 12 to 12:30. We got into the car. I am a great news bug. So I turned the radio on, looking for a news station. And they had--at that time, as I turned the radio on, the announcer said, "There has been a rumor that President Kennedy has been shot." So we didn't believe it. It was just a little too far out to believe.

And after several minutes, it began to take on some substance about the President's sedan speeding away, somebody hearing shots and people laying on the ground. In other words, the way the reporters were covering it. I don't recall exactly what they said. And, at this time--we were going to go to the Ducharme Club through downtown Dallas. We were heading for the area about two blocks adjacent to the Houston Street viaduct. And then we heard about the police pulling all sorts of people--somebody said they saw somebody and gave a description. And the police were pulling people off the street and so forth. So Bill and I didn't want to get involved in this. So we took a roundabout route. We got lost for a while. Anyway, we finally wound up at the other side of Dallas, and we were at the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. When you arrived there, was Mr. Schmidt there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was waiting for me. But Joe Grinnan wasn't there. He had heard this thing and took off. I guess he wanted to hide or something.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, because the way it was right away, the announcers, even before it was ascertained that President Kennedy was dead, or that he had really been shot, that it was a rightwing plot and so forth. And he had every reason to be frightened.

Mr. JENNER. Why did he have every reason to be frightened?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Because, let's face it, the public feeling would suddenly be very antirightwing, and no telling what would happen if a mob got together and discovered him. They would tear him apart.

Bill and I were frightened to the point because I knew about the ad. And I knew exactly what--at least I felt in my own mind I knew what people would believe. They would read the ad and so forth, and associate you with this thing, somehow, one way or another. So we went to another bar--I don't remember the name of it--the Ducharme Club was closed, by the way, that afternoon.

Mr. JENNER. When you reached the Ducharme Club, it was closed, but you found Mr. Schmidt there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie was waiting on the corner. He got in the car. We sat and talked for a few minutes. We went to another bar a few blocks away. We drank beer and watched television. And we had been in the bar, I guess, about an hour when it come over that this patrolman Tippit had been shot, and they trapped some guy in a movie theater. And maybe half an hour, an hour later, it came out this fellow's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the first time I ever heard the name.

Mr. JENNER. What was said at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. By us?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. When it was announced it was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. WEISSMAN. We were relieved.

Mr. JENNER. Anything said about it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. First, what was said, like, I hope he is not a member of the Walker group--something like that--I hope he is not one of Walker's boys. Because it is like a clique, and it is guilt by association from thereafter. So it came over later this guy was a Marxist. This was the same afternoon, I believe. It was found out this fellow was a Marxist. And then the announcers--they left the rightwing for a little while, and started going to the left, and I breathed a sigh of relief. After 4 hours in the bar, Bill and I went back to the apartment, and Larrie went to the Ducharme Club. He was afraid to go home.

Mr. JENNER. I thought the Ducharme Club was closed.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was open at that time. We drove by. It was open. Larrie went in. We dropped him off there. And Bill and I went back to our apartment. We just waited. We knew we were going to get involved in this thing because of the ad. And we figured that if anybody at all in Dallas was on the ball, they know who we were and where we were. So we waited. Nothing happened. We waited there until we left. We barely left that house. As a matter of fact----

Mr. JENNER. You remained in the house all that evening, did you--the apartment?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think the--yes; late that evening Larrie came home.

Mr. DULLES. That is Friday evening, November 22?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I think Larrie went home late that evening, and Bill and I met him there.

Mr. JENNER. You went to Larrie's home?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To Larrie's apartment; yes. And I said what are we going to do? And Larrie said, "Well"--he had talked to Joe Grinnan, and Joe said don't say anything, don't do anything, don't get any more involved than you have to, lay low, keep out of it, it is going to be pretty bad. And it was. Thereafter, a day or so later--

Mr. JENNER. What did you mean by that--it is going to be pretty bad?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In other words--this is just exactly the way it worked out. For example----

Mr. JENNER. You are now explaining what you mean by "and it was"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. Stanley Marcus, who was a Dallas businessman, financier----

Mr. JENNER. Nieman Marcus?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Of the Nieman Marcus group, yes, and he was a well-known and rather very rabid liberal. And sure enough, even though the following day it was then established that Oswald was a Marxist and so forth, and there was some question as to whether or not it was a Communist plot, pros and cons, and Marcus put his 2 cents in in the Dallas Times Herald, and he starts blaming the rightwing for the trouble. And I was told--I didn't see this----

Mr. JENNER. This was on the 23d now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was on the following day; yes, sir. And, in other words, he and friends of his, I guess, did everything they could to solidify their position as being always in the right, and throw the blame, even though Oswald is obviously a Marxist--they tried to transfer the blame to the rightwing. They had us on the run and they were going to keep it that way.

Mr. JENNER. How did this come to your attention?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Just by reading the newspapers.

Mr. JENNER. The Dallas Times Herald and the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There was very little in the Morning News about the rightwing, that was antirightwing, and the Dallas Times Herald was full of it.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please delineate what you mean by "us" who were on the run?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I mean any conservative in Dallas at that time was keeping quiet.

Mr. JENNER. Including yourself and the other men you mentioned?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Including myself and everybody I was associated with; yes, sir. And a day or so after that, I think it was Sunday or Monday, I had suggested to Larrie, and I spoke to Joe Grinnan on the phone, that maybe I should call the FBI and give them the story on this ad.

And he said, "Now, look, if they want you, they will find you. They know where you are, probably. So if they want you, they will find you." So I waited. And several times I was going to make that phone call, and I did not. Then finally we just ran out of money.

Mr. JENNER. You are probably a few days beyond the 23d now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right; I am. I am going now--everything was rather stable, static up until the Wednesday, the following Wednesday, when I left Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. I want to complete your whole day of the 23d before you move beyond that. Did you or Bill leave your apartment on the 23d?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; we were over at Larrie's house. I don't remember exactly the times. We had been to Larrie's place several times.

Mr. JENNER. Were you in the Dallas downtown business district at anytime on the 23d?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't think so--no--no, as a matter of fact. In fact, I didn't get around to the business district until--yes. We went into the outer edge of the downtown area to get to the post office, to pick up the letters.

Mr. JENNER. That is right. On the 23d you went to the post office box and picked up the 60-odd letters that you have at home in New York.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. And then we went directly back to the apartment, and opened these letters.

Mr. JENNER. That is all you did in the downtown area?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; so far as I can recollect.

Mr. JENNER. Approximately what time of the day was that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was in the morning. That was early in the morning--about 8 or 9 o'clock, I guess, in the morning.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive any telephone calls at your apartment that day?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I received--Larrie called us, I know. I don't recall what was said. It was just like, "What is happening--everything okay?"

On Monday I received a letter----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Have we now accounted from the time you got up Saturday morning until the time you went to bed that evening?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. Bill and I might have gone out for a hamburger a couple of blocks away. We didn't go anywhere near downtown. We might have gone to Larrie's apartment that night. I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. The 22d--we picked you up in your car with Mr. Burley around 12:30. Now, what happened that morning?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That morning?

Mr. JENNER. Yes--the 22d. Where were you the morning of the 22d, up to 12:30 o'clock in the afternoon?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Let's see. I left the apartment at about--I guess it was a little after 9. We had a 10 or 10:30 sales meeting scheduled, or 9:30. Anyway, I got there on time for the sales meeting.

Mr. JENNER. That was the carpet company by which you were employed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. Name it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Carpet Engineers.

Mr. JENNER. And you had obtained that job when?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About a week after arriving in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. And that was located where?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 1002 South Beckley, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. In the Oak Cliff section?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. On Beckley?

Mr. WEISSMAN. On Beckley.

Mr. JENNER. What was the address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 1002. I know what you are getting at. Oswald also had a room on Beckley, but he was on the opposite extreme. I think he was on North Beckley. I was on South Beckley.

Mr. JENNER. Give us the distance approximately between the location of the carpet company by which you were employed which is on South Beckley, and Oswald's address on North Beckley.

Mr. WEISSMAN. At least a few miles. I don't know. I had never been on North Beckley.

Mr. JENNER. At no time while you were in Dallas were you ever on North Beckley?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know, unless I got lost and didn't know where I was. But as far as I know, I have never been there.

Mr. JENNER. And you were a salesman of carpeting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever sell any carpeting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not a one.

Mr. JENNER. Did you make any effort?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I made a lot of effort. This is where most of my money went--for gas and things like that.

Mr. JENNER. Your associate, Mr. Burley, was he a salesman for this company also?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He quit about 2 weeks--about several days before the 22d. And he was looking--of course, one of us had to make money. We both were blanking out with the carpets.

Mr. JENNER. I take it, however, he had been employed by the same carpet company?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You made application together, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were both employed at approximately the same time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. But he left the carpet company before you did?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And I understand you attended a sales meeting at the carpet company the morning of the 22d.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. When did that sales meeting break up?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 12:30 for me. It was still going when I left. I left at 12:30 because I had this afternoon appointment, and also this meeting with Larrie. I had talked to the sales manager after that. I had----

Mr. JENNER. What was his name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Frank Demaria. And I had asked him if he had been questioned at all by the FBI. He said yes, they had been around. And I said, "What did you tell them?" And he mentioned at that time, he says, "We thought you had left about 12 o'clock." And I said, "What are you trying to do?"

And, anyway, this is the way it went. But I know I left at 12:30. They were embroiled in a big discussion, and they were not cognizant of the time. I was.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, would you tell us what you did on the 24th?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Went to pick up the mail in the morning, went back to the apartment.

Mr. JENNER. You picked up mail in the morning on Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right, the post office was open Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. You went to the post office on the 23d, which is Saturday, and you also returned----

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I didn't go to the post office on Saturday the 23d.

Mr. JENNER. I misunderstood you, then.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I am almost positive it was Sunday morning. I know it wasn't Saturday. I am positive--almost positive it was Sunday morning.

Mr. DULLES. That is when you picked up the 50-odd letters you referred to?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. It was the day that you heard that Ruby had shot Oswald, was it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am getting a little confused now. I think I might be 1 day----

Mr. JENNER. See if we can orient you. The assassination of the President occurred on the 22d of November 1963, which is a Friday.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Then there was Saturday. Then on Sunday the 24th occurred the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, with those events in mind, when did you go to the post office box?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, now, I know it was not Monday. Now, I am back in perspective. I am almost definitely sure it was Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. You said earlier that it was Saturday. You said it was the day after the ad appeared, that night, and you went the next day.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; couldn't have.

Mr. JENNER. That was an error?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was an error; yes. It was Sunday.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, on further reflection, your recollection is reasonably firm now that you did go to the post office box on Sunday rather than Saturday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am almost positive it was Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. You are equally positive it was not Monday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It might either be--I remembered there was an awful lot of traffic. And I don't know if the traffic was because everybody was driving through downtown to go around the Houston viaduct to see the scene of the assassination or what. And this is what is confusing me now. That is why I am not sure if it was Sunday morning--it might have been Monday morning. I doubt it. But it might have been.

Mr. JENNER. But it was early?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Around 8 o'clock?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Eight, nine o'clock; yes.

Mr. JENNER. I was asking you to account for your comings and goings and your whereabouts on Sunday the 24th. And in the course of doing that, in referring to the morning, you mentioned that you had gone to the post office box. Now, what did you do thereafter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Went right back to the apartment.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Burley accompany you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and another fellow. Ken--Kenneth Glazbrook.

Mr. JENNER. Who is he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is a fellow associated with CUSA, but never really. He came in, as a matter of fact--yes; I had forgotten about him. President Kennedy was assassinated on a Friday. Ken Glazbrook arrived in town by bus on Friday night. We went down to the bus station to pick him up.

Mr. JENNER. You knew he was coming?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. He----

Mr. JENNER. Please identify him.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken Glazbrook.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; who was he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken is what you might call a world traveler. This is a guy--he is a political science--he has a masters in political science from UCLA, I believe. And we had hoped to bring him in as our political analyst.

Mr. JENNER. Had you met him in the service?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Germany; yes. Larrie met him at one time originally. Ken was passing through Munich, and he had stopped off at our favorite bar, and gotten into a discussion with Larrie. And he had been through Munich after that two or three times, at one occasion which I met him. And he had also said, "I will meet you in Dallas."

But he came and he went. He stayed with Bill and I for a couple of days at our apartment, because he was on his way home to California. From what I understand now, he is back in Europe. He could not take it here.

Mr. JENNER. I am still accounting for Sunday. You went to the post office box, you think. You went to the bus station to pick up----

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am not sure whether this was--I am pretty sure it was Friday night we picked him up at the bus station. It might have been Saturday night. But I am more sure in my mind--my inclination goes more toward Friday night.

Mr. JENNER. You saw him on Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken?

Mr. JENNER. Did you see this man on Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was in the apartment with us.

Mr. JENNER. He came to stay with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he brought a pitcher and a knapsack.

Mr. JENNER. Did he go down to the post office box with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And he returned to your apartment?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did you do then?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We went through the letters. We were going pro and con, and reading them. We were very pleased at first because a lot of it was favorable, and then we got to the later postmarks, and those were terrible. We just discussed the letters for a while. And a girl came over. What was her name? Lynn something--I don't know her last name. And she sat around and talked for a while. We discussed the letters with her. Then Larrie came over that afternoon also. He was wearing a turtle-neck sweater. And we stayed around for a few hours. Then Larrie and Lynn took off to the Ducharme Club. And thereafter I don't know what happened to them. I did not hear from them at all. And--that is about it for Sunday.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear about the Ruby-Oswald incident?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think Larrie called me up. Yes, he was watching television at the Ducharme Club, I believe. I believe this was the occasion. I think he was with Lynn. And he telephoned me at the apartment. And that was the story.

Mr. JENNER. You have testified you were never in the Carousel Club.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. What if any acquaintance did you have with Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None.

Mr. JENNER. What if any acquaintance did any of your associates have to your knowledge with Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Absolutely none.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever heard of the name Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Up to or any time during the day of November 22, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None at all. The first I ever heard of this name was after Oswald shot him, and it came over the TV, that a policeman had been shot near a movie theater. That was the first I had heard that name.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether any of your associates, Schmidt or Burley or Jones, or any persons you have mentioned, knew Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To the best of my knowledge, no.

Mr. JENNER. Did anything occur during all the time you were in Dallas to lead you to believe any of these people, including Mr. Grinnan, for example, had had any connection with or association or knowledge of or acquaintance with Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know. I don't know too much about Joe Grinnan.

Mr. JENNER. Did you at anytime while you were in Dallas ever have a meeting with or sit in the Carousel Club with Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know or do you have any information as to whether any of the associates you have mentioned ever had a meeting with Officer Tippit in the Carousel Club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Or whether or not, irrespective of whether it was a formal meeting or even an informal one, that they were with Officer Tippit at anytime in the Carousel Club.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Absolutely not.

Mr. JENNER. And you were never in the Carousel Club at all; and you never were with Officer Tippit.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Any place.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Any place.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, it has been asserted that a meeting took place on November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit and yourself--and I take it from your testimony that you vigorously deny that that ever took place.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Very definitely. May I say something in relation to this?

Mr. JENNER. Is it pertinent to this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe so. I believe that this is a statement made by Mark Lane, who claimed to be attorney for the deceased Oswald. It was originally made at the Town Hall in New York, and later that same evening, I do not recall the date exactly, on a radio program Contact WINS New York, at about midnight of that same day.

At that time I telephoned the radio station and spoke to Mark Lane. This is the first I had heard of the allegation at all.

Mr. JENNER. You telephoned the radio station?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And you asked for Mr. Lane.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Did the man for whom you asked come to the phone?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he did.

Mr. JENNER. Had you known Mr. Lane prior to this time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never heard of him before.

Mr. JENNER. You had never spoken to him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ask--when there was an answer on the phone, did you ask who it was that was on the phone?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said something to the effect of "Hello, Mr. Lane?"

Mr. JENNER. What did the voice on the other end of the phone say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said yes--yes something.

Mr. JENNER. Did you identify yourself?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Did you identify yourself before or after you asked whether the voice was that of Mr. Lane?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I identified myself--I called the radio station and it was a telephone thing that was broadcast over the air, question and answer--you telephone in a question and he answers. So I telephoned, and just by luck I happened to get through on the first ring. And somebody said, "Who is calling?" I said, "I would like to speak with Mr. Lane. This is Bernard Weissman calling, chairman of the American Fact-Finding Committee." And so I got him on the phone, because they could not pass this up. And I told him, I identified him that "You are the attorney for the assassin Oswald"--this is just what I said to him.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. And he said--he murmured in agreement. He did not say emphatically "Yes; I am." But he said, "Um-hum," something to that effect. And I said, "I know what you are trying to do. I think you are hunting for headlines. But you had been talking to some liar in Dallas who has been feeding you all this baloney about me. You are making all these allegations at the Town Hall and now on radio. And you have never taken the trouble to contact me. My name has been in the paper. It is very well known where I live. I am in the phone book. You could have at least tried to contact me." And I pinned him up against the wall verbally. And he agreed at that time----

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that he had no definite proof, that he would have to check on it.

Mr. JENNER. Proof of what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Proof of the allegations.

Mr. JENNER. Did you mention what the allegation was when you talked with him on the telephone?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "You are alleging that I had a meeting with Patrolman Tippit in Jack Ruby's bar with some unidentified third person about a week before the assassination." I said, "You are going strictly on the story of some liar in Dallas." I said, "If you had any courage or commonsense or really wanted to get at the facts, you would have called and asked me, too." And he agreed, yes, he should have talked to me.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say yes he should have talked to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and that he would also recheck his facts in Dallas. And that ended the essence of the conversation.

Mr. JENNER. Have you exhausted your recollection as to that conversation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. As to that particular conversation; yes.

Mr. JENNER. When you adverted to his assertion in the Town Hall meeting, that you had been present in the Carousel Club in a meeting with Officer Tippit, did you say that you denied that you were ever in the Carousel Club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I denied that; yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was what you said.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "I did not know Lee Harvey Oswald. I did not know Jack Ruby. I have never been in the Carousel Club."

Mr. JENNER. And you said that to him over the telephone on that occasion----

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. What was his response to that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is when he came up with he would have to recheck his facts and he would have to check into it. Subsequently, I had talked to him later that same evening--the show went off at 1 a.m. in the morning. And I had been given a private number to call at the radio station. I talked to him on the telephone.

Mr. JENNER. How did you get that number?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The announcer gave it over the air. And he said, "If you want to speak with Mr. Lane"--because I was getting pretty hot.

Mr. JENNER. You mean angry?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Angry; yes. And he said, "If you want to talk to Mr. Lane call him after the show is over, about 5 after 1." I forget the number of the station. And I telephoned him.

Mr. JENNER. You called the same number again.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You asked for Mr. Lane.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. And somebody responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Mr. Lane got on the wire.

Mr. JENNER. Was it the same voice?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say in the way of acknowledging that it was Mr. Lane?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I went into it again.

Mr. JENNER. Did you say, "Mr. Lane"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the voice's response was what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "Hello, Mr. Lane." And he said--I said, "Hello, Mr. Lane." And he said, "Yes."

"This is Bernie Weissman" or Mr. Weissman. And he said "Yes." And then I reiterated what I had said, and that he had better check his facts--and "I am going to get a hold of some friends in Dallas to check on your witness and find out who he is."

Mr. JENNER. Please identify these people.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I was saying this to Mark Lane. And Mark Lane repeated again----

Mr. JENNER. Please say again what you said to Mr. Lane, and then what his response was, because with the rapidity with which you speak, it is difficult to sort out his words from your words.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well----

Mr. JENNER. It might be well if you started over again. You called the station. You asked for Mr. Lane and a voice responded.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You then said, "Mark Lane"? And he responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, carry on from there.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I told him that he had better check his facts, that he is off on a tangent, that there is absolutely no factual background.

Mr. JENNER. For what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. For him saying, his allegations, that I had had this meeting with Tippit in Ruby's bar.

Mr. JENNER. Did you repeat that again? Did you repeat again that you had not been in the Carousel Club at anytime?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know if I repeated it at that time. I just made a point of saying that he had better check his facts and talk with me also, and get both sides of the story here, before he got himself in trouble. By trouble, I had assumed he knew what I meant--I meant a lawsuit. And I would have sued him, but I could not find a lawyer to handle the case. They said any publicity that comes out of it would be only bad. So I dropped it. Several days later----

Mr. JENNER. Have you finished the conversation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have finished the conversation with him. Several days later I got ahold of his office number.

Mr. JENNER. Would you fix the time of this Town Hall meeting broadcast, as best you can.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am pretty sure it was on the 28th or the morning of the 29th--on the Town Hall thing? That was the afternoon of the 28th of April, I believe. I believe it was April. It was prior to his coming to a hearing here at the Commission. And in any case, I telephoned him several days after our radio and telephone conversation--I telephoned him at his office in Manhattan and got him on the line again. And I said, "Well, what has happened?" I was very curious as to what he had done about this.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you reach him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. At his office in Manhattan. I do not know the address. I had first contacted a law firm he was associated with previously, and they gave me his office number in lower Manhattan. And I telephoned him at his office. The secretary answered, then he got on the line. And he said this time--I don't recall exactly what was said before or after this particular part of the conversation. But I said that I want to meet this guy in Dallas, the one who told him this story and call him a liar to his face, and that I wanted it to be a public meeting, and Mark Lane said he would arrange for a public meeting, he would pay my transportation to Dallas to see this guy as soon as he could arrange a meeting. And I have not heard from him since.

Mr. JENNER. To check that date you gave us again. Mr. Weissman--Mr. Lane appeared before the Commission on Wednesday, March 4, 1964.

Mr. WEISSMAN. March 4? March? I did not think it was that long ago. If he appeared March 4, then the conversation--well, I stand corrected. I am not positive of the month.

Mr. JENNER. It might have been February 28?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It might have been. If it was March 4 he appeared here, it might have been February 28, because there seemed to be several weeks lapse between his coming here----

Mr. JENNER. Are you certain, however, that your telephone conversation with him the evening of the broadcast following the Town Hall meeting was before he appeared before the Commission?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Unless he appeared twice, I am a 100 percent positive.

Mr. JENNER. And from what source did your information come that he had appeared before the Commission?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Newspapers.

Mr. JENNER. I think we can close this. I show you Garner Exhibit No. 1. Did you ever see the person who is shown on that photograph?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 520 and direct your attention to the man in the white tee shirt between the two policemen. Did you ever see him before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Prior to November 22, 1963, had you ever seen him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. And except for these photographs, and whatever newspaper clippings or photos you have seen since November 22, or television shows on or after November 22, have you ever seen that person in the flesh?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any contact with him of any kind?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Telephone calls, letters, memoranda of any kind or character?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, there is correspondence that Mr. Weissman has, and I wonder if it would be convenient with the Commission if we could return at 2:30. In the meantime I will be able to look at some of the material he has to see if any of it is relevant and helpful to the Commission.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to adjourn at this time if we can, because I have a luncheon appointment.

Mr. JENNER. That is what I am suggesting, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Good.

We will adjourn until 2:30.

(Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 2:45 p.m.

(The Chairman and Mr. Dulles being present.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. You may proceed.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice.

Whereupon, Bernard Weissman was recalled as a witness and having been previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, during the luncheon hour Mr. Weissman has afforded us an opportunity to examine some of this correspondence, to which he made reference this morning. I have selected a few of these pieces of correspondence as rounding out the genesis of CUSA and its affiliate, AMBUS, and the infiltration of the rightist organizations in Dallas that the witness described.

I will identify these without reading from them, as some of them are rather lengthy.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. JENNER. First, Mr. Weissman, I have a letter on the letterhead of National Indignation Convention, the top of which has scrawled in ink longhand "Top Secret." It is a five-page longhand letter. At the bottom of each is written the word "Destroy." I have marked an envelope postmarked Dallas, Tex., on November 5, 1962 as Commission Exhibit No. 1048, the first exhibit being identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1047.

(The documents referred to were marked respectively Commission Exhibits Nos. 1047 and 1048 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The envelope is addressed to SP-4 Larry Jones, APO Station 407, New York, N.Y.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the handwriting on the envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is Larrie's.

Mr. JENNER. And the Larry Jones is the man to whom you made reference in your testimony?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, do you recognize that handwriting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It appears to be Larrie's.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And was document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, enclosed in the envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1048?

Mr. DULLES. Is there any signature on those documents?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This page should be last.

Mr. JENNER. On the page which is marked with a circle 7, there appears to be a signature L-a-r-r-i-e. Do you recognize that signature?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is Larrie Schmidt's signature.

Mr. JENNER. How did you come into possession of the documents now identified, one of which was addressed to Larry Jones rather than you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Jones gave it to me.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany.

Mr. JENNER. And when he handed the document to you was Exhibit No. 1047 enclosed in Exhibit No. 1048?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next is a three-page letter dated Dallas, Tex., January 4, 1963, typewritten, addressed to "Dear Bernie." Is that you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1040.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1040 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. It is signed in typing "Larrie."

A document of five pages marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 on the first page of which appears the signature Larrie H. Schmidt.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize that signature?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Whose is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt's.

Mr. JENNER. The last of this series of letter-sized papers is a five-page document titled "A Code of Conduct for Members of Conservatism U.S.A." which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I understand that these three documents that I have now identified were enclosed in an envelope which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1043, in the upper left-hand corner, L. H. Schmidt, 5417b Lewis Street, Dallas 6, Tex., addressed to Private First Class Bernie Weissman. Is that you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is me.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1043 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. That is postmarked Dallas, January 4, 1963.

Did you receive the documents, now identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1040, 1041, 1042, and 1043?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, I did.

Mr. JENNER. Were the first of those three--were the first three of those exhibits I have named enclosed in the document identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1043?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I have already identified the signature.

These documents relate to the development of and plans for CUSA, do they not?

Mr. WEISSMAN. They do.

Mr. JENNER. And the conduct of CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next two documents, a three-page letter typed on the top "Headquarters Conservatism U.S.A.," dated February 2, 1963, at Dallas, Tex., 5417b Lewis Street, which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1049.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1049 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. This is addressed "To All Members." It is signed in typing "Sincerely, Larrie." Have you seen that document before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. And was it enclosed in an envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was.

Mr. JENNER. Was it sent to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. Is that document the envelope Commission Exhibit No. 1050?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1050 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. There is handwriting on the face of Exhibit No. 1050. Whose handwriting is that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is mine.

Mr. JENNER. Read it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. "Meeting with Bob Morris. Infiltration of YAF by CUSA."

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Commission, the three-page document relates to a meeting held in the home of Dr. Morris. Is that Dr. Robert Morris?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right, of Dallas, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. Which recounts the plans for infiltration of conservative groups in Dallas, Tex., upon which the witness has somewhat expanded in his testimony this morning.

Mr. DULLES. Has the witness indicated who Mr. Bob Morris was? I don't recall that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bob Morris at that time was president of the Defenders of American Liberties in Dallas, Tex., and recently was a candidate for political office in Dallas.

Mr. DULLES. What office?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe he was running in the primary for Senator.

Mr. JENNER. U.S. Senate.

Mr. WEISSMAN. U.S. Senator.

Mr. JENNER. I just want to be sure I have covered this. You received both of the documents now marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1050 and 1049 in due course through the U.S. mail at your station in Munich, Germany?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. The next series is--consists of a two-page letter which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044, addressed to "Dear Bernie" at Dallas, Tex., on June 13, 1963, also signed in typing "Best, Larrie." That is again Larrie Schmidt, is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. That document was enclosed in what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In this envelope here.

Mr. JENNER. And the envelope is marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. For the purposes of the record, Commission Exhibit No. 1046 is an envelope postmarked at Dallas, Tex., on June 14, 1963. The envelope is imprinted with "Young Americans for Freedom. Inc., Southwestern U.S. Regional Headquarters, P.O. Box 2364, Dallas 21, Texas," and addressed to Pfc. Bernie Weissman. That is you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was there anything else enclosed in an envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe it was this.

Mr. JENNER. A newspaper clipping from the Dallas Morning News which has been marked and identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1045. Is that right?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1045 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The caption of this reads "Panel Reports Birch Society Dedicated But Not Dangerous."

Those three documents were received by you from Larrie Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. The third from the last of this series, a letter dated at Dallas, Tex., June 2, 1963, addressed to "Dear Bernie," Commission Exhibit No. 1037. Also in typing "Larrie." Who is that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. There is some handwriting at the bottom of that letter--do you recognize it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is Larrie Schmidt's.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive that document?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I did.

Mr. JENNER. And was the handwriting on the document when you received it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. Was it enclosed in an envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. You received the mail, then.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In the envelope I now show you marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-A?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-A for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Addressed to you. Was there something further enclosed with those?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think this piece.

Mr. JENNER. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. This is a handbill of Young Americans For Freedom, Inc.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. You received all three documents I have now identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1037, 1037-A, and 1037-B in due course through the U.S. mail.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Next to the last of this series is a letter, single page marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038, dated June 26, 1963, at Dallas, Tex., addressed to "Dear Bernie" signed again in typewriting as "Larrie." Have you seen that document before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first see it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. When I received it in the mail.

Mr. JENNER. I show you an envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A.

(The document was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Is that envelope the envelope in which Commission Exhibit No. 1038 was enclosed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and as a reference, the handwriting on the outside of these envelopes on this and the other exhibits that refer to the contents were put on by me about a week ago, so I could identify it.

Mr. JENNER. Please read what you have written on the face of Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A.

Mr. WEISSMAN. "Ready to take over YAF. Jones in Dallas. Ducharme Club."

Mr. JENNER. And that Ducharme Club is the club, the private club, semi-private club in Dallas that you mentioned in your testimony this morning.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Lastly, a single-page exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 1039, dated at Munich, Germany, on July 31, 1963.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1039 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. This purports to be a copy of a letter apparently from you to Larrie Schmidt, is that correct, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. And this is a carbon copy of the actual letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Did you mail the original of this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I did.

Mr. JENNER. To whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

Mr. JENNER. On or about the date this letter bears?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. DULLES. What date is that?

Mr. JENNER. July 21, 1963.

On Commission Exhibit No. 1043, which is the envelope which enclosed several other exhibits, there is some handwriting. It that yours?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. "Membership List 1962. Code of Conduct and Introduction to CUSA. Ultimatum."

Mr. JENNER. And that is a shorthand description or summary of the contents of the envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. On Commission Exhibit No. 1048, which is also an envelope, there appears to be written on the face "NIC Infiltration." Whose handwriting it that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's mine.

Mr. JENNER. And you put it on there under the circumstances you have now related?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, I will show you Commission Exhibit No. 996. Have you ever seen a counterpart of that exhibit which is entitled "Wanted for Treason"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never directly.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about your first acquaintance with that, with the circumstances, if you know, of how it came into existence, and who had anything to do with it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I can only go by hearsay on this--what I have seen and what I have heard from other individuals.

Mr. JENNER. Did this come to your attention before November 22, 1963, or after?

Mr. WEISSMAN. After.

Mr. JENNER. Tell what you know, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I had heard that these handbills were distributed somewhere in North Dallas, I believe, on the university campus I believe it was, the University of Dallas campus.

Mr. JENNER. From what source did you hear this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Now, I think it was--I am not sure--I think it might have been Larrie or his brother Bob. I am not sure. Larrie declaimed any knowledge of this. I know he had nothing to do with this particular handbill.

Mr. JENNER. How do you know that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He would have told me.

Mr. JENNER. That's the basis for your supposition?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and I saw this handbill, or something similar to it, in the back of a station wagon used by Larrie's brother Bob in transporting----

Mr. JENNER. When?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was several days after the assassination. There was one crumpled up in the back. And I happened to look through the window and see it. This was in front of the Ducharme Club, as a matter of fact. It was one night. And I saw this. And I saw something "Treason"--I had heard about the handbills.

Mr. JENNER. From whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me?

Mr. JENNER. From whom, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think it was Larrie. I cannot be hundred percent sure. I did not take too much interest in it at the time. But in any case, I did see something resembling this, only it seemed to be a larger picture of President Kennedy. But in any case, it was in the back of a station wagon owned by General Walker, Edwin Walker, or by what--if incorporated, by the corporation he is with, chairman of.

Mr. JENNER. How did you know that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I know that Bob was General Walker's chauffeur, and by seeing this crumpled up in the back, behind the front seat on the floor of the car, I naturally assumed that it had something to do with General Walker. Exactly what or how, or if he had distributed it, I have no idea. I do not have the faintest idea. I did not go into it any further, because I felt that everything was past, and I was leaving Dallas anyway. I had made up my mind.

(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. When you say you had heard about this matter, that is the handbill, or handbill similar to it, had you heard about that before November 22, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not to my recollection, no.

Mr. JENNER. Shortly after that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And before you left Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have anything to do with the bringing into existence of this or similar handbills?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None; none whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Other than the possibility of Bob Schmidt having something to do with them under the circumstances you have related, did any others of your group have anything to do with creating this type of literature and distribution of handbills?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the names of those people who were in on it?

Mr. JENNER. On the handbill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted at any time with Robert A. Surrey?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. With Robert G. Klause?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. With J. T. Monk?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted at any time with the Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any materials printed--and when I say you, I mean you or your group--while you were in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. I personally have no knowledge of anything being printed.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I have not.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of Ashland Frederick Birchwell?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Or have any contact with him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. I guess I must have met two or three dozen people. For example, when we went up to Joe Grinnan's office at various times, we would come down and eat in the cafeteria, and there would be somebody sitting with him, and there would be introductions. I never remembered their names, because it was just in passing. I never had any personal contact, really.

Mr. JENNER. Did you meet General Walker at any time while you were in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never did.

Mr. JENNER. Did you meet anybody or know anybody by the name of Mercer?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. While you were in Dallas--Mrs. Clifford or Dorothy Mercer?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Or Mr. Clifford Mercer?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not.

Mr. JENNER. Among the exhibits we have identified this afternoon is a list of members. Those were the members of CUSA as of that particular time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the changes in membership you have recounted in your testimony this morning, is that correct, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am sorry--I knew I had left something out of one of those. I do not know which exhibit is. But it is the one that says----

Mr. JENNER. I will hand them back to you, and you can tell me.

You now have in your hand a sheet of paper.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it that sheet of paper came from one of the envelopes we have already marked?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This one here.

Mr. JENNER. The answer is yes?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I will mark this sheet as Commission Exhibit No. 1051.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1051 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us in what envelope Commission Exhibit No. 1051 was enclosed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1043.

Mr. JENNER. And what is Commission Exhibit No. 1051?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1051 was a current membership list as of about January 4, 1963. If you like, I can go over this and tell you who was in no way really associated with it at the time or active.

Mr. DULLES. Membership in CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In CUSA, yes. It lists Larrie Schmidt, Larry C. Jones, Bernie Weissman, Norman Baker, James Moseley as partners. Members as Ken Glazbrook, Bob Weiss, who was not active after about--at about the time this was printed--these men dropped from the active list. Herb Starr was not active. Chuck McLain was not active. Richard Harsch was not active. Hank Tanaro was not active. Sheila McDonald was not active. And the rest of the list were active in one form or another--some to a much lesser degree than the others.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the 50-odd responses that you received to Commission Exhibit No. 1031, when you went to the post office box on the following Sunday, the 24th of November 1963, did you recognize the names of any of the persons who responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None--none at all.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any response from Jack Ruby?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not under his name.

Mr. JENNER. And you say about a third of those responses were favorable and two-thirds unfavorable.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Insofar as the questions asked on Exhibit--Commission Exhibit No. 1031 are concerned?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. When you said there was no letter in the box under the name of Jack Ruby does that infer that there was one by any other name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, to put it very exact, if I did receive a letter from Jack Ruby, I have no knowledge of it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. JENNER. And apart from--I asked you also the general question whether you recognized any names. I would like to add to that--did you recognize in reading over any of those letters or responses any persons, regardless of what name was signed to the document?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. During the noon recess I have had the witness read through an interview with him by the FBI on the 5th of December 1963. You have read that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. Does that accurately reflect the interview which the FBI had with you on that day?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It does. The only variance you might find is that at the time I had the interview with the FBI, I did not develop the CUSA story with them. And they did not press the issue, and I did not go into it.

Mr. JENNER. But it does accurately reflect what took place during the course of that interview.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. What you said--it reports it accurately.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; very accurately.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I was using this method in order to shorten the balance of Mr. Weissman's testimony. There are many details here that I wanted to spare the Commission.

I will mark that with the next exhibit number, Commission Exhibit No. 1052.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1052 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence the exhibits which have been identified--I will read the exhibit numbers. Commission Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052, both inclusive, with some of the envelopes designated with subletters A, and one of the other documents designated with the subletter B. I ask that those exhibits be admitted in evidence with the exhibit numbers which appear on them, each of which has been recited in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under those numbers.

(The documents referred to, heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052 inclusive, were received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. I have no further questions of the witness. Mr. Flannery, do you have anything?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

Mr. DULLES. Just one general question. From the questions which have been addressed to you, Mr. Weissman, you have a general idea of what the Commission, the area of search of the Commission is so far as you are concerned.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Did anything occur to you of any significance which you could add or would like to add to the answers you have made to the questions you have already given?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me, please. There is just one thing but it is a question of--it is not a positive identification or anything like that. But on the day I went to the post office to pick up the mail there was a gentleman waiting, observing the box, the post office box in the Dallas post office. Now, Bill Burley was waiting in my car outside, driving around the block because the traffic was quite heavy. I went in with Ken Glazbrook, who had just come to Dallas about a day or so before by bus from the East Coast. He got off a freighter from Sweden. And this individual seemed to be about--I would put him at about 60 years old. And I thought about it since. And I said that might have been Jack Ruby, because he was short enough to be. But my recollection of the individual that followed me, when we subsequently lost in the crowd, and jumped into the car and took off, was that one time not more than 3 feet away from me--though I did not stare into his face, because I did not know if this fellow was going to shoot me or say something.

Mr. JENNER. You were then frightened; were you not?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. And we went across through traffic and up a street and down a street and lost this individual and jumped into the car and took off back to the apartment. And to this day I do not know whether it was Ruby--because frankly my recollection of the individual on the pictures I have seen of Ruby in the newspapers, they do not seem to jibe--just the size. This fellow was about 5 foot 6 or so. He was wearing tan clothing with a Stetson hat, a tan Stetson hat.

Mr. JENNER. A typical Texas western hat, sometimes called a 10-gallon hat?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. And this is about the only thing else I have to add.

Mr. JENNER. Did he follow you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He followed us from the box down the steps of the post office to the traffic light. We crossed the street, he walked up the other side of the street adjacent to the post office, directly opposite us. And we were going halfway up and he started to cross the corner. We quickly ran back to the corner, across which we came. At that time Bill had come around the corner in the car, he knew nothing about it, we jumped in, sat down low and went in a straight line, made the turn and went back to the apartment. And I have never seen the individual since.

Mr. DULLES. This post office box from which you were taking the mail, was that box the one that was advertised in the paper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. So that the number of that box was known.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. This individual was obviously waiting for me. I did not see him. Ken pointed him out to me. We expected possibly some sort of trouble there. And Ken was walking about 6 feet to the right of me, on another side of the post office tables that are in the middle of the aisle. So if I got in any difficulty he would be there to help. And he noticed this individual and pointed him out to me. And this fellow just followed us right out, and that was that.

Mr. DULLES. As I recall, you fixed the time when you went to the mail box as probably sometime Sunday morning.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Can you be any more definite as to the time Sunday morning when you were there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am almost 100 percent sure it was between 8 and 9 o'clock.

Mr. DULLES. In the morning?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper, have you any questions?

Senator COOPER. What age did the man seem to be?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About 60.

Senator COOPER. I have two or three other questions.

Did your organization, CUSA, ever consider violence as a means to reaching its objectives?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This had been--I don't remember exactly. It had been hashed over in skull sessions, so many things come up, and you talk about it and throw it away. These things did come up over the year or so that I was involved in it in Munich, and thrown out. No. In schedules that we had made up, we figured probable political happenings over a period of years, and we took into account there might be a war for example in 1968 or 1970 or 1972, and what would happen before or after, or who would probably be President at that time, and the type of action America would take. But it had never gone any further than a lot of supposition.

Senator COOPER. Did you consider the advertisements in the paper there as possibly inciting to violence under the circumstances?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not.

Senator COOPER. Was that considered at all?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not. At least not by me. And nobody ever mentioned it.

Senator COOPER. This group of men that you have named, of which you were one, who formed this CUSA with objectives, both political and business you said?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Was there any background of writings or theory of any kind upon which you depended? Where did it come from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Let's see. You are putting me in sort of a box but I will answer you. We read, for example--for example, I did not know I was a conservative until I got to Germany. I just knew how I felt. But I never identified myself with any particular political leaning. I thought I was a Democrat, an independent voter and independent thinker. For example, I voted for Kennedy in 1960 and I would have voted against him in 1964. But this is neither here nor there.

We were asked--not asked--we had a list of required reading. In other words, if you are going to expound the conservative philosophy we figured you should know something about it, a little bit of the background, aside from your own personal feelings. So we read, for example--I didn't--I never did find the time to do it--some of the fellows read "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, one or two books that Barry Goldwater had written, and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, which I did not read.

Mr. JENNER. Did the others read them?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I guess Larrie read them, because he suggested these. There were many times when I said yes--I yessed him to death, and did as I pleased. And this is one of the cases.

Senator COOPER. That was about the extent of your reading background?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not completely. In other words, I cannot point to any specific volumes that I read for the specific purpose of giving me a certain background. In other words, I am motivated personally by my own feelings in the situation, and the particular dogma that you might read in a book does not interest me too much.

Senator COOPER. As one of your aims, did you have the purpose of making some money out of this movement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Out of the movement itself, no. Out of the business, yes. Because I think it would be foolish to go on the premise that if we would devote ourselves a hundred percent to politics that we could make money at it, because there are laws against it, and in order to survive while you are in politics, you have to have a business interest, managed by yourself part time or by others full time, that can support you while you devote yourself to politics.

Senator COOPER. Was this business interest to be these organizations which you were going to infiltrate and whose treasuries you might capture?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Senator COOPER. Or was it to be--you hoped to develop businesses because of your political influence; is that it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; to put it straight on the record, we had discussed this, and what we would do if we came into any of the treasuries of these organizations. We felt that you can incur a lot of legal problems if you are caught taking funds, tax-free funds, and using it for personal gain and so forth. I am sure there are laws against it. Exactly which ones, I do not know. I am sure there are laws against it.

And so we felt there is nothing wrong, and it is done occasionally in government, where occasionally you would use--you would meet someone politically--because generally these are more affluent individuals, people in politics. By dint of their drive they have acquired property or moneys, et cetera. And these individuals might be willing to invest some of their capital in some up-and-coming young businessmen, young politicians. And we had hoped to get some money this way. Plus the fact, by using our heads, by setting up businesses on our own that would support us in the political goal.

Senator COOPER. Did you study methods of propaganda?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Study methods of propaganda? No; we had discussed ways of bringing about recruitment and so forth, in the way of pamphlets, or things of that nature, but this never got out of the talking stage itself. As a matter of fact----

Senator COOPER. You felt the way to move into political life quickly was to get into these extreme organizations which do use a great deal of propaganda, and are against things?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; in general, we thought these organizations because they grew so quickly, would be relatively unorganized and easy to infiltrate, and this proves to be quite true. They were more or less autonomous within their own regions, and they did not have a national director keeping tabs on everything they did.

I have something here that was made up. It is just a list. I just happened to remember. Publicity tactics, for example--rallies, hangings--these are effigies, I would imagine--demonstrations, picketing, sit-downs, stickers, billboards, boycotts, lectures, songfests, talkathons, telephone campaigns, door-to-door campaigns. Publicity--letters, brochures, pamphlets, booklets, stationery, flags, songs, emblems on blazers, stickers, match covers, billboards, radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, streetcars, taxicabs. Fund-raising would be personal solicitation, get firms to do things free for us, parties, teas, bridges, lectures, assessments, dues, sale of books, pins, buttons, stationery, flags, emblems, match covers, brochures, and pamphlets. That is it.

Mr. JENNER. That was your program?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was our advertising program; yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Some of these activities are certainly activities carried on by political parties. But did it ever occur to you that some of the activities which you planned, in fact which you undertook, such as infiltration into an organization, to try to seize control of it, and these methods that you used--do you consider that as in the regular spirit of our system of government?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say this, sir.

Senator COOPER. Democratic system you spoke of?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a question of doing something like that, or absolutely nothing at all, never getting off the ground. And while my belief would say no, of course not, this is not the way you do it, this is not the way it should be done, but it was expedient at the time to do this. And plus the fact that you certainly could not make these organizations any worse than they were. And as far as I felt, if we could bring them around to our way of thinking or my way of thinking, we could have brought them around to where they were more beneficial to the country rather than detrimental.

Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed on the list that you had there of techniques was hangings. Now, you said--you added to that, I think, that that meant hanging in effigy, you assumed. Is that right?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am 100 percent sure, Your Honor, that that is what it meant. In other words, this was just ways to attract attention, and the college students are doing it all the time. It was just sort of tossing it all in a pot and then putting it down on paper.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not provocative to violence?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I think in the context that we meant it, that it was just another way of getting possibly some publicity--like if students in a university do not like their professor, for example, or if they win a football game, they will hang the opposing team in effigy, or the captain, or what have you. And it attracts a certain amount of publicity and talk.

We had to gain recognition in order to accomplish some of the goals that I had stated previously. And this is just another way. In this case, you have to consider us as young men, and effigy hanging, you know, is just part of a young idea.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Weissman. You may be excused. And Mr. Flannery, thank you very much for your cooperation.

If there are any questions you would like to ask, you may feel free to do so now.

Mr. FLANNERY. I have nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(At this point in the hearing, Chairman Warren left the hearing room and the witness Robert G. Klause entered.)

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. KLAUSE

Mr. DULLES. Would you kindly raise your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You are Robert G. Klause?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you appear here voluntarily today?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I reached Mr. Klause in Dallas yesterday afternoon. He had just returned from a 2-week vacation. He volunteered to come. The Secret Service got him on a plane with but minutes to spare, and no baggage. This he did to accommodate the Commission.

Mr. Klause is here to testify with respect to the genesis and dissemination of the "Wanted For Treason" handbill, Commission Exhibit No. 996.

Mr. DULLES. Proceed, please.

Mr. JENNER. Your age, please?

Mr. KLAUSE. 32.

Mr. JENNER. You are a married man?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were born and reared in this country?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Likewise your wife?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your parents?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you reside in Texas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. KLAUSE. Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. What address?

Mr. KLAUSE. 1126 South Waverly.

Mr. JENNER. And what is the name of your mother?

Mr. KLAUSE. Dorothy Anna Mercer.

Mr. JENNER. And is she engaged in a printing business in Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. She and her husband?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is her husband's first name? Clifford?

Mr. KLAUSE. Clifford; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are you employed in their business?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that is located where?

Mr. KLAUSE. 2615 Oak Lawn, Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. And how long have you been employed in the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. I would say approximately about a year and a half. I think we have been open about a year and a half, it might be going on 2 years.

Mr. JENNER. And tell us what the nature of that printing company is.

Mr. KLAUSE. Offset lithography, letterheads, statements, envelopes, things like that.

Mr. JENNER. Is it a small house?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you employed theretofore by a different printing company?

Mr. KLAUSE. Sir?

Mr. JENNER. Were you formerly employed by another printing company in Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that was Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Johnson Printing Co.; yes, sir. With several other companies in town.

Mr. JENNER. I see. And where is Johnson Printing Co. located?

Mr. KLAUSE. I think it is the 2700 block of Haskell in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with Robert A. Surrey while you were employed at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Had you known him before that?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I show you a document which has been identified and admitted in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 996. The particular document I show you is a Xerox reproduction of the original exhibit.

Did you play some part in producing the original, the original copy and materials from which the Exhibit No. 996 I show you was prepared?

Mr. KLAUSE. I am not too sure what you mean but as far as laying--laying the job out, no, sir. Now, like I said, I ran the job. I shot the negatives.

Mr. JENNER. Perhaps we can get at it this way, sir. When first did you have any connection with this matter?

Mr. KLAUSE. Approximately, I would say, a month before President Kennedy came to town.

Mr. JENNER. How did that arise?

Mr. KLAUSE. Mr. Surrey called on me and asked me if I would run a job.

Mr. JENNER. You say he called on you. Where were you when he called on you?

Mr. KLAUSE. I believe I was at the shop. In fact, I know I was at the shop. He must have called me at the shop.

Mr. JENNER. When you say shop, you mean the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He came to Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; he called.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. KLAUSE. He said that he had a little job he would like to have run, and would I run it myself?

Mr. JENNER. And you responded?

Mr. KLAUSE. I said yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did he come over to your shop?

Mr. KLAUSE. Mr. Jenner, to be honest with you, really I do not remember now. I might have gone out, or he might have come over. To be perfectly honest, right at the present time I do not remember.

Mr. JENNER. Did I understand you to say that you said to him you would run it yourself?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You mean by that something distinct from or having Lettercraft Printing Co. run it?

Mr. KLAUSE. He asked me if I was interested in doing a little job on the side, and I said yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By "on the side," does that mean that you were going to do some reproduction printing for him, other than as a job for the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. You see, I have my own shop.

Mr. JENNER. You do?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where is that located?

Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, I operate out of my house. But I have always had my own shop. I mean I have two or three little insert accounts that I do, and a couple of beauty suppliers. They will come in and want 500 letterheads. For a long time, when I was out of work, I went out and solicited work door to door. Then I would job them out to other printers. And then when I could get my hands on a press, I would run them myself.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mr. Surrey aware of this practice?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I am sure he was.

Mr. JENNER. And he proposed to you at the outset that you do it "on the side"?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you met with Mr. Surrey after this telephone call?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether it was at your home or whether it was at the Lettercraft Co. or some other place?

Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, like I say, Mr. Jenner, I am not real sure. I do not know whether it was out at--I am pretty sure it was not at the shop. And Mr. Surrey has never been to my house. And so it must have been out.

Mr. JENNER. Now, there are two reproductions of President Kennedy, a profile and a front view. Did you prepare the plates from which those profiles were made?

Mr. KLAUSE. By preparing the plates--the only thing that I actually did is--either it was two newspaper clippings or magazine clippings.

Mr. JENNER. From whom did you receive the magazine clippings?

Mr. KLAUSE. From Mr. Surrey.

Mr. JENNER. They were slick paper magazine clippings?

Mr. KLAUSE. Something on a slick paper basis; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That contained the front and profile of President Kennedy, which is reproduced on Commission Exhibit No. 996?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, what did you do with those two slick magazine reproductions of President Kennedy's head?

Mr. KLAUSE. Well, I tried to shoot them, and I could not shoot them. We have our own camera. We take a picture of it--reproduce it.

Mr. JENNER. You must assume that none of us is experienced in the printing business. And when you say "shoot"----

Mr. KLAUSE. I will explain myself more carefully. When they were brought to me----

Mr. JENNER. By Mr. Surrey?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. Then I tried to make negatives of them----

Mr. JENNER. Negatives on film?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; on film.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. KLAUSE. I could not do it. When I take a picture of copy, on most of your offset or lithography work, you have dot patterns. And when I would try to use my camera, the dot patterns would kind of blur, and you could not see what it was. It was just a big blur. So I sent the negatives of the two pictures downtown, down to Monk Brothers Lithography Service downtown, which shoots nothing but negatives.

Mr. JENNER. That is J. T. Monk?

Mr. KLAUSE. Tommy Monk, of Monk Bros.

Mr. JENNER. J. T. Monk is the father, and Tommy Monk, or J. T. Monk, Jr., is the son.

Mr. KLAUSE. The only person I know down there is Tommy.

Mr. JENNER. He is a young man?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; Tommy I have known 12 or 13 years. He is somewhere around 50, 55, probably.

Mr. JENNER. Is he the apparent owner or manager at least of this----

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is it a lithography company?

Mr. KLAUSE. Well, it is a negative service. In other words, what they do is supply the printers with blanks, and ink, and ink knives, different fountain solutions, things like that, for the press, and also they have their own cameras. They have probably two $15,000 or $20,000 cameras there. And, of course, they can produce work from their cameras I cannot touch on my little camera, or our camera at the shop.

Mr. JENNER. So you took the two magazine pictures of President Kennedy to Monk Bros.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. For the purpose of having Monk Bros. make negatives, film negatives of them?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Which in turn were to be employed to do what?

Mr. KLAUSE. To be employed to be run on this job. I mean it was part of this piece right here.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recall what the charge was by Monk Bros. for that service?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I think it was around three and a half, four and a half, something like that.

Mr. JENNER. Did you pay in cash?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you paid in cash because you did not want it charged to Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I originally had a charge account at Monk Bros. But I still owe a little on my bill down there; and at the time I just rather had paid for it. Not knowing what the job was then anyway--I mean when I go down there and buy supplies for myself, since--I owe the man money, I try whatever I can to pay for, because I have got a pretty nice little bill down there now, and I do not want to run it up any higher.

Mr. JENNER. When you received the negatives, then what did you do with the negatives?

Mr. KLAUSE. Well, the bottom part was shot, or picture was made with the camera at our shop; and then I stripped the negative in. In other words, I put the two top pieces, the picture and the bottom part together. And then made a plate on it.

Mr. JENNER. Made a plate from those negatives?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In turn to be employed in printing the handbill?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When you received those negatives, did you again communicate with Mr. Surrey?

Mr. KLAUSE. I do not believe I understand what you mean, Mr. Jenner.

Mr. JENNER. After you obtained usable negatives from Monk Bros., did you advise Mr. Surrey that you now had obtained those usable negatives and would be able to proceed with the job?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Had Mr. Surrey advised you as to how many he wished of these handbills?

Mr. KLAUSE. Approximately--he said approximately 6,000, 7,000.

Mr. JENNER. You made a plate from which the front and profile of President Kennedy as appears on Exhibit No. 996 was made?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, there is copy below the profile and front view, as you will notice on the exhibit before you. From what source did you receive that copy?

Mr. KLAUSE. That copy came, sir; as was--just approximately about the way it is here. I do not know whether it was typed on--I do not know that much about a Varitypewriter. Or it might have been letterpress. Somebody might have set it up letterpress or Linotype, and ran a press proof; I do not know.

Mr. JENNER. From whom did you receive that press-proof copy?

Mr. KLAUSE. I received all the copy from Mr. Surrey.

Mr. JENNER. And the copy, then, as you received it from Mr. Surrey, which is in turn reflected on Commission Exhibit No. 996, was in the form at that time, when you received it from Mr. Surrey, that it now appears in on Commission Exhibit No. 996?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. How did you reproduce it onto the handbill?

Mr. KLAUSE. Well, this was run offset, like I said, all of it was put on film. Then it was burnt into what we call a metal plate, which we expose to light. It is a light-sensitive plate, and any time light hits it, where you have clear spots on your film, that image of the light will burn into your plate. When you process the plate out, you come up with a developer, which brings the image out. Then once you put that plate on the press, that image will pick up type.

Mr. JENNER. When did Mr. Surrey bring you that copy with respect to the time when he brought the two slick magazine reproductions of President Kennedy's profile and front views?

Mr. KLAUSE. I believe it was all at the same time. This was--the pictures were the only thing I even took out of the envelope at one time. The rest of it I did not even bother to look at.

Mr. JENNER. Who, if anybody, assisted you in printing up the handbills?

Mr. KLAUSE. Nobody.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Klause did not help you?

Mr. KLAUSE. She was in front of the shop. In fact, I do not even think she ever came back.

Mr. JENNER. When you say shop are you talking now of your own shop in your home or the shop at Lettercraft?

Mr. KLAUSE. Lettercraft.

Mr. JENNER. So the handbills were actually printed by you in the Lettercraft Printing Co. shop?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; after hours.

Mr. JENNER. After you had--how many did you print, if you recall?

Mr. KLAUSE. I would say, Mr. Jenner, approximately 5,000--5,200, 5,300.

Mr. JENNER. What did you do with them after you printed them?

Mr. KLAUSE. I put them in a box. In fact, I did not even wrap them. I just stuck them in a box. And I contacted Mr. Surrey the next day.

Mr. JENNER. And now, give us your recollection as to when you made contact with Mr. Surrey--with particular reference to November 22, 1963.

Mr. KLAUSE. I would say, sir; it was approximately 2 or 2-1/2 weeks before Mr. Kennedy was in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. That would be the early part of November 1963?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; as close as I can remember right now.

Mr. JENNER. Did you deliver the 5,000 plus handbills personally to Mr. Surrey?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And where did that delivery take place?

Mr. KLAUSE. Now, that I do remember. That was about 5 blocks approximately from the shop. It was--from Lettercraft. It was a little cafe there which we call the Waffle Shop. It is the Pal's Waffle Shop.

Mr. JENNER. Did you make--I take it then you made arrangements with Mr. Surrey to meet him at Pal's Waffle Shop, rather than he come to the Lettercraft Printing Co.

Mr. KLAUSE. I called him and told him that they were ready, and he said, "Where can I meet you?" and I was getting ready to go to lunch at the time anyway. I believe it was lunch or coffee. I said, "I'm getting ready to go out for coffee. I am going to go up about 5 blocks up the street to the Waffle Shop." He said, "I'll meet you there, then."

Mr. JENNER. Did Mrs. Klause accompany you?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; she was at work.

Mr. JENNER. Anybody accompany you?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You met Mr. Surrey at the Pal's Waffle Shop?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You delivered him all of the handbills you had printed up?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What color were those?

Mr. KLAUSE. The handbills were run on what we call assorted dodger stock--green and orange and blue and yellow. It is a cheap colored newspaper print is what it is.

Mr. JENNER. From where did you obtain the assorted dodger stock?

Mr. KLAUSE. Olmstead Kirk Paper Co.

Mr. JENNER. Did you make it as an individual purchase or was that a purchase on behalf of the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No; that was my own purchase.

Mr. JENNER. You purchased that and paid for it in cash?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, were you paid for this work you did for Mr. Surrey?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And what did he pay you?

Mr. KLAUSE. I think it was $40, Mr. Jenner. In fact, I am almost positive.

Mr. JENNER. Was it in cash?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When next did you see Mr. Surrey after you had delivered the handbills to him?

Mr. KLAUSE. I would say approximately 2 or 3 weeks after Mr. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. So I take it then you had no contact with Mr. Surrey of any kind or character from the day you delivered the 5,000 plus handbills to him in Pal's Waffle Shop until some 2 weeks after President Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963.

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

Mr. JENNER. That whole time span was a month to 5 weeks?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; and then at that time I called Mr. Surrey myself personally.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mr. KLAUSE. Like I said, I have two or three accounts, and I had one job that I could not run, it was a big job. A lot of printers will work with other printers in jobbing out work. I took this job and jobbed it out--Mr. Surrey jobbed it out to Johnson, and let Johnson run it. And I in turn paid Bob for the job, when the people paid me, and I delivered the job, and I made a commission off of it.

Mr. JENNER. On that occasion when you saw Mr. Surrey, did you have a conversation--did you have any conversation with him with respect to the dodger or handbill, Commission Exhibit No. 996?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I imagine there was. I cannot exactly say what it is now. But I imagine there was something said--because I was quite upset about it at the time.

Mr. JENNER. The FBI interviewed you about this incident, did they not?

Mr. KLAUSE. The Secret Service did; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And when you were first interviewed, you did not disclose to the Secret Service the facts with respect to Mr. Surrey delivering this material to you and your having printed it for him, delivered it to him, and he paying you?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; nothing at all.

Mr. JENNER. What led you to do that, Mr. Klause?

Mr. KLAUSE. Well, I started thinking about it, and then the folks were getting real upset about it, because I had put them in a jam, which it was my own fault.

Mr. JENNER. When you say folks, you mean your mother and stepfather?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; and I mean I like to help friends as much as I can, and be good to people as much as I can. But people in my family are going to come closer than my friends are.

Mr. JENNER. You finally decided to reveal the full facts respecting this handbill?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you did so to the Secret Service?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Surrey approach you at any time to suggest to you that you should not reveal the source of this handbill?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I talked to him--I believe it was probably a couple of days after the Secret Service was out. And I told him those people were wanting to know things--I mean doing their job, that they wanted to find something out.

I said this is strictly out of my territory--I did not know what I was supposed to do. And he said, well, I could either get myself a lawyer or just not say anything at all.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever tell him you made up your mind you were going to tell the full facts about this matter?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; not really. I think in so many words he might have understood that I was.

Mr. JENNER. Did he ever make a remark to you, "Well, that is the way the ball bounces."

Mr. KLAUSE. It sounds like--it seems to ring a bell, but I cannot place it.

Mr. JENNER. Was that not in fact said by him in connection with your telling him that you had reached the conclusion that you had to tell the full facts about this matter?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I believe so.

Mr. JENNER. Does that refresh your recollection?

Mr. KLAUSE. The ball bounces--yes, sir--that rings a bell now.

Mr. JENNER. Up to November 22, 1963, had you ever heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever seen anybody up to that day who purported to be or whom you were advised was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I show you Garner Exhibit No. 1. Did you ever see that man prior to November 22, 1963?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. The only time I seen this man was on television and in the paper.

Mr. JENNER. You mean on or after November 22, 1963?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 520, and direct your attention to the center figure appearing on that photograph. Did you ever see that man prior to November 22, 1963?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Surrey as to the purpose for which the handbill was to be put?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When you read this copy, did that not alarm you or upset you? It is rather provocative, is it not, and it has a title "Wanted for Treason."

Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, Mr. Jenner, I did not even pay any attention to the copy at all. It was late at night at the time I ran it. I did not pay any attention to it at all--which I should have done, I admit now. But I did not.

Mr. JENNER. You were running it at night because you were doing this on the side?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You do have some printing equipment in your own apartment or home?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. Not at my house; no, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You used the equipment of the Lettercraft Printing Co., did you?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you did this at night because you were doing it on the side with the Lettercraft Printing Co. equipment?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you advise your mother or your stepfather you were doing this?

Mr. KLAUSE. Now, let me explain this to you. When they opened the shop up I started to work for approximately $35 a week, and what few accounts I had, I turned over to the shop, and there was a couple of little accounts, like friends of mine that I ran around with, rode motorcycles with and things like that, that I kept for myself. And I mean that was my spending money. And they made the understanding--we made the understanding, when the shop was opened, that whatever little jobs like that that I had, I could do on the side at night--as long as it did not interfere with work during the day.

Mr. JENNER. Did you tell your mother or stepfather that you had done this work?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you tell them eventually?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. They found out about it eventually?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You kept the money, did you?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know General Edwin A. Walker, resigned?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of him?

Mr. KLAUSE. I have heard of him.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any contact with him?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware that Robert A. Surrey was associated with General Edwin A. Walker at the time you made up these handbills?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any acquaintance with Robert A. Surrey other than as a fellow employee at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And this incident about which you have testified?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? Did Surrey ever tell you what he intended to do with these throwaways, or posters, or make any remarks about them at all?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. He just asked me to do the job--said he had a customer that wanted it done. And that is all that was ever said about it.

Senator COOPER. He did not tell you what the customer wanted to do with them?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But at the very outset he asked you to do this on the side?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I think I am going to have to leave now. I have no further questions.

(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of the American Eagle Publishing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. It takes a minute to ring a bell, but it rings a bell.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever do any work for the American Eagle Publishing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That is a company with which Mr. Surrey is associated?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I believe so. That is why I heard that mentioned.

Mr. JENNER. How did you become acquainted with that fact? And when?

Mr. KLAUSE. I believe there was a discussion one day that sometimes on jobs--I think this was done, we talked about this at Johnson at the time.

Mr. JENNER. At the time you were employed at Johnson?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. That jobs would come in that he would send through--might not be too much commission in it or something, or might not be a big job, where he would job through this place, which in turn then would job back through Johnson. Then he would get probably a markup plus a commission. How it is worked, I do not know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were aware of the fact that Mr. Surrey and General Walker were the two partners in American Eagle Publishing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But you knew he had some connection with the company--Mr. Surrey?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. Like I said, he had mentioned it.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey had mentioned it to you. Did he tell you he was an officer of that company?

Mr. KLAUSE. Well, as far as I knew, he was sole owner.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. KLAUSE. It is what I thought was an assumed name, like myself. I do not know how the laws are here, but in Texas when you open up in business, you have got to file an assumed name certificate--if it is under an assumed name or your name or whatever the name is, you have to file that business.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have an assumed name certificate for your private business?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is it?

Mr. KLAUSE. Klause Printing.

Mr. JENNER. Were you not aware of the fact that Mr. Surrey had some connection with General Edwin A. Walker?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At no time?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever see that tall yellow covered book published almost like a pamphlet, published by the American Eagle Publishing Co., which contained reprints of various news stories of the assassination?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; this might be hard to believe. I saw the book. In fact, I think I have a copy of it. But to this day, I have yet to crack the cover on it. I have never even opened it.

Mr. JENNER. What I want to question you about--did you look at the back of the book, the back cover of the book?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I noticed the front, and put it in the car. I carried it in the car for about a week, with a bunch of my scratch pads I hand out to my customers. And one night I went home to unload the car, and I unloaded everything out of the car and put it in the house. And since then I never looked at it.

Mr. JENNER. You never noticed that Surrey appears on the backside of the back cover as the president of the American Eagle Publishing Co.

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of the Carousel Club in Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I have heard of it.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know where it is located?

Mr. KLAUSE. All I can tell you, sir, it is downtown. I have never been there.

Mr. JENNER. You have never been there?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever see Jack Ruby prior to the 24th of November 1963?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I have never seen him and have never met him.

Mr. JENNER. You've never seen him before or since or on that day?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any business with him of any kind or character?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; as soon as he was put in jail, from what I understand, the biggest part of his property went up for sale, and the people--some people that bought some of his property, or bought his business, called on us to do a job.

Mr. JENNER. This was after the assassination?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; this was after--in fact, I imagine sometime after his trial. And I called on those people. We printed I think 500 letterheads and 500 envelopes, something like that, plus 2,000 circulars about open from 7 until 2 in the morning, and then the dance band who was there. In fact, they still owe the bill at the shop. In fact from what I understand, that place is closed up again now.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lettercraft Printing Co. ever do any work for Jack Ruby, to your knowledge?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did Johnson Printing Co. ever do any work for Jack Ruby, to your knowledge?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; not to my knowledge. And I can assure you that Lettercraft didn't, because if it had, it would have crossed my desk.

Mr. JENNER. Were you generally aware of the jobs that went through Johnson Printing?

Mr. KLAUSE. That came to my press, yes sir. Now, Johnson--I don't know whether you know it--it is a pretty good sized shop. It is one of the biggest in Dallas. In fact, you could put my whole shop in just one room over there.

Mr. JENNER. When you talk about your shop you are talking about Lettercraft?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; now, on the press that I was working on, nothing ever came in; no, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I think that will be all. May I look at my notes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. Have you told us in detail all your conversations with Mr. Surrey, from the time that this particular job started until it was concluded?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Did he tell you at all what his purpose was?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; the only thing I mentioned--he said he had a customer that wanted it.

Mr. JENNER. He did not identify the customer?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. But he indicated he was doing this for a customer?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Do you recall whether at the time Mr. Surrey first spoke with you about this job, it was publicly known that President Kennedy was to visit Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. It might have been; but not to my knowledge, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You did not know at that time that President Kennedy was going to visit Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. DULLES. And I think you have testified that your first contact with Mr. Surrey about this was some 3 weeks before the visit?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Around the first of November that would be?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; now, it might have came out in the paper that Mr. Kennedy was coming to Dallas, but we don't take the paper. And usually by the time we get home and feed the kids, we don't have time to read the paper anyway. We might watch the late movie on television. We don't keep up with the news, which we should, but we don't. And that is probably the way it got in without me knowing it. But I had no knowledge at all.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Klause works, does she?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you both get home about the same time do you?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir--the biggest part of the time we do.

Mr. JENNER. How many children do you have?

Mr. KLAUSE. We have three.

Mr. JENNER. I exhibit to you another handbill which we will mark as Commission Exhibit No. 1053.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. For the purpose of the record, this is entitled "Wanted for Murder," and it had a front view and profile of Mr. Khrushchev. It is signed "Minutemen" in printing, with quotations.

Have you ever seen that document before or one like it?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you see any form of type there that is the kind of type that is reproduced in Lettercraft Printing?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Does that appear to be any type font or printing with which you became familiar at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; actually from a printer's viewpoint--just looking at it from this angle here--that could be done off of a typewriter. That looks more like a typewriter than it does off a Linotype machine.

Mr. JENNER. And after its having been typed, then reproduced in the fashion in which Commission Exhibit No. 996 was reproduced?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The mechanical processes you have described. You called it a blanket?

Mr. KLAUSE. Plate.

Mr. JENNER. Make up a plate of the whole sheet--you photograph the sheet, then make a plate, and reproduce from the plate?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Now why I say it doesn't look like Linotype--in Linotype most of your columns or your paragraphs are butted up straight. In other words, you got straight edges on both sides. Whereas on a typewriter you cannot flush. It takes somebody exceptionally skilled with a typewriter to flush the corners. These edges here are not flush.

Mr. JENNER. You are talking about the right-hand margin?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; you see your left hand is flush. Now on a Linotype those on the right can be flushed.

Mr. JENNER. Now, directing your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 996, are the right-hand margins of that material flushed as you call it?

Mr. KLAUSE. These I would say were pretty close to being flush. It would be more of a Linotype than this Exhibit No. 1053 here.

Mr. JENNER. That would lead you to believe, then, that the copy on Commission Exhibit No. 996 was produced in the first instance on a Linotype machine?

Mr. KLAUSE. Linotype or----

Mr. JENNER. A Ludlow?

Mr. KLAUSE. Possibly. I was getting ready to Varitype. Varitype would come up close to flushing it.

Mr. JENNER. But Commission Exhibit No. 1053 does not stimulate your recollection in any respect whatsoever?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You never heard about that handbill?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Wholly apart from never having seen it?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. My handing it to you a moment ago was the first time you ever knew of the existence of a handbill of that type?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, Sir.

Mr. JENNER. You never heard any discussion of it heretofore?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, Sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have covered all of the details with Mr. Klause. I have no further questions of him.

Mr. DULLES. I have no more questions. We thank you very much, Mr. Klause, for coming. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. KLAUSE. I am glad I can do what I can do. I would like to get this straightened out. I feel real guilty about it.

Mr. JENNER. Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. Klause?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; except that it is a mess, and that I am just a poor country boy, I guess you would say, that got caught up in the mess, and I strictly learned my lesson on this.

I have hurt a bunch of people, especially my folks, and I have caused a lot of trouble. I just feel real bad about it. That is all. If I had taken time to have read the thing actually I don't think I would ever have done it.

But like I said, it was late at night, and I was in a hurry, and I wanted to get it on and off.

Mr. JENNER. And you needed the money.

Mr. KLAUSE. And I needed the money; yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. What did you net on this?

Mr. KLAUSE. $40. Actually, I think the stock was somewhere around $20. I paid for the stock, and he in turn paid for the stock.

Mr. DULLES. $40 was your profit on this?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. $40 was the full profit to you?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Have you anything further, Mr. Jenner?

Mr. JENNER. No; I have not.

Mr. DULLES. The Commission will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Thursday, July 2, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF MARK LANE RESUMED

The President's Commission met at 2 p.m., on July 2, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; and Representative Gerald R. Ford, member.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Norman Redlich, assistant counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Lane, the last time you were here, we excused you as a witness. You should be sworn again as a witness.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. LANE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please. Mr. Rankin will ask you some questions that were not entirely cleared up when you were here last time. Would you proceed?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, you testified before the Commission the last time on March 4, did you?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. And you recall your testimony at that time?

Mr. LANE. Well, it was rather long testimony. I recall portions of it; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Do you recall that you were asked about an interview with Helen Markham?

Mr. LANE. I recall testifying to that; yes. I don't know if I was asked about it specifically, but I do recall testifying in reference to that interview.

Mr. RANKIN. If you would care to refer to your testimony at any time, you are free to do so.

Mr. LANE. Thank you.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection with the interview that you referred to in your testimony?

Mr. LANE. Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote? Is that the question?

Mr. RANKIN. Either that or anything that she signed which purports to be her statement or affidavit or other recording.

Mr. LANE. I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any interview with her?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have that with you?

Mr. LANE. No; I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape recording, or what form does it have?

Mr. LANE. It is a tape recording and a transcript of the tape recording in writing.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the tape recording made by you?

Mr. LANE. I think we are now moving into an area where I would prefer not to answer questions, quite frankly. I have given to the Commission the results of my investigation, and I think that the Commission are aware of the fact that I have an attorney-client relationship existing. The Commission is now asking for working papers of an attorney. The Supreme Court has been quite plain, I think, on the question of the sanctity of working documents of attorneys. And I think, therefore, that the questions are no longer in a proper area.

I might also indicate to the Commission that when I was retained by Marguerite Oswald to represent the interests of her son before this Commission, and the Commission declined to permit me to so represent Lee Oswald, it made it impossible for me to conduct the kind of cross-examination before this Commission of witnesses that I would have ordinarily conducted, and that entire conversation would have been in the presence of the Commission, obviously, had I been permitted to function as counsel for my client.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to the Commission the attorney and client relationship that you claim to exist?

Mr. LANE. Yes. I should think the Commission would be well aware of that since I wrote to the Commission on the very day that I was retained and sent, as I recall, an affidavit from my client, detailing the purpose, the purpose of my being retained. I think that was during the very early days of this year.

Mr. RANKIN. Who was the client?

Mr. LANE. Marguerite Oswald retained me to conduct an investigation in reference to the charges that were made against her son, then deceased, and to represent his interests before this Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. And do you claim that that attorney-client relationship is one that exists now?

Mr. LANE. It does exist at the present time in relationship to a matter peripheral to this investigation. It certainly did exist at the time of my discussion with Mrs. Markham, and my discussion with Mrs. Markham took place solely because of the existence of that relationship and to further that relationship.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you state what the peripheral matter is that you referred to?

Mr. LANE. It is the matter that Mrs. Oswald called you and spoke with you on the telephone about yesterday, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. What is that?

Mr. LANE. It is in reference to a matter regarding the son of Mrs. Markham.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell whatever else there is in regard to that?

Mr. LANE. Mrs. Oswald has specifically requested that--in fact, has specifically directed me not to discuss that matter publicly--inasmuch as you have that information--because she talked with me only after she spoke with you, Mr. Rankin. And when she did speak with me, she told me what she had told you precisely early in the day she had told me. I think that the Commission does have that information.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you refusing to disclose it, then?

Mr. LANE. I have a specific direction from Mrs. Oswald, who retained me in this peripheral matter just yesterday, not to discuss this matter publicly, sir. She is presently herself involved in investigating this matter, and told me specifically that any publicity in reference to this matter would be harmful to her investigation. I would otherwise be very happy to discuss the matter with you, as I have discussed everything else quite publicly.

Mr. RANKIN. And that is your reason for not disclosing it at this time?

Mr. LANE. Yes; coupled with the fact that the Commission has this information, because I assume that Mrs. Oswald did speak with you yesterday. She told me that she did, and she gave you all the information she had in this regard. I believe she gave you more information than she gave to me, as a matter of fact, judging from what she said to me.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim to be acting for Mrs. Oswald on any other matter than that in connection with her son? That is Helen Markham's son?

Mr. LANE. At the present time?

Mr. RANKIN. At the present time.

Mr. LANE. No; I am not.

Mr. RANKIN. When did that relationship terminate?

Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date, but it was sometime after my testimony here, which was, I believe, on the 4th of March of this year.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you fix it more precisely?

Mr. LANE. I believe it was within 2 weeks after that date. I did not bring with me the letter that I wrote to Mrs. Oswald explaining that I could not function before the Commission as counsel because the Commission would not permit me to function as counsel, and that I agreed to serve on a citizen's committee which would conduct an independent inquiry. And, therefore, since it seemed that there was nothing further I could do on behalf of the original purpose of our retainer, that we should probably conclude our professional relationship as of that time had ended. I believe that is the substance of the letter that I sent to Mrs. Oswald. And that is within 2 weeks of March 4.

Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, may I raise a question about the language which Mr. Lane uses to the effect that the Commission declined to permit Mr. Lane to represent Mrs. Oswald?

I think the record before the Commission on this matter will speak for itself. I think to have the record clear, we ought to have that part of the Commission proceedings inserted in the record at this point.

Mr. LANE. I would like to correct a mistake that you made, Congressman. I did not say that I was not permitted to serve as counsel for Mrs. Oswald before the Commission. I said, I thought quite precisely, that I had not been permitted by the Commission to serve as counsel to represent the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald at the request of his mother, Marguerite Oswald.

Representative FORD. I think we should let the record speak for itself at the time that this matter was raised before the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. That portion of the record may be incorporated in this record at this particular time.

Mr. LANE. I would just like to conclude on this note.

I hope the Commission will give consideration to my request, which the Commission has answered, but which again I would like at this time to renew. That is, that I be permitted, at the request of Mrs. Oswald, the mother of the accused, defendant, really, before this Commission's hearing, to represent his interests here, to have access to the material which you have access to, and the right to present witnesses.

It is not usual for an attorney representing a party to be given an opportunity to testify, which is quite unusual--but rather to be given the opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine them. It has generally been my role in criminal cases. Never before have I testified in behalf of a client.

If it is the Commissioners' position that this is not a trial in any respect, and therefore Oswald is not entitled to counsel, that is the position with which I would like to respectfully offer a dissent.

The fact that Oswald is not going to have a real trial flows only from his death, and he is not responsible with that having taken place. Every right belonging to an American citizen charged with a crime was taken from him up to and including his life.

I think now that that episode is completed, hopefully never to reappear ever again in our history, or anything close to it--I think it would be proper to permit him to have counsel before the Commission, counsel who can function on his behalf in terms of cross-examining evidence and presenting witnesses. If it is the Commission's position now that he is entitled to counsel, and the Commission will appoint counsel, then I ask the Commission to consider that the constitutional right to counsel involves the right to counsel of one's choice, or in the event of the death of a party, to counsel of the choice of the surviving members of the family.

If Marina Oswald, the widow, sought to have counsel represent her husband I would think--here--I would think that would cause a conflict and a problem, if the widow and also the mother made the same request. But as I understand it no request has been made by the widow, who has indicated to the press that she believes her husband is guilty, and through her former business agent, Mr. Martin, who I am told was secured for her by the Secret Service as a business agent, she indicated that even a trial which might prove he was innocent, she would still be sure he was guilty, and has indicated since that time no desire to my knowledge to secure counsel for her husband, her late husband, before the Commission.

I think, then, the mother would, in almost any jurisdiction, be the next person to make a decision in this area, and the mother has made a decision, as you know. She has retained me to represent the rights and interests of her son.

I think under those circumstances it would be proper for the Commission to permit me to participate.

This, of course, is not a jury trial. With all due respect to the integrity and background of each of the members of the Commission, I suggest that it is not the function of the trying body to appoint counsel, or the jury to appoint counsel, but in our society it is just the reverse; it is the function of defense counsel to participate in determining who the jury should be.

Many criminal lawyers, very noted counsel, would probably seek to excuse certain--and again no disrespect at all is meant to the background of members of this Commission--but defense counsel generally seeks to excuse as jurors those who are in any way associated with the Government in a criminal case. And here we have the Government appointing the jury, and then the jury picking counsel, who also is Government connected at this time. I in no way wish to raise the question of the integrity of any of the members of the Commission or counsel or anyone else, or their ability. But that truism about equality has some meaning in terms of impartiality--everyone is impartial to some people, and more impartial to other people. And counsel, in order to function, I believe, must be totally independent and totally committed to the responsibility of representing his client.

But above all, he must be secured by someone who has the ability to speak for the deceased, in this case his mother and his wife. And under those circumstances, I renew my request that I be permitted to, at the request of Lee Oswald's mother, who survives him--to function before this Commission as counsel on his behalf.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, I must advise you that the Commission, as you already know, has considered your request and has denied it. It does not consider you as the attorney for Lee Oswald. Now, this is not for any discussion. We are not going to argue it. You have had your say, and I will just answer.

Lee Oswald left a widow. She is his legal representative. She is represented by counsel. This Commission is cooperating with her in any way she may request. If anyone else wants to present any evidence to the Commission, they may do so. But it is the view and the wish--the will of the Commission--that no one else shall be entitled to participate in the work and the deliberations of the Commission.

We asked you to come here today because we understood that you did have evidence. We are happy to receive it. We want every bit of evidence that you have. You may present anything that you wish to us. But you are not to be a participant in the work of the Commission. I assume you have some questions you would like to ask Mr. Lane, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. LANE. Well, then I ask also, Mr. Chief Justice, at this point the letters, exchange of letters between Mr. Rankin and myself, where I made the request to appear as counsel for the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald, and where counsel for this Commission said that, Oswald was not entitled to counsel, or that I could not represent him----

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record speak for itself in that respect, too. The exchange of letters will be in the record. [See Commission Exhibit No. 1053.]

Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Lane, regarding this tape recording of Helen Markham, and your interview with her, will you tell the Commission when you made this?

Mr. LANE. I had a conversation with Mrs. Markham on the 2d day of March of this year.

Mr. RANKIN. Where was that?

Mr. LANE. I have given the Commission the results of that investigation to the best of my ability. I think that, again, Mr. Rankin, your question delves into the functioning of an attorney on behalf of a client, and, therefore, is not proper, and, therefore, I decline to answer it.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission when you made the tape recording that you referred to?

Mr. LANE. I just answered that question, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. And do you refuse to tell, then, anything about that interview with Helen Markham, how you recorded it?

Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?

Mr. RANKIN. And how you recorded it?

Mr. LANE. I should think that since this Commission has been appointed by the President of the United States to secure all of the information regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and other matters peripheral to that, the questions asked of me should be related to information which can be of assistance to the Commission, and should not be the kind of questions, Mr. Rankin, that you have put to me.

I am happy to tell you every bit of information that I have been able to secure as a private citizen in trying to discover what took place on November 22 and the days that followed November 22, but I think that the very questions that you are putting to me indicates that you are not interested solely in securing that information, but in placing me, Mr. Rankin, in a position which is not a good one. And I see this quite frankly as part of many things that have happened to me since November 22--not November 22, but since I expressed some interest in this case.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded?

Mr. LANE. I don't believe that I said I recorded it. I believe I said it was recorded.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it recorded by someone else?

Mr. LANE. I decline to answer any questions, because the questions you are asking clearly are not for the purpose for which this Commission has been established. And I tell you that I am amazed, quite frankly, Mr. Rankin, that the kind of harassment to which I have been subjected since I became involved in this case continues here in this room--I am amazed by that.

As you know, and I don't know if this has been placed on the record by the Commission--in the letter that I wrote to you on May 18, 1964, I told you that I had been accosted by two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in front of my own house, and ordered to give to them, by them--their names being William E. Folkner, his serial number being 5954, and John P. Dimarchi, his serial number being 4256--and ordered to give to those gentlemen documents in my possession, relating to my testimony before this Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that?

Mr. LANE. I did not give them those documents; no.

Mr. RANKIN. Why not?

Mr. LANE. Does your tone and your question indicate you think I should have given those documents to agents of the FBI?

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have you answer the question, if you would.

Mr. LANE. You decline to answer my question?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I am examining you.

Mr. LANE. Of course, I did not give them any documents in my possession. When I deal with any agencies of the Government, I expect that they will write to me, and if they wish to secure information from me they will do that in a dignified manner. I am an attorney with an office in New York. I don't expect to be accosted in front of my house by agents of the police, Federal, State, or local authorities. Those are the actions not of a democratic society, but of a police state, and I decline to believe for one moment that we live in a society where that behavior is going to be countenanced by any members of this Commission or by counsel to this Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you offer to furnish them copies if they would write to you in the manner you suggested?

Mr. LANE. I suggested to those two agents that someone in the office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation might write to me and that I would respond courteously, and make available whatever information I could. I told them, also, as I told you, since I wrote a letter to you covering this entire matter on May 18th--I told them also that I had testified fully before this Commission. If they wanted to secure any information I had, they might contact the Commission. They indicated they were not interested in the Warren Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, to return to the tape recording----

Mr. LANE. I would like to add one more point, if I may. It is a matter which I discussed with you on the telephone 2 days ago.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that in regard to the tape recording?

Mr. LANE. No; it is not.

Mr. RANKIN. Can we confine ourselves to that for a bit, until we complete that. Can you tell us who else was present at the time of this tape recording of Helen Markham that you describe?

Mr. LANE. I would like to make this quite clear to you, Mr. Rankin.

I am not going to discuss any working papers in my possession. Those papers came into my possession as a result of an attorney-client relationship. The Supreme Court has written decisions regarding the sanctity of those documents. I think it is improper of you to ask questions which delve into relationship of that nature. And I think you know that the questions you are asking are improper.

Mr. RANKIN. And if other people were present at the time of any such matters and disclosures, does that make any difference under the law, do you think?

Mr. LANE. Present where?

Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the tape recording and the interview. That is what I am asking you.

Mr. LANE. No one else was present.

Mr. RANKIN. And who did the tape recording?

Mr. LANE. Again you are delving into an area which is an improper one for you to delve into.

Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made?

Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?

Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made?

Mr. LANE. I decline to answer that question.

Am I a defendant before this Commission, or is the Commission trying to find out who assassinated the President?

Representative FORD. We are trying to find out information about a witness before this Commission----

Mr. LANE. Well, then, call the witness before the Commission and ask the witness questions. And if the Commission--if the witness has testified contrary to what I say the witness has said, then I would suggest you do what I invited the Commission to do when this matter arose. Submit my testimony and Mrs. Markham's testimony to the U.S. attorney's office, and bring an action against both of us for perjury. And then at that trial I will present documents in my possession, and we will see who is convicted.

Representative FORD. Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important witness in this overall matter?

Mr. LANE. I would think so.

Representative FORD. I am sure you know what she has told you.

Mr. LANE. I know what she has told me, that is correct.

Representative FORD. If there is any difference between what she told you and told this Commission, is that important?

Mr. LANE. Of course, it is important. And if there was someone representing the interests of Oswald before this Commission, there could be cross-examination, you sitting as judges could then base your decision upon the cross-examination. But you have decided instead to sit as judges and jurors and defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys, and you are faced with a dilemma. I cannot solve that dilemma for you.

Representative FORD. In order for us to evaluate the testimony she has given us and what you allege she has given you, we must see the information which you have at your disposal.

Mr. LANE. I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has said to me.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you unwilling to verify that with the tape recording that you claim to have?

Mr. LANE. I am unable to verify that because of an existing attorney-client relationship, and you know that it would be improper and unethical for me to give the answers to the questions which you are asking. And that is why I am amazed that you persist in asking questions which you know are improper and which would be unethical for me to answer.

Mr. RANKIN. And where was this tape recording made?

Mr. LANE. You have my answer to questions about that already, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with Helen Markham at anytime?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I testified to that on March 4, and again today.

Representative FORD. Is this tape recording of that conversation?

Mr. LANE. Precisely.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us where the tape recording was made?

Mr. LANE. I can tell you, but I will not tell you.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any other reasons for not disclosing this information to the Commission except your statement about the attorney and client relationship that you describe?

Mr. LANE. And the sanctity of working documents of an attorney. I have no other reason whatsoever.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, the Commission has asked you a number of times to disclose to it the name of the informant that you said told you about having seen certain persons in the Carousel Club. Are you ready to disclose the name of that informant now?

Mr. LANE. I am ready, but as I told you when I gave you that information at the outset, I gave my word of honor to that person that I would not disclose his name unless he gave me permission to. I have gone to Dallas on two separate occasions to try to secure that permission. I have not been able to secure that permission. Nothing would make me happier than giving you the name of that person; but I have given my word of honor and, therefore, I am unable to give you that name.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim any attorney and client relationship with regard to the name of that informant?

Mr. LANE. I think there clearly exists an attorney-client relationship, but that is not the motivating factor in my telling you that I will not disclose the name.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that the basis for your refusal to disclose the name?

Mr. LANE. Obviously if I say yes, you cannot pursue this, but I must tell you honestly that is not the reason.

Mr. RANKIN. Then I ask you to disclose the name of the informant.

Mr. LANE. I cannot. I have given my word to that person that I would not disclose his name.

Mr. RANKIN. You know that is no legal justification, do you not?

Mr. LANE. I know that is true. There is no legal justification. I know that I am not here under subpena. I know that you wrote to me while I was in Europe, although you have the power of subpena--you do not have the power to subpena me while I was in Europe. I know the Commission will complete its work very likely within the next 2 weeks. I could have easily remained in Europe until the Commission had completed its work.

I knew you were calling me here today in reference to that specific matter because you said so in your letter to me. So I have come here voluntarily to cooperate with the Commission to the very best of my ability, and not to rely upon any legal superstructure to protect my answers.

I told this Commission at the outset that I had given my word to this person, and I would not reveal his name. The Commission led me to believe at that time that it would honor that understanding, and the record, I think, so reveals that. If the Commission is prepared----

Mr. RANKIN. You base that upon the record at that time? You base your claim that the Commission indicated that it would honor any such understanding on the record that was made on March 4, do you?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I think there is language there which indicates this. I was not pressed at that time. We discussed the matter at that time. If the Commission is at this point about to reverse its position, despite an indication that it would honor that understanding, I am myself not ready to break my honor, my commitment to that individual. I have not done that ever in the past, and I will not do that now.

Mr. RANKIN. The Commission has a number of times asked you by correspondence to disclose the name of that informant, and it now asks you in this proceeding, while you are under oath, to make that disclosure.

Mr. LANE. I will not do so, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you realize that the information you gave in closed session could have an unfavorable effect upon your country's interests in connection with this assassination and your failure to disclose the name of your informant would do further injury?

Mr. LANE. Mr. Rankin. I am astonished to hear that statement from you. There are 180 million Americans in this country. I am perhaps the only one who is a private citizen who has taken off the last 6 months to devote all of his efforts to securing whatever information can be found, and to making that known to this Commission, and publicly to the people of this country at great personal cost in terms of the harassment that I have suffered, in terms of the terrible financial losses that I have suffered. And to sit here today, after 6 months of this work, which I have given all to this Commission, voluntarily, and again have come here again today voluntarily to give you this information, and to hear you say that I am not cooperating with the Commission, and I am going to do harm to the country by not making information available to you astonishes me.

You have hundreds of agents of the FBI running all over the Dallas area--agents of the Secret Service, Dallas policemen. Are you telling me that in one trip to Dallas where I spent something like 2 days, I uncovered information which the whole police force of this Nation has not yet in 6 months been able to secure? I cannot believe that is a valid assessment of this situation. I cannot, Mr. Rankin.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, may I say to you that until you give us the corroboration that you say you have, namely, that someone told you that that was a fact, we have every reason to doubt the truthfulness of what you have heretofore told us. And your refusal to answer at this time lends further strength to that belief. If you can tell us, and if you will tell us, who gave you that information, so that we may test their veracity, then you have performed a service to this Commission. But until you do, you have done nothing but handicap us.

Mr. LANE. I have handicapped you by working for 6 months and making all of the information which I have had available to you? I understand very fully your position, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, what did you come down to tell us or inform the Commission about? You say you came here of your own volition in order to help us, and to give us information. Now, what information in light of the fact that I wrote you and asked you for two specific things--whatever information you had in any recorded form concerning your interview with Helen Markham, and secondly, the name of the informant, neither of which you are willing to disclose or have said anything to help the Commission on.

Mr. LANE. I came here at your request that I interrupt my trip in Europe to come back and testify before you. And I have done that.

The CHAIRMAN. By denying--by refusing to answer either question.

Mr. LANE. I think that--well. I have given you the reasons why I cannot answer the question. With reference to Mrs. Markham, I should tell you this, that I am hopeful that in the very near future I will be able to make that document available to you by securing permission from my client. But she has informed me at the present time that she is herself involved in securing some information relative to this whole matter, which you are familiar with, Mr. Rankin, and that she wishes there to be no discussion at all at this point about this matter.

Frankly, quite frankly, matters which have been given to this Commission in utmost confidence have appeared in the daily newspapers, and one cannot feel with great security that giving information to this Commission, even at secret hearings, means that the information will not be broadcast, and this is the problem which confronts us at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, do you not, that you and other witnesses have been free to discuss their testimony before the Commission with the public, and you, yourself, have done that, and that is one of the reasons that things that were said before the Commission have been divulged. You, yourself, have discussed fully your testimony before the press and the radio and the television.

Mr. LANE. Yes; I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Other witnesses have done the same thing. No witness is under compulsion to keep his testimony secret. Naturally, some things would come out.

Mr. LANE. Well, it seems to me that when the transcript of my--the transcript of my testimony was sent to me, dealing with the portion in executive session, every page had been marked "Top Secret." In fact, it bore a legend across it saying that my testimony, which consisted almost solely at the outset of my request that the hearings be open to the public, was in fact related to the national defense of the United States and it was a violation of the espionage laws for me to discuss those matters publicly.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Lane, you know that you came right down from your testimony, and I think in this very room, or at least on this floor of this same building, discussed your testimony with the press and the radio and the television.

Mr. LANE. Oh, I most certainly did. My testimony was open to the public. My testimony was unlike the rest of the testimony before the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, that is your judgment. Every witness knows that he is under no compulsion to keep his testimony secret. They have not done it. And many of them have come down here after their testimony upstairs and have appeared on radio and television and have discussed matters with the press.

Mr. LANE. Yes; I know that that may very well be so, Mr. Chief Justice. I was only making reference to matters such as the diary which has been marked Top Secret, which has been published, and the press conferences in which members of the Commission reported to the press the testimony before them.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, when I wrote you, do you recall that I offered to have the Commission pay your expenses to come back from Europe in order to testify before the Commission at this time?

Mr. LANE. Yes; you did.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you asking that you be paid those expenses?

Mr. LANE. I would expect that since you made that offer that is a commitment you should keep. I would have remained in Europe; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And you did not tell me in any correspondence that you were going to take the position that you could not make this disclosure because of an attorney-client relationship, and that you were not going to give us any information about the informant at this time?

Mr. LANE. Mr. Rankin----

Mr. RANKIN. Did you?

Mr. LANE. Yes; of course I told you that. I told you that on March 4, and I have told you that in every letter which you have written to me on these questions. I cannot understand how you can pretend to be surprised or plead surprise at this point based upon my position before the Commission which today, in July, is consistently the same position I took in March, and consistently the same position I took in the intervening months when I wrote to you, we exchanged correspondence, in relationship to my position.

Mr. RANKIN. And you did not in answer to my letter, when I offered to pay your expenses, say that the only thing you could testify to was that there was an attorney-client relationship and you would not produce any of the records in regard to Helen Markham because of that, or you did not say that you would not give us the name of the informant because you had refused to disclose it, in answer to my letter, offering to pay your expenses. You said nothing about anything of that kind, did you?

Mr. LANE. I never received your letter. You wrote it to my New York address. I was in Europe traveling at the time. I received a phone call from my office 3 days ago stating that you had asked that I return to the United States to testify, and I immediately booked passage the next morning, which was the first plane, in order to return, and to be here before July 1, which was what your letter said. When I came back, I received a phone call from you indicating that I was not needed yesterday, but that today at 2 o'clock would be the appropriate time, and so I came here today. And I am willing to----

Mr. RANKIN. Is that your answer?

Mr. LANE. Yes; of course, it is my answer. I will give you all of the information in my possession in reference to everything I have been able to discover in order to assist this Commission. But what you are asking at this point are sources. You are not asking for information. You are asking for sources. And you know that it is improper to ask for those sources.

The CHAIRMAN. Even where there is no relationship of attorney and client?

Mr. LANE. It is not improper because there is a relationship in that case. It is improper because I gave that testimony to you voluntarily on March 4, explaining to the members of this Commission that I had given my word of honor to this person not to disclose his name.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything else that you wish to disclose in addition to such disclosures as you now have made to the Commission in regard to the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. LANE. There are three additional matters which have come to my attention, which I am not at this point able to disclose because an investigation is still being conducted in Dallas. But by Monday, this coming Monday, I will be in a position to make that information available to you. In addition to that----

Mr. RANKIN. Will this be in written form, signed statements and affidavits, or what will you have for this?

Mr. LANE. I don't understand your question, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you have it in any kind of a written form; the additional testimony or evidence that you refer to?

Mr. LANE. I cannot tell you that until Monday. In addition to that, as I told you when we spoke on the phone 2 days ago, and you suggested that I raise this matter before the Commission, I am deeply concerned about the fact that since I have become involved in this matter, and since I testified before this Commission, the U.S. Department of Immigration has placed my name in their immigration book, on the proscribed list, and that when I returned to this country, in response to your invitation to come here and testify before this Commission, I was halted by the immigration authorities because my name appeared in that proscribed list.

Mr. RANKIN. And I told you at that time on the telephone, didn't I, that the Commission had nothing to do with that? Is that right?

Mr. LANE. You did tell me that, and I ask you if you would be good enough to find out, since I did not accuse the Commission of having my name listed there, of course--to find out if my name was listed in relationship to the inquiry which I have conducted, and the testimony that I have given to this Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you prevented from entering the United States?

Mr. LANE. No; I am here now, Mr. Chief Justice, but I was stopped.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were you detained? Were you detained?

Mr. LANE. Oh, just for a few minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. How many minutes?

Mr. LANE. Oh, perhaps 5. My objection is not to the period of time.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the question asked of you?

Mr. LANE. Just to wait.

Mr. RANKIN. Wasn't there something else asked of you?

Mr. LANE. Well, perhaps I should, then, tell you what happened.

Mr. RANKIN. All right. You better answer that question of the Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a part of my question. I asked you: What did they say to you?

Mr. LANE. Well, there were three different persons. The first person was at the desk, whose name I do not recall, but as an immigration inspector said, "Kindly wait," and he returned within 5 minutes and gave me back my passport and said, "You can pass through now." So not a single question was asked of me by the immigration inspector who discovered that my name was in the proscribed book.

I, however, asked him if he could tell me why my name was in the book, and he said that it was confidential material which he could not reveal to me, and I asked him if he would be good enough to tell me the name of his superior officer so that I might discuss the matter with him. He referred me to Mr. J. J. Daley, also an immigration inspector, and Mr. Daley asked me if perhaps I had gone to Cuba, and I said to him I had never been to Cuba; I had only been out of the country where a passport was required twice in my life, both within the last 6 months. The only time prior to then I had left the country was when I was a soldier in the U.S. Army, and I was sent to Europe--not to Cuba at that time.

He said, "Well, then, I can't understand it." And I asked if I could see his superior officer. And he referred me to W. T. McArnity, who was the officer in charge. He told me that perhaps there was just some mistake made, but could give me no further information. He referred me to Mr. Espardy, who is the district director, I believe, of the Immigration Department, and Mr. Espardy said merely, "I am not going to tell you a thing." That is where the entire matter rested, and where it rests now.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, when you asked your informant if you could disclose the information that we have asked you about--and we have asked you the name of the informer--did you tell him that the Commission had indicated to you that his name would not be publicly revealed if he would allow you to disclose it to the Commission?

Mr. LANE. I most certainly did.

Mr. RANKIN. And what was his response?

Mr. LANE. He wondered whether that meant his name might not be revealed anywhere--if not by the members of the Commission, perhaps somehow it might be revealed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that what he said?

Mr. LANE. That is precisely what he said.

Representative FORD. When did he tell you that?

Mr. LANE. When I spoke with him; I think it was during March or April of this year, after I testified before the Commission.

Representative FORD. Have you made any further inquiry in that regard?

Mr. LANE. Have I?

Representative FORD. Yes.

Mr. LANE. I spoke with him one more time.

Representative FORD. Since your return from Europe?

Mr. LANE. No; I just arrived 2 days ago.

Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time you spoke to him about disclosing his name?

Mr. LANE. I would think it was during April of this year.

Mr. RANKIN. When in April?

Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date. When I was last in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us a closer approximation than that?

Mr. LANE. I really cannot. I believe it was in April; perhaps toward the middle of April, but I am not certain.

Representative FORD. Was it by telephone?

Mr. LANE. No; I saw him in person. I went down to see him.

Representative FORD. You saw him in Dallas?

Mr. LANE. Yes; well, near Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you consider, Mr. Lane, that you have cooperated with the Commission as much as you can in regard to both of these matters, Helen Markham and this informant?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I think there is no question but that I have. Frankly, when I returned to the country, I had thought that it would be not difficult for me to make available to you all the documents regarding Mrs. Markham. I had planned to do that.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. LANE. I felt that I would be able to be released from the attorney-client stricture so that I could do that. It was not until after I returned that I received a phone call from Mrs. Oswald, after she called you, related this new development in relationship to the Markhams, which has at this point handicapped my being able to secure permission to release that information. I had intended to do that.

I am hopeful that in the next few days it will be possible to give you that information, as I said earlier.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, you told us what your attorney relationship was, but, really, I did not understand it very clearly. Will you tell us what your present attorney relationship is that causes you to rely upon it in refusing to tell us about this recording that was made at the time of the conversation between you and Helen Markham?

Mr. LANE. I don't have a present attorney-client relationship in relation to that particular matter. I, at that time, had been retained by Marguerite Oswald to investigate the charges against her son and peripheral matters, and, in conformity and in furtherance of that retainer, I conducted an interview with Mrs. Markham.

The CHAIRMAN. And----

Mr. LANE. And that is one of the working documents in my possession.

The CHAIRMAN. How does that become a peripheral matter--the conversation that you had with Mrs. Markham? What does that have to do with Mrs. Oswald?

Mr. LANE. I secured that information on behalf of an attorney-client relationship when I was serving my client, Mrs. Oswald.

The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Lane, you at that very time, when you claimed to be, and when you were, the attorney for Mrs. Oswald, you did come here and testify concerning that conversation with Mrs. Markham.

Mr. LANE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. NOW, if you testified concerning it then, why can't you now tell us all the circumstances surrounding that? Why is your privilege any different now than it was then?

Mr. LANE. I explained to Mrs. Oswald that I had been called to testify before the Commission as a witness, and that the information which I had secured I had secured on her behalf, and discussed with her what it is I was going to tell the Commission, and she agreed and gave me permission to testify before the Commission as I did.

The CHAIRMAN. And since that time she instructed you not to testify?

Mr. LANE. Since that time, just actually 2 days ago--or perhaps it was yesterday--she instructed me not to discuss the entire Markham situation at all, quite specifically, and quite strongly, and insistently, over my objection.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it your position, then, that you have a right to disclose part of the information about the Helen Markham matter to the Commission and you don't have a duty to disclose all of it?

Mr. LANE. I think that when one has a client, one has the right, if one secures the permission of the client, to release the results of investigation while retaining the sanctity of working documents belonging to an attorney; yes.

I think there is a clear distinction.

Mr. RANKIN. It is your contention you can hold back part of it so that the Commission then is not able to verify what you do tell, the part you do tell?

Mr. LANE. Well, of course----

Mr. RANKIN. Is that your position?

Mr. LANE. No, and I haven't said anything, I think, even comparable to that. I said one can testify if one has permission of the client in terms of the result of an investigation conducted by a client.

Mr. RANKIN. Your conclusion about the testimony? Is that what you mean?

Mr. LANE. Not my conclusion. The result of the investigation, the result of inquiry. But at the same time it does not mean that an attorney's working documents are no longer sanctified documents.

Mr. RANKIN. About the same matter; is that right?

Mr. LANE. Of course, about the same matter. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any law to support that position?

Mr. LANE. That an attorney's working documents----

Mr. RANKIN. Can be withheld about a matter that he purports to give testimony concerning?

Mr. LANE. I have not researched the question; no. Do you have law indicating that is inaccurate?

Mr. RANKIN. I think it is quite inaccurate. If you come before any body, the Commission or any court, and purport to disclose part of a matter, I know of no law that permits you to withhold the rest.

Mr. LANE. Well, it is not a question of disclosing part of a matter. There is a conclusion of an investigation. For example, I assume that this Commission will report its conclusions, but they may not necessarily report every portion of the working documents before this Commission, because these are two separate areas. One is a conclusion, and one is the working documents. I have reported the conclusion, but that does not mean, in my view, that the working documents of an attorney, therefore, are no longer privileged.

Mr. RANKIN. What you purported to report was what you said was her testimony in regard to these incidents, was it not?

Mr. LANE. It was not her testimony. It was a statement that she made to me.

Mr. RANKIN. Her statement she made to you?

Mr. LANE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You purported to give that to the Commission.

Mr. LANE. I did give it to the Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. And then you said you had a recording of it; is that right?

Mr. LANE. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are not----

Mr. LANE. I don't think I ever said that to the Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. You are saying it now, are you not?

Mr. LANE. Yes; I am saying it now.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are not willing to have the Commission have the recording to check the accuracy of your report about what the testimony or statement was, is that right?

Mr. LANE. I am not in a position to give you that document. I have said that several times; yes, sir. I don't understand why it is not possible to call Mrs. Markham and to call me and to have us confront each other. I think clearly the Commission would then secure the facts. I would be happy to participate in such a confrontation. It seems to me to be the order----

The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't you then be violating your attorney-client privilege just the same?

Mr. LANE. No; I don't have such a privilege--a relationship at the present time. That relationship terminated, as I said, in March.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you would freely discuss, though, the things that occurred while the attorney-client privilege did prevail, or did exist?

Mr. LANE. No; I would merely ask Mrs. Markham a series of questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; you would like to make the inquisition your own, but you are unwilling to testify before this Commission.

Mr. LANE. I don't think that an effort to represent a man who is being tried in absentia, after he was killed in the custody of police officers, is the same as asking for permission to conduct an inquisition, with all due respect to you, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, you have manifested a great interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and his relationship to this entire affair. According to you, Mrs. Markham made a statement that would bear upon the probability of his guilt or innocence in connection with the assassination. Mrs Markham has definitely contradicted what you have said, and do you not believe that it is in your own interest and in the interests of this country for you to give whatever corroboration you have to this Commission so that we may determine whether you or she is telling the truth?

Mr. LANE. I have given you all the information that I am permitted to give to you and to members of the Commission. I understand from Mr. Rankin that Mrs. Markham denies that she ever talked with me. Is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN. You needn't ask Mr. Rankin any questions. You won't answer the questions of this Commission, and he is not under examination by you at the present time.

Mr. LANE. I have answered questions. I spoke for about 85 pages, without a single question being put to me, because I was anxious to give to this Commission all the information in my possession.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you did not give us all the information. You did not tell us that you had a recording of what Mrs. Markham said to you. Now, we ask you for verification of that conversation, because she has contradicted you. You say that you have a recording, but you refuse to give it to this Commission.

Mr. LANE. I am not in a position to give you that recording. I have made that quite plain. Because of a matter which has arisen in the last 3 or 4 days, which I was made aware of yesterday for the first time, I am not in a position to do that. Hopefully, I will be in a day or two.

The CHAIRMAN. We heard that when you were here in March--hopefully you would be able to tell us who this informant of yours was in Dallas concerning the so-called meeting between Jack Ruby and others in his nightclub. And we have been pursuing you ever since with letters and entreaties to give us that information so that we might verify what you have said, if it is a fact, or disproving it if it is not a fact. Here we pay your expenses from Europe, bring you over here, and without telling us at all that you won't answer that question, you come before the Commission and refuse to testify. Do you consider that cooperation?

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe I am the only citizen in this country who has devoted 6 months to securing information at his own expense. You talk about what it cost to go to Europe. I have gone to Europe twice, and I have paid for those trips myself. I have traveled all over this country. I have gone to Dallas five times. I have paid for those trips myself, and I am not in a position financially to do that, but I have done that to give you this information.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you getting evidence over in Europe?

Mr. LANE. No; I was discussing this case, because of the suppression in this country of the facts. I felt it important that somehow the American people be informed about what is taking place, and I found that practically the only way to inform the American people is to speak in Europe.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you charged admission for any of your speaking?

Mr. LANE. Have I charged admission?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LANE. No; I have not charged admission.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you collect any money in this country at the speeches that you made?

Mr. LANE. Did I, personally, collect any money?

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have money collected?

Mr. LANE. I collected no money.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any money collected?

Mr. LANE. I did not.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there money collected at that meeting--at those meetings that you had?

Mr. LANE. I spoke at probably 40 different college campuses throughout the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Was money collected at those places?

Mr. LANE. To my knowledge, at none of those meetings was money collected. At one or two or perhaps three other meetings, funds have been collected for the purpose of paying the salary of the secretary of this citizens committee of inquiry, and to pay the rent.

The CHAIRMAN. Who got the money?

Mr. LANE. The citizens committee of inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the head of that?

Mr. LANE. I am the chairman of that.

The CHAIRMAN. Who else belongs to it?

Mr. LANE. Among others, Jessica Mitford, who is the author who wrote "The American Way of Death," a best-selling book; Sterling Hayden, who is an actor; a number of attorneys, some in California, some in New York; and a number of others. I did not know that I was going to be questioned about the makeup of the citizens committee. Otherwise, I would have brought the entire membership list.

The CHAIRMAN. I didn't intend to ask you, but we are trying to get information about these different things that you considered vital in the assassination of the President. And it is a matter of great concern to the Commission that you are unwilling to tell us about those things that you considered bear upon the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald. And it handicaps us greatly in what we are trying to do, because of the things that you do say when you are away from the Commission, and then when you refuse to testify before us as to those very things that you discuss in public.

Mr. LANE. I have not said anything in public, Mr. Chief Justice, that I have not said first before this Commission, or at one time before this Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. But, before your audiences, do you not claim to be telling the truth and to be verifying the things that you tell them, and then when you come here you refuse to give us the verification?

Mr. LANE. When I speak before an audience, I do hold myself out to be telling the truth, just as when I have testified before this Commission I have also told the truth.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, you expressed a desire in your telegram to examine the rifle. We have that here for you to see. Let the record show that at this time the Commission is giving Mr. Lane an opportunity to examine the rifle known as Commission Exhibit No. 139.

Mr. LANE. Thank you. May I comment upon the examination?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may; if you saw anything of any significance there, you may state it.

Mr. LANE. Yes. I would like to call to the attention of the Commission the affidavit signed by a police officer, Seymour Weitzman, dated the 23d day of November 1963, the original of which was at one time in the office of the district attorney of Dallas. In that document, Officer Weitzman states he found, along with another person--a deputy sheriff, I believe, or a deputy of some sort--the alleged murder weapon, on the 22d day of November 1963, on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

And in that affidavit Mr. Weitzman--Officer Weitzman--swears that the murder weapon which he found, or the weapon which he found on that floor, was a Mauser 7.65 millimeters. A Mauser, of course, is a German weapon. The rifle which is before the Commission, and which is, I assume, allegedly now the murder weapon, is, of course, not a German Mauser 7.65 millimeters, but is an Italian carbine, 6.5 millimeters.

Although I am personally not a rifle expert, I was able to determine that it was an Italian carbine because printed indelibly upon it are the words "Made Italy" and "caliber 6.5." I suggest it is very difficult for a police officer to pick up a weapon which has printed upon it clearly in English "Made Italy, Cal 6.5," and then the next day draft an affidavit stating that that was in fact a German Mauser, 7.65 millimeters.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Anything further? We will take a short recess, then.

(Brief recess.)

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the Commission will come to order. There is nothing further at this time. The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON

THE WHITE HOUSE, _Washington, July 10, 1964_.

The Honorable EARL WARREN, _The Chief Justice of the United States, Washington, D.C._

MY DEAR MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: I have attempted, in the enclosed statement, to set forth my recollection of the tragic events of November 22, 1963. I am conscious of the limitations of my narrative. I had no opportunity, in the difficult and critical days following the assassination of President Kennedy, to record my impressions. Recollection at this late date is necessarily incomplete.

However, I fully realize the great importance of your task, and I have endeavored, as best I can, to set forth the events and my impressions as they remain in my mind at this time. Although I fear that they will be of little specific use to you, I hope that they may be of some interest.

I hope that you and the members of your Commission, as well as the devoted members of the staff who have worked so long and diligently on this undertaking, will accept my thanks and good wishes.

Sincerely,

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

[Enclosure.]

* * * * *

[Statement of the President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, concerning the events of November 22, 1963]

Friday morning, November 22, began with a reception in the Longhorn Room of the Hotel Texas, Fort Worth. President and Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Johnson and I had spent the night in that hotel. Then, President Kennedy and I went to a parking lot across from the hotel where a speaker's stand had been set up and we addressed a crowd that was gathered there. We then returned to the hotel and had breakfast.

After that, at about 10:30 a.m., we motored to the Fort Worth airfield. Mrs. Johnson and I then went aboard _Air Force II_ for the trip to Dallas.

We arrived at Love Field in Dallas, as I remember, just shortly after 11:30 a.m.

Agents Youngblood and Johns and two other agents were with us.

We disembarked from the plane promptly after it came to a stop at Love Field. We were met by a committee of local officials and citizens. After greeting them, Mrs. Johnson and I, together with the special agents, walked over to the area where President and Mrs. Kennedy would disembark. We were followed by the reception committee.

President Kennedy's plane arrived about 5 or 10 minutes after _Air Force II_. The President and Mrs. Kennedy disembarked and they greeted us and the people in the reception committee.

Then the President and Mrs. Kennedy walked along the fence, shaking hands with people in the crowd that had assembled. Mrs. Johnson and I followed along the fence, greeting people and shaking hands. This took 5 or 10 minutes, as I recall.

Mrs. Johnson, Senator Ralph Yarborough, and I then entered the car which had been provided for us in the motorcade. It was a Lincoln Continental convertible. I think that our car was the fourth in the motorcade. We were the second car behind the President's automobile.

The driver of the car in which Mrs. Johnson and I were riding was Hurchel Jacks, who is a member of the Texas State Highway Patrol. Agent Youngblood was sitting next to him in the front seat.

I was sitting behind Agent Youngblood; Mrs. Johnson was next to me; and Senator Yarborough was on the left of the rear seat--that is, just behind the driver.

At first, as we left Love Field and proceeded through the less-populated areas, the crowds were thin. I recall, however, that Mrs. Johnson and I and Senator Yarborough commented upon the good spirit and obvious good wishes of the crowd. As we drove closer to town, the crowds became quite large.

We made several stops as a result of stops by the automobiles ahead of us. I did not get out of the car, but on occasion a few people broke from the crowd and ran over, and I shook hands with several people on these occasions.

The motorcade proceeded down Main Street and then turned right on Houston. It then turned into Elm, which is a block, I believe, beyond the intersection of Main and Houston. The crowd on Elm Street was smaller.

As the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street to the point where the assassination occurred, it was traveling at a speed which I should estimate at 12 or 15 miles and hour.

After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report. The crowd at this point had become somewhat spotty.

The Vice-Presidential car was then about three car lengths behind President Kennedy's car, with the Presidential followup car intervening.

I was startled by the sharp report or explosion, but I had no time to speculate as to its origin because Agent Youngblood turned in a flash, immediately after the first explosion, hitting me on the shoulder, and shouted to all of us in the back seat to get down. I was pushed down by Agent Youngblood. Almost in the same moment in which he hit or pushed me, he vaulted over the back seat and sat on me. I was bent over under the weight of Agent Youngblood's body, toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough.

I remember attempting to turn my head to make sure that Mrs. Johnson had bent down. Both she and Senator Yarborough had crouched down at Agent Youngblood's command.

At some time in this sequence of events, I heard other explosions. It was impossible for me to tell the direction from which the explosions came.

I felt the automobile sharply accelerate, and in a moment or so Agent Youngblood released me. I ascertained that Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough were all right. I heard Agent Youngblood speaking over his radio transmitter. I asked him what had happened. He said that he was not sure but that he had learned that the motorcade was going to the hospital.

I did not see anything that was going on in and around the President's automobile.

When we arrived at the hospital; Agent Youngblood told me to get out of the car, go into the building, not to stop, and to stay close to him and the other agents. When the car came to a stop, a cordon of agents formed around me, and we walked rapidly into the hospital and then we went into a room there.

Because of the method which Agent Youngblood directed for leaving the car and entering the hospital, I did not see the Presidential car or any of the persons in it.

In the hospital room to which Mrs. Johnson and I were taken, the shades were drawn--I think by Agent Youngblood. In addition to him, two or three other agents were there.

As I remember, we got our first specific report from Emory Roberts, one of the agents from the White House detail. He told us that President Kennedy had been very badly injured and that his condition was quite poor. He said that he thought we should make plans to get back to Washington immediately.

I asked about Governor Connally and was told that he, too, had been shot, but that his wound was not serious. I was told that Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally were uninjured and that no one else had been hurt.

Mrs. Johnson and I asked if we could see Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally. Agent Youngblood told me that I could not leave the room, and I followed his direction.

Mrs. Johnson was allowed to leave for this purpose.

At some time during these events, Kenneth O'Donnell, Congressman Jack Brooks, Congressman Homer Thornberry, and Cliff Carter came into the room.

It was Ken O'Donnell who, at about 1:20 p.m., told us that the President had died. I think his precise words were, "He's gone." O'Donnell said that we should return to Washington and that we should take the President's plane for this purpose.

I found it hard to believe that this had happened. The whole thing seemed unreal--unbelievable. A few hours earlier, I had breakfast with John Kennedy; he was alive, strong, vigorous. I could not believe now that he was dead. I was shocked and sickened.

When Mr. O'Donnell told us to get on the plane and go back to Washington, I asked about Mrs. Kennedy. O'Donnell told me that Mrs. Kennedy would not leave the hospital without the President's body, and urged again that we go ahead and and take _Air Force I_ and return to Washington.

I did not want to go and leave Mrs. Kennedy in this situation. I said so, but I agreed that we would board the airplane and wait until Mrs. Kennedy and the President's body were brought aboard the plane.

It is, of course, difficult to convey an accurate impression of the period of time that we were in the hospital room. We were all stunned. I suppose we were in a state of shock and there was no time for the shock to wear off sufficiently so that the magnitude of our personal loss of this great man and good friend could express itself in words or in surface feelings.

I suppose, actually, that the only outlet for the grief that shock had submerged was our sharp, painful, and bitter concern and solicitude for Mrs. Kennedy.

Despite my awareness of the reasons for Mr. O'Donnell's insistence--in which I think he was joined by one or more of the Secret Service agents--that we board the airplane, leave Dallas, and go to Washington without delay, I was determined that we would not return until Mrs. Kennedy was ready, and that we would carry the President's body back with us if she wanted.

We left the room and were ushered by a cordon of agents to cars which were awaiting us. At Agent Youngblood's insistence, I entered one car and Mrs. Johnson another. Agent Youngblood and I were sitting in the back seat and Congressman Thornberry was in the front seat.

As we started away from the hospital, Congressman Albert Thomas came up to the car. He saw Congressman Thornberry--I don't think he saw me--and he asked the Congressman to wait for him. At my direction, the car stopped and picked him up and he sat in the front seat with Congressman Thornberry. I am sure this didn't take as much as minute. Congressman Thornberry then climbed over and got into the back seat with us.

When we got to the airport, we proceeded to drive to the ramp leading into the plane, and we entered the plane.

We were ushered into the private quarters of the President's plane. It didn't seem right for John Kennedy not to be there. I told someone that we preferred for Mrs. Kennedy to use these quarters.

Shortly after we boarded the plane, I called Robert Kennedy, the President's brother and the Attorney General. I knew how grief-stricken he was, and I wanted to say something that would comfort him. Despite his shock, he discussed the practical problems at hand--problems of special urgency because we did not at that time have any information as to the motivation of the assassination or its possible implications. The Attorney General said that he would like to look into the matter of whether the oath of office as President should be administered to me immediately or after we returned to Washington, and that he would call back.

I thereafter talked with McGeorge Bundy and Walter Jenkins, both of whom urged that the return to Washington should not be delayed. I told them I was waiting for Mrs. Kennedy and for the President's body to be placed on the plane, and would not return prior to that time.

As I remember, our conversation was interrupted to allow the Attorney General to come back on the line. He said that the oath should be administered to me immediately, before taking off for Washington, and that it should be administered by a judicial officer of the United States. Shortly thereafter, the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Katzenbach, dictated the form of oath to one of the secretaries aboard the plane.

I thought of Sarah Hughes, an old friend who is judge of the U.S. district court in Dallas. We telephoned Judge Hughes' office. She was not there, but she returned the call in a few minutes and said she would be at the airplane in 10 minutes. I asked that arrangements be made to permit her to have access to the airplane.

A few minutes later Mrs. Kennedy and the President's coffin arrived. Mrs. Johnson and I spoke to her. We tried to comfort her, but our words seemed inadequate. She went into the private quarters of the plane. I estimate that Mrs. Kennedy and the coffin arrived about a half hour after we entered the plane--just after 2 o'clock.

About a half hour later, I asked someone to find out if Mrs. Kennedy would stand with us during the administration of the oath. Mrs. Johnson went back to be with her. Mrs. Kennedy came and stood with us during the moments that the oath was being administered.

I shall never forget her bravery, nobility, and dignity.

I'm told that the oath was administered at 2:40 p.m. Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Kennedy were at my side as Judge Hughes administered the oath of office.

The plane took off promptly after the swearing-in ceremonies. I then called President Kennedy's mother, Mrs. Rose Kennedy. She had previously been advised of the assassination. I told her of our grief and of our sorrow for her. I gave the telephone to Mrs. Johnson, who also tried to bring a word of comfort to the President's mother. I then called Nellie Connally, the Governor's wife, and told her of our concern for her and John, and tried to give her some comfort.

I then asked General Clifton, the military aide to the President, to call McGeorge Bundy in Washington to instruct him to ask the Cabinet members who were on their way to Japan to return immediately.

When we landed at the Andrews Air Force Base, I made a short statement for the press, radio, and television. In my heart, I asked for God's help that I should not prove unworthy of the responsibility which fate had thrust upon me.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

STATEMENT OF MRS. LYNDON B. JOHNSON

THE WHITE HOUSE, _Washington, July 16, 1964_.

The Honorable EARL WARREN, _The Chief Justice of the United States, Washington, D.C_.

MY DEAR MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr. Lee Rankin, chief counsel to the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, has advised me that the Commission would be interested to have a statement from me concerning my recollection of the events of November 22, 1963.

Beginning on November 30, and as I found time on the following 2 days, I dictated my recollection of that fateful and dreadful day on a small tape recorder which I had at The Elms, where we were then living. I did this primarily as a form of therapy--to help me over the shock and horror of the experience of President Kennedy's assassination. I did not intend that the tape should be used.

The quality of the tape recording is very poor, but upon considering your Commission's request, I decided to ask that the tape relating to November 22 be transcribed. I am sending the transcription to you with only a few, minor corrections. Perhaps it will serve your purposes. I hope so. In any event, it is a more faithful record of my recollection and impressions than I could produce at this late date.

Please accept, for yourself and the members of the Commission and its staff, my thanks and best wishes for the important task which you have undertaken and to which all of you have so generously dedicated yourselves.

Sincerely, (S) Lady Bird Johnson, Mrs. LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

[Enclosure.]

* * * * *

[Transcript from Mrs. Johnson's tapes relating to November 22, 1963]

It all began so beautifully. After a drizzle in the morning, the sun came out bright and beautiful. We were going into Dallas. In the lead car, President and Mrs. Kennedy, John and Nellie, and then a Secret Service car full of men, and then our car--Lyndon and me and Senator Yarborough. The streets were lined with people--lots and lots of people--the children all smiling; placards, confetti; people waving from windows. One last happy moment I had was looking up and seeing Mary Griffith leaning out of a window waving at me. Mary for many years had been in charge of altering the clothes which I purchased at a Dallas store.

Then almost at the edge of town, on our way to the Trade Mart where we were going to have the luncheon, we were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession. There had been such a gala air that I thought it must be firecrackers or some sort of celebration. Then, in the lead car, the Secret Service men were suddenly down. I heard over the radio system, "Let's get out of here," and our Secret Service man who was with us, Ruf Youngblood, I believe it was, vaulted over the front seat on top of Lyndon, threw him to the floor, and said, "Get down."

Senator Yarborough and I ducked our heads. The car accelerated terrifically fast--faster and faster. Then suddenly they put on the brakes so hard that I wondered if they were going to make it as we wheeled left and went around the corner. We pulled up to a building. I looked up and saw it said "Hospital." Only then did I believe that this might be what it was. Yarborough kept on saying in an excited voice, "Have they shot the President?" I said something like, "No; it can't be."

As we ground to a halt--we were still the third car--Secret Service men began to pull, lead, guide, and hustle us out. I cast one last look over my shoulder and saw, in the President's car, a bundle of pink, just like a drift of blossoms, lying on the back seat. I think it was Mrs. Kennedy lying over the President's body. They led us to the right, the left, and onward into a quiet room in the hospital--a very small room. It was lined with white sheets, I believe.

People came and went--Kenny O'Donnell, Congressman Thornberry, Congressman Jack Brooks. Always there was Ruf right there, Emory Roberts, Jerry Kivett, Lem Johns, and Woody Taylor. There was talk about where we would go--back to Washington, to the plane, to our house. People spoke of how widespread this may be. Through it all, Lyndon was remarkably calm and quiet. Every face that came in, you searched for the answers you must know. I think the face I kept seeing it on was the face of Kenny O'Donnell, who loved him so much.

It was Lyndon as usual who thought of it first, although I wasn't going to leave without doing it. He said, "You had better try to see if you can see Jackie and Nellie." We didn't know what had happened to John. I asked the Secret Service men if I could be taken to them. They began to lead me up one corridor, back stairs, and down another. Suddenly I found myself face to face with Jackie in a small hall. I think it was right outside the operating room. You always think of her--or someone like her--as being insulated, protected; she was quite alone. I don't think I ever saw anyone so much alone in my life. I went up to her, put my arms around her, and said something to her. I'm sure it was something like, "God, help us all," because my feelings for her were too tumultuous to put into words.

And then I went in to see Nellie. There it was different because Nellie and I have gone through so many things together since 1938. I hugged her tight and we both cried and I said, "Nellie, it's going to be all right." And Nellie said, "Yes; John's going to be all right." Among her many other fine qualities, she is also tough.

Then I turned and went back to the small white room where Lyndon was. Mr. Kilduff and Kenny O'Donnell were coming and going. I think it was from Kenny's face and Kenny's voice that I first heard the words, "The President is dead." Mr. Kilduff entered and said to Lyndon, "Mr. President."

It was decided that we would go immediately to the airport. Quick plans were made about how to get to the car, who to ride in what. It was Lyndon who said we should go to the plane in unmarked cars. Getting out of the hospital into the cars was one of the swiftest walks I have ever made. We got in. Lyndon said to stop the sirens. We drove along as fast as we could. I looked up at a building and there already was a flag at half-mast. I think that is when the enormity of what had happened first struck me.

When we got to the airplane, we entered airplane No. 1 for the first time. There was a TV set on, and the commentator was saying, "Lyndon B. Johnson, now President of the United States." They were saying they had a suspect. They were not sure he was the assassin. The President had been shot with a 30-30 rifle. On the plane, all the shades were lowered. Lyndon said that we were going to wait for Mrs. Kennedy and the coffin. There was discussion about when Lyndon should be sworn in as President. There was a telephone call to Washington--I believe to the Attorney General. It was decided that he should be sworn in in Dallas as quickly as possible because of international implications, and because we did not know how widespread this incident was as to intended victims. Judge Sarah Hughes, a Federal judge in Dallas--and I am glad it was she--was called to come in a hurry.

Mrs. Kennedy had arrived by this time and the coffin, and there--in the very narrow confines of the plane with Jackie on his left with her hair falling in her face, but very composed, and then Lyndon, and I was on his right, Judge Hughes with the Bible in front of her and a cluster of Secret Service people and Congressmen we had known for a long time--Lyndon took the oath of office.

It's odd at a time like that the little things that come to your mind and a moment of deep compassion you have for people who are really not at the center of the tragedy. I heard a Secret Service man say in the most desolate voice and I hurt for him, "We never lost a President in the Service," and then Police Chief Curry, of Dallas, came on the plane and said to Mrs. Kennedy, "Mrs. Kennedy, believe me, we did everything we possibly could."

We all sat around the plane. We had at first been ushered into the main private Presidential cabin on the plane--but Lyndon quickly said, "No, no" and immediately led us out of there; we felt that is where Mrs. Kennedy should be. The casket was in the hall. I went in to see Mrs. Kennedy and, though it was a very hard thing to do, she made it as easy as possible. She said things like, "Oh, Lady Bird, it's good that we've always liked you two so much." She said, "Oh, what if I had not been there? I'm so glad I was there." I looked at her. Mrs. Kennedy's dress was stained with blood. Her right glove was caked--that immaculate woman--it was caked with blood, her husband's blood. She always wore gloves like she was used to them. I never could. Somehow that was one of the most poignant sights--exquisitely dressed and caked in blood. I asked her if I couldn't get someone in to help her change, and she said, "Oh, no. Perhaps later I'll ask Mary Gallagher, but not right now."

She said a lot of other things, like, "What if I had not been there? Oh, I'm so glad I was there," and a lot of other things that made it so much easier for us. "Oh, Lady Bird, we've always liked you both so much." I tried to express something of how we felt. I said, "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, you know we never even wanted to be Vice President and now, dear God, it's come to this." I would have done anything to help her, but there was nothing I could do to help her, so rather quickly I left and went back to the main part of the airplane where everyone was seated.

The ride to Washington was silent, strained--each with his own thoughts. One of mine was something I had said about Lyndon a long time ago--that he's a good man in a tight spot. I even remember one little thing he said in that hospital room, "Tell the children to get a Secret Service man with them."

Finally, we got to Washington, with a cluster of people watching. Many bright lights. The casket went off first; then Mrs. Kennedy. The family had come to join them, and then we followed. Lyndon made a very simple, very brief, and--I think--strong, talk to the folks there. Only about four sentences, I think. We got in cars; we dropped him off at the White House, and I came home.

_Tuesday, July 28, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR LLEWELLYN E. THOMPSON

The President's Commission met at 3 p.m., on July 28, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Senator John Sherman Cooper (presiding), and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; W. David Slawson, assistant counsel; and Richard A. Frank, attorney, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State.

Senator COOPER. The Commission will be in order.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I do.

Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, could you please state for the record your full name and address?

Ambassador THOMPSON. My name is Llewellyn E. Thompson. I reside at 1913 23d Street NW., Washington.

Mr. SLAWSON. And could you state your present position with the U.S. Government and the positions you have held since late 1959?

Ambassador THOMPSON. In 1959 I was Ambassador in Moscow, and then I was transferred to the State Department as Ambassador at Large, and have been that since that time. In addition, I am now Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State.

Mr SLAWSON. Thank you. Ambassador Thompson has been asked to testify today on any contacts he may have had with Lee Harvey Oswald while the Ambassador was in his post with the American Embassy in Moscow and on any knowledge he may have on pertinent Soviet practices or American practices at that time which might relate to the treatment of Mr. Oswald.

Ambassador Thompson, could you state all of the times and describe them when you heard about Lee Harvey Oswald's dealings with your Embassy at Moscow while he was in Russia, either in late 1959 or thereafter?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; the only recollection I have is that when I returned from a trip to the United States in November 1959, or some time after that, the consul informed me about the case, and said this man had asked to renounce his citizenship. I recall asking him----

Mr. DULLES. Was that Consul Richard E. Snyder?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; I am almost certain of that. I recall asking him why he didn't accept the renunciation, and he explained that in cases of this kind he normally waited to make sure the man was serious, and also in order to normally consult the State Department.

I believe he told me at that time that the man had not come back again. And I believe that is the only recollection I have of the case at all at the time I was in Moscow.

Mr. SLAWSON. And that includes any other time thereafter, including through 1962?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; of course I read the press and was aware of the case when it came up in the Department. There was some discussion of it. But no knowledge that I think would bear on the case.

I recall, I think, being in Germany at the time I read in the press that he was leaving the country--leaving Moscow, that is. But I don't recall having been consulted about his application to leave.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did you have any personal dealings or any knowledge of your subordinates' dealings with Marina Oswald, Lee Oswald's wife, when she applied to accompany him back to the United States in early 1961 and frequently thereafter?

Ambassador THOMPSON. None that I recall.

Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, I wonder if you could make any comments you would like to make on the policy which Consul Snyder and others testifying for the Department of State have described in their treatment of Americans who sought to renounce their citizenship when they came to Moscow, and how these Americans were handled?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I am aware that we have had cases where someone would say they wanted to renounce their citizenship and then after a few days in the Soviet Union change their minds. And while I don't recall any specific cases, I do know we have had cases of that sort.

Mr. SLAWSON. Was there any particular time in your career when this sort of thing was more frequent than other times--any groups of people where it might have occurred?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I know that prior to my arrival in Moscow in 1941, when I was Secretary in the Embassy, that there had been a great influx from the United States, particularly of people of Finnish origin, who had returned to the Soviet Union. I think that some of those people at least had not renounced their citizenship; they had come over there under the impression that they would receive very good treatment, and a great many of them applied subsequently to return to the United States. But many of them were unable to get exit visas.

Mr. SLAWSON. Were those that did not give up their American citizenship usually able to return to the United States if they changed their mind?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe so. I know of one case of a man of Finnish origin who worked for the Embassy, and he did return to the United States. It is the one case I know of personally. I am quite sure there were some others who did get out.

Mr. SLAWSON. Shifting now to the Soviet treatment of American defectors, or would-be defectors, are there any cases in your experience where you could comment on the Soviet treatment of such persons, how quickly the Russian Government made up its mind whether it wanted them for permanent residence in Russia and so on?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that in recent times, at least, my impression is that the Soviets, because of bad experience they have had with some people who came there to reside, and renounced their citizenship, have looked these people over and let them know that they could not remain. I think there was a case since I left the Soviet Union of that sort. I don't recall the exact particulars. But I do have the impression that they now don't automatically accept people who come and say they want to renounce their citizenship and would like to reside there.

Mr. SLAWSON. Can you give the Commission any estimate on the time periods that sometimes are involved in the Soviet authorities making up their mind?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that there has been at least a case or two during the time I was there where it was pretty obvious that the person concerned was unstable and that the Soviets very quickly let the person know that he could not reside. But since I did not handle these cases, I do not--I could not cite any specific cases.

Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, I have a name of an American citizen, Mr. William Edgerton Morehouse, Jr., who, according to the records of the Department of State, was hospitalized in a hospital in Moscow in the fall of 1959.

According to records furnished us by the Russian Government, and according to the personal diary kept by Lee Harvey Oswald, he, too, was hospitalized in the latter part of October, and commented--Oswald commented in his diary--that in his ward with him was what he described as an elderly American. We are trying to locate that American. We think that possibly this Mr. Morehouse was that person. I wonder if you had ever heard of Mr. Morehouse before, or know who he might be?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I have no recollection of having heard of this man before.

Mr. SLAWSON. Do you have any recollection of any other American that might fit this description?

Ambassador THOMPSON. No; I do recall that there have been American tourists who have been in the hospital in Moscow. But I don't recall at that particular date whether there were any.

Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, can you comment on how Americans were ordinarily given medical treatment in the Botkinskaya Hospital in Moscow, which was the hospital in which Oswald was treated, to the best of your knowledge?

Ambassador THOMPSON. The Botkinskaya Hospital has a section which is reserved for the members of the diplomatic corps, and in case of prominent Americans, particularly if the illness were serious, they were often treated there.

Mr. SLAWSON. You say the Americans normally were treated in a special ward in that hospital, or a special section of it?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; it was a completely separate building, I believe.

Mr. SLAWSON. Was this the invariable method of treatment, or would there be a reasonable chance that an American might have gone into a normal Soviet ward which would have treated his type of illness?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I would think that the ward which was reserved for the diplomatic corps would probably only have been used for important visitors, but it is quite a large hospital, with a large number of separate buildings. It is quite possible for Americans to have been in one or the other. And obviously, if there were an infectious disease, they would be separated, and not in the regular section.

Mr. SLAWSON. If an ordinary American tourist or businessman in Moscow were to receive an injury in, say, an automobile accident or some other normal method, would he normally be put into the same ward as Embassy people were placed, or would he receive treatment right along with normal Soviet citizens?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that there is an emergency hospital type where he probably would normally be taken, rather than Botkinskaya. I cannot be sure of this. But we had an American doctor in the Embassy who would normally be called in on cases of this kind, and if he felt the case required it he would probably apply to have him taken to Botkinskaya.

Mr. SLAWSON. Do you recollect who this doctor was in the fall of 1959?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe at that time it was an Air Force officer. It sometimes rotated among the services. But I am almost certain it was an Air Force officer. I could get the name, but I don't recall it at the moment. I just don't recall the name.

Senator COOPER. I suggest that the Secretary can supply the name for the Commission.

Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, do you think it would be usual of the Soviet Government to permit someone in Oswald's circumstances, that is a would-be defector from his own government, to be treated in the same ward as other Americans, or particularly as Americans who might come under the category of this important person or Embassy official ward you were speaking of?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I would think it is probably somewhat unusual. This doctor could give you expert testimony on this, because he has been involved in almost all cases.

Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know whether that doctor is in the United States at the present time?

Ambassador THOMPSON. He was in Texas the last I heard. I draw a blank on his name at the moment, although I know him quite well.

Mr. SLAWSON. I think with the lead you have given us, we shouldn't have any difficulty in finding his name. I have no other questions. Does anyone else present care to place a question?

Senator COOPER. It appears from the testimony that we have heard that Lee Oswald appeared at the Embassy on October 31, 1959, and stated he wished to renounce his American citizenship. As I understand, at that time you were out of the Soviet Union.

Ambassador THOMPSON. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. Was Edward L. Freers, Chargé d'Affaire?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Was there a consulate in Moscow?

Ambassador THOMPSON. There is a consular section of the Embassy, but not a separate consulate.

Senator COOPER. Who had charge of the consulate section of the Embassy?

Ambassador THOMPSON. At that time I believe it was Mr. Richard Snyder.

Senator COOPER. And was he the one who advised you on your return to Moscow that Oswald had applied to the Embassy and stated that he wished to renounce his citizenship?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe that is correct. I think the counselor was also present at the time. I think both of them informed me.

Senator COOPER. We have had in evidence dispatches from the Embassy at Moscow upon this question, and the matter was referred to the Department of State as to what steps should be taken towards his renunciation. Was that the normal way of the Embassy handling such applications for renunciation of citizenship?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes, sir; I believe that would be done in every case.

Senator COOPER. Did the State Department have any policy, other than reference to the State Department, as to the approval of such applications?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe our practice is that whenever we are convinced that the man is serious, and knows what he is doing, that this is allowed to take place--the renunciation is accepted.

Senator COOPER. Is there a policy or practice of attempting to determine whether the person is serious, or whether the person might change his or her mind after the original renunciation application?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; that is correct. Because, as I said earlier, there have been cases where people have changed their minds in a very few days. Also, there is always the possibility that someone might be temporarily of unsound mind or some other reason, why it would need to be ascertained that they were aware of what they were doing.

Senator COOPER. There is also in evidence a letter, or a dispatch from the Embassy to the Department of State, dated May 26, 1961, signed for the Ambassador by Edward L. Freers, minister counselor. This dispatch deals with the application of Oswald to secure a renewal of his passport. Were you out of Moscow at that time?

Ambassador THOMPSON. What was the date, sir?

Senator COOPER. May 26, 1961.

Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe I was in Moscow at that time. I took a trip within the Soviet Union from May 10 to 14, 1961, but I believe I was there on May 9.

Senator COOPER. Then these dispatches, they were sent in your name, or by someone for the Ambassador?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; but I don't recall having been shown them.

Mr. SLAWSON. For the record, Senator Cooper, could I state that the dispatch of May 26, 1961, you referred to is Commission Exhibit No. 936, and the memorandum you are also reading from is Commission Exhibit No. 935.

Mr. DULLES. How were those signed, Mr. Slawson?

Mr. SLAWSON. Commission Exhibit No. 935 is signed for the Ambassador by Boris H. Klosson, counselor for political affairs. And Commission Exhibit No. 936 is signed for the Ambassador by Edward L. Freers, minister counselor.

Senator COOPER. I might also refer to the earlier dispatch November 2, 1959, Commission Exhibit No. 908.

Now, were the procedures followed with respect to his request for renewal of his passport--that is in reference to the Department of State, for decision--was that the normal procedure followed when persons who had attempted to renounce or had renounced, claimed or desired to secure renewal of their passport--to refer it to the Department of State?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes, sir; I think in every case that would be done.

Senator COOPER. Now, between the time of Oswald's entrance into the Soviet Union and his exit, did you ever see Oswald yourself?

Ambassador THOMPSON. No, sir; I never saw him that I knew of.

Senator COOPER. Did you hear anything about him during his stay in the Soviet Union?

Ambassador THOMPSON. My only recollection is of this first briefing. I don't recall hearing anything else about him.

Senator COOPER. In evidence it has appeared that not too long after he came to Moscow, he went to Minsk and secured a job there.

From your experience as Ambassador, our Ambassador in Russia, and also in other positions in the Embassy, would you consider that unusual, that Oswald should be able to secure a job in a Russian factory while he was there?

Ambassador THOMPSON. No, sir; I think that once they had agreed to let him stay in the Soviet Union, they would have assisted him in obtaining employment, because they believe that everyone that is able to in the country should work, and since he was obviously not staying just as a tourist, I think they would normally have provided employment for him.

Senator COOPER. Also in evidence it indicates he was provided by the Soviet officials with a passport or document which described him as a stateless person.

From your experience would you be able to say whether or not that was a normal procedure for the Soviets to follow with respect to an American tourist?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that as long as they agreed to let him stay beyond the normal time of a tourist, that is a month or at the most 2 months, that they would then provide him with documentation so he could identify himself to the police. The police would not normally be able to read an American passport. In the Soviet Union, if you travel at all, you have to produce documentation--to stay in a hotel, very often to obtain transportation. So I think it would be normal that they would provide him with documentation.

Senator COOPER. Would you say that in late 1959, or 1960 or 1961 that the provision by the Soviet Union officials to a tourist of a document like this, saying he is a stateless person, and allowing him to stay beyond the usual time, for a tourist, was ordinary or usual? Would that indicate anything unusual to you, from your experience in the Embassy in Moscow?

Ambassador THOMPSON. No; I think not. I think that in cases of this kind that this would be normal.

Senator COOPER. Would it indicate in any way that they might be considering further his application to become a citizen of the Soviet Union or, in another way, that they were considering whether or not he might be used as an agent of the Soviet Union?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I think there have been a good many cases of people who have come to the Soviet Union from abroad, and I believe that a number of them have not formally renounced citizenship. I recall that in 1941, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union, that there were a number of people who turned up that we had not known were in the Soviet Union, had never been near the Embassy, and had never, as far as we know renounced their citizenship. But they had been living there all this time.

Senator COOPER. You would not have any reason to think, then, that these circumstances might indicate that the Soviets were--could consider using him as an agent at some future time?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I would not have much on which to base a judgment on that, other than that it seems to me, of course, possible, in this or any other case in which a foreigner has come in to reside. But as I say there have been a great many cases.

For example, there are many people of Armenian origin who have returned to the Soviet Union and have been encouraged to do so by the Soviet Government. And in view of the very large numbers, I would think that the intention to use any of them as an agent would be very rare.

As far as I can understand, they encouraged them to come back because they wanted their skills available.

Senator COOPER. When he applied for a renewal of his passport, his wife, Marina, made application for a passport. And I believe it was said that that was a prerequisite to securing an exit visa from the Soviet Union.

From your experience as Ambassador and in other posts in the American Embassy, do you consider the time in which she was able to secure an exit visa from Russia, within so short time, as unusual?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, if it was a short time--and I am not aware of the exact time, myself--but if it were a short time, I would say it is unusual, because we have had cases that drag out over years, and in many cases, of course, they never get an exit visa.

Senator COOPER. Well, perhaps without reference to time, from your experience, have you found that--do you know whether it was difficult for a Soviet citizen, such as Marina Oswald, even though she might be married to an American--that it is difficult for them to secure an exit visa from the Soviet Union?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; it is very difficult.

Senator COOPER. Do you know the basis for that? Is it that they do not want to permit the exit of any Soviet citizen?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that except in the cases of rather elderly people, they have not wanted any of their people to leave permanently. They let them go on tourist trips abroad, but not for permanent residence. As you possibly know, leaving the Soviet Union without permission is one of the most severely punished crimes you can commit in the Soviet Union.

Senator COOPER. What was that?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Leaving without permission.

Senator COOPER. Would the fact that there was a child born to Lee Oswald and Marina Oswald have altered this practice of the Soviet Union, as far as any experience that you have had or any knowledge you have had about such cases?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I think the existence of a child born in the Soviet Union would normally make it more difficult for a person to secure an exit visa.

Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, in the facts of the Oswald case they applied to leave the Soviet Union, of course, well before their first child was born, and in fact probably received Soviet permission to leave in late December 1961, and the child, I believe, was born in February 1962--although the Oswalds in fact did not leave until very early June 1962.

They nevertheless had received Soviet permission to do so before the child was born.

In light of that fact, could you comment further upon the perhaps greater difficulty of leaving when you have a child?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I think probably having once processed the case and agreed to let the husband and wife leave, that they would have been more inclined then to let the child leave than if the case had been considered after the child was born.

Senator COOPER. I take it the policy of the United States would be the reverse--that is, because Marina was the wife of Lee Oswald, and because the baby had been born, the practice of the United States would be to grant a passport to Marina for the child.

Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe that is right, on compassionate grounds.

Senator COOPER. Are you familiar with the testimony about a loan that was made to the Oswalds in order to help them get back to the United States?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I have read in the press that they had received the normal loan.

Senator COOPER. Can you say anything about that as a practice of the American Government?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I only know that in general where a citizen wishes to return to the United States and doesn't have the means to do so, that we frequently do assist them. This goes back many years. But I haven't been myself concerned in this for probably 25 years, or even more.

Senator COOPER. But is it the practice that if a determination has been made that the individual is an American citizen, therefore entitled to what protections are given to American citizens, if necessary, loans will be made to assist them to return to the United States? Is that about the basis of the policy?

Ambassador THOMPSON. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. I think that is all I have.

Mr. DULLES. Did you have any conversations at any time while you were Ambassador or after you returned to the United States with any Soviet official with regard to the Oswald case?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the desire of the Commission to receive any documentation that they might have available, but I did not in any way discuss the case itself, nor did the Soviet official with whom I talked.

Mr. DULLES. And do you know of any conversations of that nature that any other official of the Department had in connection with the Oswald case?

Ambassador THOMPSON. I do not myself know of any.

Mr. DULLES. You probably would, would you not, if that had taken place--of any importance?

Ambassador THOMPSON. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Your testimony is you have no knowledge of any other conversations other than that of the Secretary of State, in connection with communications to and from the Soviet Government on this case?

Ambassador THOMPSON. That is correct. I know of no other cases where it was discussed with Soviet officials.

Mr. DULLES. That is all I have.

Mr. SLAWSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

(Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)

_Wednesday, September 2, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF C. DOUGLAS DILLON

The President's Commission met at 12:05 p. m., on September 2, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, Allen W. Dulles, and John J. McCloy, members.

Also present was J. Lee Rankin, general counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, would you please rise and follow me.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

Secretary DILLON. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary DILLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you state your name and residence, please?

Secretary DILLON. C. Douglas Dillon of Far Hills, N.J., presently residing in Washington, 2534 Belmont Road, NW.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official position with the Government?

Secretary DILLON. Yes, I do. I am the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. RANKIN. In that capacity do you have responsibility for the Secret Service of the United States?

Secretary DILLON. Yes, the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Department.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you had that position responsibility for some time?

Secretary DILLON. Since January 21, 1961.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us briefly the nature of your supervision of the Secret Service, prior to the assassination?

Secretary DILLON. Yes. Prior to the assassination, when I first took office as Secretary of the Treasury, I naturally tried to find out, in as much detail as seemed practical, how the various offices of the Department functioned. One of the important ones was the Secret Service. So I had a number of interviews with Chief Baughman who was the Chief of the Secret Service at that time.

I got the general description from him of how the Secret Service operated, what their responsibilities were, what their problems were. After he retired, which was early, after I had only been there for a few months, I spoke with the President about this matter--President Kennedy--and it was my responsibility to find a new Chief of the Secret Service.

He had known James Rowley very well as head of the White House detail, and he felt that he would be an appropriate head of the Secret Service. I talked with Chief Baughman, and he thought there were two or three men, of whom Rowley was one, qualified to be head of the Secret Service; so I decided to appoint Rowley and thereafter talked with him considerably about the White House detail which he was more familiar with than Chief Baughman.

However, I did not in any sense conduct a day-to-day supervision, or close following, of its day-to-day operations. The Secret Service had been functioning for many years and the presumption from its record was that it had been functioning successfully. I think that the events that have developed since November have very clearly shown that some of the procedures, many of them, need to be changed and improved. I think this is probably largely due, to a considerable extent due, to a very rapid change which probably took place without our fully realizing its importance in the last 3 years, and which greatly increased the responsibility of the Secret Service. That is the greatly changed nature of Presidential travel.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to us how that affects the problems of the Secret Service?

Secretary DILLON. Yes. In earlier times, the Presidents did not travel very often. When he did travel, he generally traveled by train, which was a protected train. Doing that, he could not cover very many parts of the country, and the Secret Service could move easily right along with him on the train that he was on.

What happened since has been, first, the advent of airplanes. Presidents beginning with President Eisenhower began to move more rapidly and were able to travel considerably more, and on very short time differentials they could be in cities that were thousands of miles apart.

However, this only just began with President Eisenhower because, in the first place, jets were not yet available, and in the second place, in the last 4 years of his term, he had to take greater care of his health, and he didn't travel around the country quite as much as his successors have. So when President Kennedy came into office with the availability of, the relatively recent availability, of jets and his desire to travel, this greatly increased the burden on the Secret Service. Formerly when they had a trip, they used to send out an advance agent to some big town. Now the trip would be a 3-day trip, and there might be four towns, each one 1,000 miles apart, that would have to be covered thoroughly at the same time. I think that probably there was not a full realization by anyone of this problem.

Certainly the Secret Service came to me and said they needed more personnel, and we tried to get them more personnel. Chief Rowley testified, I thought quite convincingly, in 1962 before the various Appropriations Committees of the Congress and met with very little success because I think that this was not fully understood by the public. The Appropriations Committees were a reflection of public understanding, and probably it was not even fully understood within the Secret Service.

I would like----

Senator RUSSELL. Has there been any increase, Mr. Secretary, in the number of agents assigned to guard the President. I thought there had been some increase in recent years?

Secretary DILLON. There has been some increase, and we have tried very hard to increase the Secret Service in the last 3 or 4 years. We have asked for more people every year, and while we never got the amount we asked for, we did get increases. I have the figures here. In 1961, the entire Secret Service amounted to 454 individuals, of whom 305 were classified as agents. In 1964, that is the fiscal year just finished, the figure was 571, of which 167 were clerks and 404 were agents. So we had achieved an increase of about 100 agents, a little over a third.

Mr. DULLES. That included both the counterfeiting responsibilities of the Secret Service as well as the Presidential protection?

Secretary DILLON. That is right. And I think it is important to note that the counterfeiting problem was also increasing in volume very rapidly and changing very rapidly at about the same time. Actually that may have started a few years earlier because of the development of photography, which enabled one to counterfeit by photography instead of having to do it by hand engraving.

Representative FORD. Wasn't the specific request for an increase in the White House detail--I use this in a broad sense for both the President and Vice President--primarily aimed at the increase of personnel for the Vice President?

Secretary DILLON. That was in one year.

Representative FORD. 1962?

Secretary DILLON. I think that was in--I think that was in 1963. In 1962 the law was passed, and we did have a deficiency appropriation which was given to us. The following year when we came up for our regular appropriation, we not only did not get the full amount that we thought was necessary to cover the Vice President, but they cut the protection we had been affording the Vice President in half, and whereas there had been 20 persons assigned, they reduced it to 10.

Representative FORD. But there had been no reduction in the funds for the protection of the President?

Secretary DILLON. For the White House detail; no.

Representative FORD. It was a reduction for the protection of the Vice President.

Secretary DILLON. That is correct. But the thing that I think we are coming to is, it is perfectly obvious that we have to do a great deal more in this advance work, field work, in interviewing people who are dangers to the President or could be classified as such. We need more people in the field on account of this. That is what I say was not probably fully realized, although Rowley specifically, when he first went up in 1962 asking for an increase, pitched it on that basis, but he did not have a very good reception from the Appropriations Committee at that time because they felt that the White House detail was the White House detail, right around the President. I don't think anyone fully understood the connection with people in the field. I am not sure that Secret Service made as good a case as they should, to be really understood on this. It has become clear now.

Representative FORD. Mr. Rowley in that presentation asked for additional funds for and personnel for the Protective Research Service?

Secretary DILLON. I don't think it was specifically for that. It was for protection of the President, and he was the first person that made this type of request. Baughman had always said that people in the field were counterfeiting and just worked a little bit for the President, and Rowley when he came in was the first one that made this claim that they were needed to actually protect the President. He wanted more people in the field to do these things, and that was the thing that did not go over right away. I think it would be interesting here. We have----

Mr. RANKIN. May I interrupt a moment? We have a problem with some of the members of the Commission that have to go to the Congress right away for the vote. They would like to question you if they may.

Senator COOPER. I have a question which I think you can address yourself fully to later but considering these new factors which make the protection of the President more difficult, I would like to ask if it is your judgment that the Secret Service, if it is provided adequate personnel and if it is--if a broader criteria for the ascertainment of the persons who might be dangerous to the President is adopted, if it is your judgment that the Secret Service could meet these new factors and provide an effective protection for the President, taking into consideration the factors which you mentioned?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; I think they could. I think the answer is clearcut. I don't think that means that under every and all circumstances you could be absolutely a thousand percent certain that nothing can happen. You never can be in a situation like this. But I think they could be a great deal better, and you could feel everything has been done. We have just completed--the thing I wanted to say--this study we have been working on many months as to what is needed to provide this in the Secret Service. Chief Rowley was not able to give you this when he was here before. I have given a copy of this to Mr. Rankin. I think it ought to go into the record at this point.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, I will hand to you the document you just referred to, called Planning Document, U.S. Secret Service, and ask if that is the document that you were describing.

Secretary DILLON. Yes. That is the document; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to ask leave at this time to mark this document our next exhibit number which I will furnish later to the reporter, and offer it in evidence as part of this examination.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, that is not a security matter that couldn't go into the record, is it?

Secretary DILLON. No. I have one thing I would like to say about that, and I think it should go into the record. What this is is our report as to how many personnel are needed and what has to be done and what they should do. We have transmitted that with a covering letter to the Bureau of the Budget. The final decision on what will be done on many of these things is taken in the light of recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget to the President and what he finally decides for budgetary reasons. So ordinarily budgetary matters are not published prior to the time the President has approved them. He hasn't approved this. He hasn't seen it, but I think under the circumstances I see no reason under this special circumstance, why this report should not go into the record, and I think it is perfectly all right.

The CHAIRMAN. The report may be admitted and take the next number.

(Commission Exhibit No. 1053-A was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Representative FORD. This would be the recommendation of the Treasury Department to the Bureau of the Budget for the personnel and the funds for the Secret Service in fiscal year 1966?

Secretary DILLON. No. This is a recommendation to the Bureau of the Budget for the personnel and equipment that would be needed to put the Secret Service in what they consider adequate position to fully handle this problem. They feel that it would take about 20 months to get all the necessary people on board and trained. If this were started right away, as we think it could be if a reapportionment on a deficiency basis were approved, this could start in fiscal year 1965 and depending on whether such is approved, the fiscal year 1966 final recommendation would be affected. But this is the total picture, and it is assuming our recommendation that they start in the next couple of months.

Representative FORD. In other words, this is the plan that you would like instituted immediately regardless of budget considerations.

Secretary DILLON. That is right.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Secretary, there is nothing in this exhibit that in any way, according to your judgment, would compromise the protection of the security of the President if it became----

Secretary DILLON. Oh, no; and there is also with it--it is just a covering letter but I think it is equally important--it is a letter which I wrote to the Director of the Budget on Monday when I forwarded this plan to him, and I think that probably should also go in because it has a recommendation at the end covering the matter Mr. Ford raised.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, I will ask you if this document, dated Angust 31, 1964, is a copy of the letter that you have just referred to now?

Secretary DILLON. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this letter, dated August 31, 1964, directed "Dear Kermit," from the Secretary, be marked the next number in order and offered in evidence as part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 1053-B was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Secretary DILLON. It is marked "limited official use," and I think that should be declassified for this purpose.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Secretary, will you very briefly describe the general plan of your planning document. We have that so we can use it in considerable detail, but if you can just summarize briefly.

Secretary DILLON. Well, in brief, this asks for a total of 205 additional agents, which is about--not quite but nearly--a 50 percent increase from the 415 agents they now have. It asks also for 50 clerks to add to the 171 that are presently there. Those are stenographers, typists and other clerical workers. And for five technicians. Of this the idea is to put 17 agents and the 5 technicians in the PRS. Five would be used to maintain 24-hour coverage in the PRS which is not presently in force because of lack of personnel. One would add to the Research and Countermeasures Unit to fill out three full units that could be operating all the time. Six of them would do advance work for PRS with local agencies and institutions. One of the new things we have instituted is that each time they do an advance, someone from the PRS goes out and works with the local law enforcement agencies. I think that is obviously a very important thing. They need more people in view of the volume of traveling. Then they also need five more employees to expand our liaison with the other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. We now have one man assigned really full time to that. We found even in the period that we have been doing this that while that is a great help, much the best way would be to have individuals assigned to each agency that work full time with the agency, know the people in the agency, and that is the only way we can be sure we have adequate liaison.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask, would that include the FBI?

Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes.

Mr. DULLES. And the CIA and military intelligence services?

Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes.

Mr. DULLES. And the State Department possibly?

Secretary DILLON. Yes.

Representative FORD. Could you specify those agencies. I was interested in what agencies you were referring to.

Secretary DILLON. Well, I would think certainly it would be the military, the FBI, the security services of the State Department, and the CIA.

Now, there may be additional ones. There are additional ones within the Treasury Department. I think we probably have one, for instance, with the intelligence section of the Internal Revenue Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit, and so forth, which a good deal can come out of.

In addition we recommend here five technical specialists, two of which would be highly trained computer technicians, programers, and three less well trained to work with these others. The purpose of this is to automate the whole PRS operation. We have been thinking of that for some time. It was something that obviously needed to be done.

Mr. RANKIN. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Will you describe a little more what you mean by automate.

Secretary DILLON. I mean using electronic processing, punchcard systems, so that they would be able to pull out of their files for any locality, various different types of people that might be a danger or might have made threats to the President or to other high officials, so that they would be able to function rapidly and well in planning protection as the President travels to these various cities.

Mr. RANKIN. Does that include computer systems?

Secretary DILLON. Yes. And what I was going to say was about 2 or 3 months before the events in Dallas, the Secret Service had asked the IBM Co. to make a study of this problem for it. That study was not completed until after the events in Dallas, and it did not prove satisfactory because from our point of view it did not go into enough detail in being able to handle criteria so you could tell when you retrieved a name from the file whether it was truly dangerous or not.

We needed a more complex system and after working with Rand Corp., the Research Analysis Corp., and also talking with IBM, we all felt the best way would be to hire some good programers, knowing our problems, and then work out a pilot program and get consultants in.

One of the things we recommend here is appropriation of $100,000 to get consultants from IBM Co., Honeywell or other companies, and get pilot machines to try to work out the details of this system.

Mr. McCLOY. For the record, Mr. Secretary, you had no electronic system of this character operating before the assassination?

Secretary DILLON. No. Now, the total of that is 17 agents and 5 specialists for the PRS.

In addition, for a long time, Mr. Rowley has believed that it would be preferable to improve the capacity of the White House detail if we could establish a headquarters pool of 18 men where new individuals who are going into the White House detail would be fully trained first--before, they had to be trained sort of partially on the job--and also through which you could rotate people from the field from time to time, bringing them up to date on Presidential protection.

So we would ask for 18 people, 18 spaces for that.

We have asked for 25 spaces to provide adequate protection for the Vice President in addition to the 10 that are already on board.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, excuse me. I think spaces may not be clear to all our readers. Will you explain what that means?

Secretary DILLON. Twenty-five job positions. I think the thing that is very important here is to keep in mind that to keep one man on the job around the clock covering a post, which is the way the Secret Service works--one man that would be always with the President or the Vice President, that would be always watching his house--to get one man requires five job positions. In the first place, the coverage required is for 24 hours a day.

In the second place, there are holidays, there are weekends off. On a full-time basis, the Secret Service works a 40-hour week, 5-day week, as the rest of the Government does, and there are provisions for sickness and leave, and so forth. When the number of hours that a man can work a year full time is figured out, it requires 5 men to fill one spot.

So that is one reason why these protective numbers may seem rather high to the uninitiated.

When you are talking about the Vice President, and 10 people are required to produce two posts, coverage of two posts, it is obviously not adequate because you have to cover his house, whether he is there or not, so that someone can't come in and put a destructive device in it.

This simply can't be done with the present numbers that are assigned.

Then, going beyond this to complete this list, there is a request for 145 agents in the field offices who would handle the substantially increased volume of security investigations. We are now getting about twice as many referrals already as we did before. Instead of something like 25,000, we are up to something over 50,000, and they expect it will go over 60,000 next year.

To really run these down out in the districts, they need, obviously, more men than they have had.

Now, one thing that they also need these fellows for, which I think is important, is keeping track of more dangerous individuals. They have tried to keep track of a few of them. But I think that probably a good many more should be put on that list. It requires more people, so they can periodically check up, and particularly before a visit, that all of these people are looked at to see where they are and what they have been doing recently before the President visits a particular place.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, while you are on that subject, could you explain to the Commission how you make use of your agents in the White House duty and those in the field so they will understand that?

Secretary DILLON. Well, yes; the White House detail is composed of about 60 people now. About half of these are what you might call, more or less, permanent employees. They have been there for a long time, 10 years, 12 years, 15 years, on the White House detail.

The other half are shorter time employees who generally serve up to 3 years on the White House detail and then either leave because they prefer other duty in the Secret Service or sometimes leave because the Secret Service feels they can do other duty better.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, for the protection of the President. Mr. Secretary, is there any need to have the White House detail have any connection or reciprocal arrangement with those in the field?

Secretary DILLON. Well, I think it is a great help. Because of this turnover that I mentioned, very many of the agents in the field have had service in the White House detail of up to 2 or 3 years. So they know what the problems are and they are able to fit in very easily and very readily and very quickly with the White House detail which is with the President when he comes out on a trip.

Mr. DULLES. By fieldwork you mean attached to your field stations, of which I believe there are 65 in the United States?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; that is right. And if they had not had this training, obviously they would be enforcement officers and they could work with White House detail when they come out, but they wouldn't be able to be as cognizant of its procedures, how the matter is handled, and they wouldn't be able to be fitted right into the routine as well as they can presently. I think it is highly valuable that we have this pool of experienced people around the country and, of course, this is again one reason that if we get a few more people out there, we will be able to do better.

One of the additional things that we are now undertaking, is, for instance, these building surveys that are partially a result of a study by the Research Analysis Corp. This seems to be something that we can probably do something about. We will probably use more people when the President travels through a city than we have in the past because you can have some success in designating certain buildings as high risk or higher risk than other buildings, and as I say, they are now trying to map the whole United States, at least the major cities where the President might travel, the routes he might follow, coming in from an airport, going to a major stadium or something like that so they will know ahead of time what the danger spots are. And one of the obvious ones which has come out is a warehouse where there are not so many people in it and where someone could more likely be alone and therefore more dangerous. A building that is full of people is not as dangerous because the other people would be watching. It is that sort of criteria. The same thing about roof access. If there is easy access to a roof and people are not usually on it, that would be more dangerous than if there wasn't.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, have you made quite a change in the Secret Service in regard to the inspection of buildings along a motorcade route since the assassination?

Secretary DILLON. Oh yes. We have been doing this, and we have used a great many more people as a result of this in our procedures, both local police officers and also our own people. The figures we have here are interesting. They are in this report. From February 11--I don't know why that was the beginning date for these figures--but from there through June 30, we used 9,500 hours of work by other enforcement agencies. About 2,000 of that came from the Justice Department and the rest of it from other Treasury agencies, the biggest one being the Intelligence Section of the Internal Revenue, but also the Bureau of Narcotics, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit and so on.

Mr. RANKIN. And that is in connection with this motorcade route?

Secretary DILLON. That is largely in connection with that, both planning it out ahead and also stationing them in buildings that they thought might be difficult.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Secretary, returning to your Planning document, is there anything else that you have not covered in that?

Secretary DILLON. Well, this is just the number of people. It does not include in this figure any purchases of automatic data processing equipment. It just includes the study I mentioned. There are funds for a new armored car, various funds for improving the intrusion detection at the White House, and lighting at the White House. There is no automatic system now. If anyone breaks through the fence at night, nobody knows it unless someone should see them. They have developed such systems and the Secret Service would like to get one installed, so if anyone broke through, a bell rings automatically, and they know someone is on the grounds, and they can take action accordingly. Also, they would like emergency lighting that would be hidden behind various trees or behind the wall so that if someone broke through at a place, the lights would go on automatically and the person would be seen. Then there is just miscellaneous equipment that goes with increased staff, such as automobiles, radios, travel and transportation that goes with more staff, and so forth.

I mentioned some of the things briefly that they intend to do. I mentioned the PRS program, and ADP study. These special agents in the field I think we have covered pretty well. They have clearly in here a number of things they have to do, which there certainly is plenty of. In addition to that--I mentioned the pool. In addition to that we have made arrangements with the Department of Agriculture and the General Services Administration has put the funds in their budget, to get a new training facility. All we have now is a pistol range out at the Arboretum, and this new one will have classrooms, pistol range, and a place where they can practice automotive protection on a practice road. This will be out at Beltsville at the Agricultural Station out there. It is very useful. There are no funds for that in the plan.

Mr. McCLOY. May I just ask you about the armored car, Mr. Secretary. Is that to transport the President?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; that is right. A protected car, a second one. One was fixed for the Government free by the Ford Motor Co., but our guess is that it cost the Ford Motor Co. somewhere between $175,000 and $200,000 to do this, and it didn't cost the Secret Service anything, although there was some research work done on the glass and armor by the Defense Department. This was combined with research work they needed for their own use, to develop protective glass and armor to use in helicopters in Vietnam. They split the cost. It cost about $30,000. So I think they assigned $15,000 of it to this project. But it was paid by the Defense Department. That is the only cost on that one. But I think the companies think that the Government should buy the new car.

Mr. McCLOY. We had some testimony here in connection with the assassination where it was developed that the access within the car to the body of the President became very important. In the car in which the President was assassinated there was a bar behind the front seat making it very difficult if not impossible for the Secret Service man who was operating from the front seat to get to the body of the President, and we were strongly of the view that cars that should be hereafter designed should have freedom of access. Either the man should be in the jump seat or there should be means by which you could get, the Secret Service man could get to the body of the President in case of a threat of an attack, and I think it is likely we will mention that in the report. But it seemed to me this is something to bear in mind in connection with the design of a new armored car.

Secretary DILLON. That would apply to an open car.

Mr. McCLOY. Yes.

Secretary DILLON. It wouldn't apply I think to a fully----

Mr. McCLOY. Fully armored; no. That is right.

Secretary DILLON. Closed car.

Mr. McCLOY. Usually on those motorcades you like to be seen.

Secretary DILLON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you covered your planning document, then, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary DILLON. I think that covers this.

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question at this point? I have a date at the White House at 1 o'clock, not with the President, but with Mr. Bundy, who wants to talk with me.

How long do you think we will be with the Secretary and will we resume after lunch?

Mr. RANKIN. I was hoping to get through. I presume he was hoping we would.

Secretary DILLON. I would like to if we could. I have to leave tomorrow to go to Japan.

Mr. McCLOY. Well, would it interrupt you if I ask a few questions?

Mr. RANKIN. No; go ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. Ask what questions you want?

Mr. McCLOY. You testified, Mr. Secretary, you felt with these additions that the Secret Service would be competent to cope with the added requirements for the protection of the President which have occurred.

In testifying to that effect, do you include--you include the investigative services of your own which are quite apart, as I understand it, from the information that you may gather from other agencies?

Secretary DILLON. That is correct; yes.

Mr. McCLOY. We have had the thought that perhaps the Protective Research Section or Division of your organization wasn't as well equipped as it should have been nor as it might have been presumably for the purely preventive investigative work.

Do you feel that with this new plan of yours, that that would, be adequately taken care of?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; I do. It was not equipped, I think, adequately in two ways. First, it did not, as is clearly shown by the events in Dallas, receive information on enough dangerous people. At least, they didn't receive the information on Lee Oswald.

So that what is required is the development of criteria, better criteria, that can be circulated to law enforcement agencies generally, and which will insure that adequate information comes in. We are making progress there.

I think you have already seen a document with some criteria that were developed, which has been circulated in Washington. A similar document has now been circulated by the Secret Service Chief to all special agents asking them to write a briefer but somewhat similar letter to all chiefs of police, sheriffs, and State police in their localities which asks them to furnish any such information to the local Secret Service agent. That is being disseminated now throughout the country. It will be completed within the next 6 weeks or so.

In addition, we have established an interagency committee which has as one of its jobs the development of better criteria that will really result in getting the kind of information we want without swamping us. If we are too broad in our criteria and we get a million names, obviously nothing can work.

This committee is holding its first formal meeting next week. It has representatives of the President's Office of Science and Technology, of the Department of Defense, which is the Advanced Research Projects outfit, of the CIA, an individual who is highly competent in their file section and who understands the setting up of complex files and retrieval, that sort of business, and four people from PRS, the PRS head inspector, Mr. Thacker, the head of the research and development, Mr. Bouck, the head of the files section, Mr. Young, and Mr. Stoner, who is now handling the liaison job.

There will also be, although the individual has not yet been named, a representative of the FBI, and with that I think that we will be able to develop criteria that will both be useful to us and be an improvement on criteria that was so far developed with the help of outside consultants.

Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Secretary, the impression has been gained, I think, by the Commission that perhaps too great emphasis has been directed to the mere investigation of the threat, of the particular individual, the crank, or the fellow that sends the poison food or the threatening letter, and perhaps not enough in a broader scope, recognizing, of course, that you can't be too broad without defeating your own purpose, but that there are perhaps groups or other areas of ferment that could provoke an attack quite without the threat. Would you comment on that?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; one of the criteria that is presently out is meant to cover individuals who have threatened bodily harm to any high Government official, with the idea that threat might be switched and visited upon the President.

That would have worked in this particular case in Dallas if that had been a specific criterion on at that time, which it wasn't. We are just talking about threats to the President. So I think that was one obvious case.

We hope that this committee would be able to possibly come up with other groups that can be identified that would fit into this without bringing in too many names.

There is one that may or may not work out. I just cite this as an example. People with bad conduct records in the Marine Corps for some reason have had a very bad record thereafter and there is quite a connection of crime with that class of individual.

It may be that it would even be worthwhile, if it is not too large, to cover this. Why that is so, nobody has quite figured out. I think the eye was focused on them because of this event in Dallas, but then it was discovered that this group has been involved in an awful lot of other crimes of violence.

Mr. DULLES. As you read the Oswald life story, it looks as though he was going into the Marines as a kind of escape.

Secretary DILLON. It could have been.

Mr. DULLES. What you say is very interesting in that connection.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you excuse us just a moment until we see if we can finish up.

Secretary DILLON. I would think you might want to put into the record at this point a copy of the memorandum that I mentioned from Mr. Rowley to the special agents asking them to send letters to the local law enforcement institutions.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I ask you to examine the memorandum dated August 26, from Chief Rowley and ask you if that, with the attachment, is the memorandum that you just described?

Secretary DILLON. That is. Fine. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave to give this document that the Secretary has just referred to the next number in order and offer it in evidence as part of this examination.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053-C, for identification and received in evidence.)

Secretary DILLON. There is one other item--you asked whether there is anything else in general. We felt that the Secret Service did not have adequate regularized scientific advice. They got some--they have been getting it over the years from time to time from the President's office of Science and Technology, but we tried to regularize that. I have worked out an arrangement with Dr. Hornig and written him a letter which embodies that arrangement so that they would have their services constantly available to the Secret Service and would give certain specific advice; first, keeping the Secret Service informed of scientific developments of possible use in providing protection for the President, etc.; advising or arranging for scientific advice to the Secret Service in connection with specific problems of Presidential protection as they may arise; and reviewing the technical aspects of the protective operations of the Secret Service and its development program, and assisting it in establishing priorities and schedules for introducing technical and scientific improvements. I have an answer from Dr. Hornig saying they would be glad to carry this out and saying that he concurs in my judgment that the increasingly complex nature of Presidential protection requires that the Secret Service have access to the best scientific advice and that they are glad to take on this job.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, I will ask you if the exchange of letters, dated August 31, between you and Mr. Hornig are the copies that I have just given you?

Secretary DILLON. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave----

Mr. DULLES. Just for the record, I wonder if he would identify Mr. Hornig. I think we know, but possibly----

Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes; Dr. Hornig is Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave to give this document the next number in order and offer it in evidence as part of the examination.

The CHAIRMAN. It might be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 1053-D for identification, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, would you just briefly tell us without getting into any classified matters or matters that are not properly to be revealed because of the effects they might have on the protection of the President, why the Secret Service would need a scientific adviser?

Secretary DILLON. Well, I think this is because they do a number of things. First, they need it in the communications field. There are all sorts of advances there, and they have been assuring or working to assure the security of the communications of the President. In addition there are all sorts of new developments in the form of protective devices that are being developed all the time, better forms of bulletproof glass, better forms of protection of that kind, new types of protection against access. For instance, there is under development, I understand, a sort of a radar type of fence so that you can see if a person comes through a certain area without there being any fence there.

They are developing, working on the development of other protection devices. They have had very substantial progress recently, I understand, in the detection of weapons that someone might be carrying, devices that are more effective. This is something people have tried to develop, I guess, for a long time. Apparently they are having some success. It is that sort of thing that is very necessary.

And then in addition this field of computer technology is highly scientific and complex, and I think that the scientific adviser is in an excellent position to be sure that the Secret Service has the very best advice in trying to identify their needs and develop the machines for those needs.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, it has been suggested to the Commission that it might be of assistance to you and other Secretaries of the Treasury and the Secret Service to have someone acting as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, having supervision, under your direction, of the Secret Service in its various activities, both protection of the President and otherwise. Do you think that that would be of help or would it not?

Secretary DILLON. Well, I am not sure. You see, we have an Assistant Secretary, and I should think he probably would be able to do it as adequately as having another special assistant.

We also have a Special Assistant for Law Enforcement Coordination who coordinates the general work of all our law enforcement agencies and works with outside agencies on overall law enforcement problems.

Probably of interest is that the Treasury Department, I think, has more law enforcement officials working for it than any other agency of Government. It is a very large law enforcement organization, although there are a number of separate organizations that work in different fields.

So we already have this. I think that it probably can be made tighter and should be made tighter.

One aspect of this matter, I think, is the advent of computers, of course, which is very recent and has changed what can be done effectively in this PRS. I think that should be done anyway. One aspect of this matter that probably hasn't had as close and detailed supervision as we may feel appropriate now is the White House detail. It has always operated over the years in very close contact with the President and has operated in a slightly different manner with different Presidents, depending on their wishes.

And it has been felt that as long as they were doing an adequate job, that it was pretty hard to come in and tell them exactly what they should do on a day-by-day basis because the President might not want them to do that sort of thing.

It is a very complex and personal assignment here that is a little different than any other law enforcement agency, and I certainly think it should be followed more closely--gone into in more detail--from the top level of the Treasury Department probably than it has, but even if it is, we are still going to have this problem that we won't be able to tell the President exactly what he should do in each case. So there never will be that close sort of supervision of day-to-day operations of the White House detail--it wouldn't be effective anyway--that there would be in another police operation.

Mr. RANKIN. After the assassination, you did have Mr. Carswell take over certain work in this area, did you not?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; Mr. Carswell is my special assistant, in my own office. He is a lawyer by profession and training. He has had investigative experience, 3 years in Naval Intelligence on the active side of it, and so he has some knowledge of this whole type of operation, and I felt in view of this investigation, in view of the work that had been done, it was important to have someone with legal experience that was close to me, that had immediate access any minute to me working on the matter. Then while this thing was running along, they would get to me at any time, and I could ask questions, they would bring matters to me, we could handle this matter of being sure that a proper long-range plan was developed, and that the whole effort in the Secret Service was organized as well as possible. That is why I asked Mr. Carswell, as part of his work for me, to undertake this special assignment, which he has done, and I think done very well.

Mr. RANKIN. It has been suggested to the Commission that it might be helpful if the National Security Council or some Cabinet level committee would help to supervise in this area of Presidential protection. Do you have any comments you care to make?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; I think that would be helpful because in relationship with the President, if there are questions of what is the proper protection, I think a group of the Cabinet would have a stronger voice, and also having a group, the President would be more sure that this was not just one man's ideas, that it would be helpful.

I am not quite sure about the National Security Council as such because as I recall, the President himself is the Chairman of that, so he would be advising himself, and I suppose this would be a group to advise the President.

Mr. DULLES. We thought there might be certain advantages in that because if you prescribe things for the President to do, and he doesn't want to do them, they don't get done in the field of protection.

Secretary DILLON. That is right. Then if you describe it in the meeting at which he was present, that might be well.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose, Mr. Secretary, also if a committee of that kind was composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, that you would have on that committee the men who had all of the agencies that would of necessity have to be coordinated in order to bring all the work into focus.

Secretary DILLON. Yes, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Secretary DILLON. One thing about the National Security Council is that neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the Attorney General are members of the National Security Council by law.

The Secretary of the Treasury has been asked by the Presidents to sit with the National Security Council for some years, practically since its beginning.

The Attorney General has sat with it during the last few years, but I don't know whether that will or will not continue into the future. So there is a certain problem there.

If this assignment is given by law to the National Security Council, and some other President comes along that doesn't ask the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General to sit with it, the two people who are probably most concerned wouldn't have any part in this.

Mr. DULLES. It would have to provide that in all matters relating to Presidential security, of course, they will be present. One way of doing it, I would say.

Secretary DILLON. Yes; there should be some such provision; otherwise I see some advantages as you say.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the method of selection of the Secret Service personnel?

Secretary DILLON. Only somewhat. They do get young men who meet their qualifications. They do hire them at GS-7 and they stay there for 1 year. If they have a year of satisfactory service, they are promoted two grades. Then if they have 2 more years of satisfactory service, they are promoted another double jump to GS-11.

These individuals do not have the legal qualifications that some other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI require, where you have to be a lawyer or an accountant, because they do other kinds of investigative work and that wasn't thought to be necessary in the case of the Secret Service.

But the Secret Service has felt, and I have inquired into this, that they have no difficulty in getting young men of the highest type to come and to take these jobs under the present setup.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have a printed or written list of the various qualifications that you seek in regard to the Secret Service?

Secretary DILLON. I don't--I am not aware of that. There probably is such a list; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. If you have such a list will you please supply it to us?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; I will be glad to.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to ask leave to give the next number of exhibits to that document once supplied and make it part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053-E for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar in a general way with the investigation that the Commission has been making with regard to this matter?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; In a general way, I have followed it through Mr. Carswell, who has followed it more closely, and through the Secret Service, so I am generally aware of it.

Mr. RANKIN. And are you generally aware of the investigation in connection with the assassination, the entire matter?

Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you made any inquiry in the Secret Service to determine whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an agent of that Service?

Secretary DILLON. Yes. I heard rumors of this type of thing very early, and I asked the direct question of Chief Rowley and was informed that he never had any connection with the Secret Service.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any evidence in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald being an agent of any part of the government?

Secretary DILLON. I am not aware of any evidence myself in that way, but I don't think I necessarily would be fully competent in that.

Mr. RANKIN. But you have never heard of any such evidence?

Secretary DILLON. I have never heard it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any area of the investigation of the Commission that you would like to suggest that we do more than we have insofar as you are familiar with it?

Secretary DILLON. No. As far as I know, the investigation has been very thorough.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any credible evidence that would lead you or anyone to believe that there was a conspiracy, foreign or domestic, involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Secretary DILLON. No. From all the evidence I have seen, this was the work of one deranged individual.

Mr. RANKIN. And who would that be?

Secretary DILLON. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any evidence in regard to any connection between Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Secretary DILLON. No, no.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything that you would like to call to the attention of the Commission at this time that we should know or that we should cover?

Secretary DILLON. No; I think we have covered my area of competence pretty thoroughly this morning. I can't think of anything else.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles?

Mr. DULLES. Doug, in the field that in the Commission here we have described as the preventive intelligence field; that is, trying to identify beforehand the individuals or the type of individuals who might be a danger to the President, have you ever thought of any possible division of responsibility and of work between the Secret Service and the FBI to define more clearly which each should do in that field?

Secretary DILLON. Well, my own feeling is that the agency that handles the actual work of deciding who the individuals are that the Secret Service should watch out for, which is the PRS, would function much better and would strengthen the Service if it works as it does now as part of the whole Secret Service operation, and working very closely with the people who are on the White House detail and not having to be involved in a liaison operation somewhere else.

So I think our problem is to strengthen this PRS, and I think that this long-range plan is a good beginning.

I don't think it is necessarily an end because as soon as we develop the automated machinery that we need, then we will know a little better, and we may need some people to make full use of that.

But this is enough to get it underway and all you can use, I think, well, for that purpose at present.

I would think that there is a liaison problem which exists whenever you have liaison with anyone, whether it is within your department or without, as long as it is a separate organization. And I think there has been clearly a problem of inadequate liaison with other Government agencies.

It is much better now. We have already taken steps. And additional steps of assigning specific liaison officers will help. But I think this is something that has just got to be worked out continually at all levels to make it work. So the problem is not unique to this situation; it affects all intergovernmental relations.

Mr. DULLES. Today with the Communist Party and with rightist groups and we have more and more groups--we have always had them, but we seem to have more than others which might breed up elements of danger--is there any part of that you would like to turn over to anybody else or----

Secretary DILLON. Well, I think the identification of groups that are likely to be dangerous as groups would probably more likely fall on the FBI because they study the background of these groups and they are aware of them and try to penetrate them, and so forth.

So I think that from that point of view, they would certainly be the purveyor, the first purveyor of the information that is needed and the ones who would have the responsibility of signaling to the Secret Service that this is a dangerous group and to the best of our knowledge these are its members. Some of the members would probably be subterranean and might not be known. And it would be important that they pass on that information on the individuals.

The Secret Service I think would be more concerned in dealing with--trying to protect against the actual individuals.

I think that probably on the basis of thinking of something that would be sort of an international plot, Communist Party plot, or something like that, I think you probably need all arms of the Government working on that.

We can't say that Secret Service can do it alone. Central Intelligence Agency might get wind of it anywhere in the world or FBI would have to use all its resources. Just to beat back something like that you would need the combined resources of whatever you have got.

I think there is sort of a greater thrust of continuing responsibility obviously on the FBI for following these groups, as you call them. For following individuals which may come to their notice because they were somewhat deranged or did something bad at one time, they would then pass that on to the Secret Service, and with adequate manpower, I think that the Secret Service would have more or less the primary responsibility of following those sort of individuals.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you wouldn't want to take away from the Secret Service entirely the concern that it might have for groups?

Secretary DILLON. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. And the necessity of going into those groups to ascertain further whether they were a threat to the President?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; but I don't think it is their function to try, for instance, to have undercover people to penetrate groups or do things of that nature which the FBI generally does.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Secretary DILLON. And it is their job to do that. That would require, of course, a much larger organization, but I certainly think the Service has to keep track of them, and they can't just say we have no interest and everything must come from somewhere else. I don't mean that at all. But that is not their primary responsibility. I thought that is what Mr. Dulles' view of it was.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything more?

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Secretary, just one other question. It raises the question of the combination of the--in the Secret Service of the two functions of Presidential protection and of the counterfeiting and related investigatory duties in connection with counterfeiting. Have you got any comments on that? Is that a logical or wise combination or would you suggest any change there?

Secretary DILLON. Well, these are two separate functions. I do think that there is a certain advantage to it that has developed and which I think should be maintained. That comes from the fact that counterfeiting is not an operation that is overly large; so it means that people who are engaged in this can very well be trained. Many have had tours such as earlier in the White House detail.

Mr. DULLES. You transfer back and forth, do you, from these two functions?

Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes; many of the people after a little service in the White House detail find that life too strenuous, the hours bad, or prefer not to travel, and so forth, prefer the type of work that opens up in the counterfeiting section. Then they move out into one of the field offices, and there are probably a few more possibilities as heads of these fields offices for higher level jobs than there would be in the White House detail. So there is an interchange.

Now, that interchange, I think, is useful because you do have these field offices that you can then call upon to do protective work, and I think there can be much more of that because, as what I indicated earlier, with this development of more detailed criteria, the greater number of people coming in to check up on, there are going to be more investigations in the field that should be done by the Secret Service, and it can be done by these people who have had this training and who know what to look for and who have worked on this same sort of assignment.

They also are readily available and fit right into the pattern of Presidential protection when the President goes to their area. So I think that is another great advantage.

So therefore I think there is substantial advantage by having this additional assignment which is in a different area, counterfeiting. I think it is probable happenstance; it grew that way. It could have been in some other different area, but the size of it which is large enough but not too large I think combines very well with the White House detail to give us a possibility of making a very effective operation.

Mr. DULLES. Do I correctly assume from what you have said that initially your field offices were largely organized for the counterfeiting side of the work but that is now changing, and more and more the work of the field office is coming into the Presidential protection?

Secretary DILLON. Well, I think certainly the amount that they will be doing on Presidential protection has greatly increased.

The counterfeiting hasn't decreased. That has increased also. But whereas earlier I think they were only used in Presidential protection when they had to be, when they were pulled off their other jobs and brought to Washington and sent to travel on a trip or something like that, because extra people were needed, I think now if we get an adequate staff they will be doing more of this as a regular routine part of their job, investigating people in their areas as well as investigating counterfeit cases in their area.

So they will have more or less two permanent jobs to do.

The CHAIRMAN. While you may have had a decrease in counterfeiting, I suppose you have had a great increase in forgeries, haven't you?

Secretary DILLON. Yes; we have had an increase I said in counterfeiting and also in forgeries.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, in counterfeiting. I misunderstood you. I thought you said you had a decrease.

Secretary DILLON. No; a great increase in counterfeiting on account of development of these methods of photography.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I recall now.

Secretary DILLON. That is similar to check forgery which is the same problem on Government checks which has also increased.

Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Before we adjourn, I would like to say to you, Mr. Secretary, that the Secret Service has been most cooperative ever since this Commission was formed. It has been very attentive to our every wish and has been very helpful throughout. We appreciate it very much indeed.

Secretary DILLON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Also, we appreciate the very fine work which the Internal Revenue agents did in making a study of reconstructing income of persons involved in the investigation and the other assistance that the agents gave in connection with our work.

[In connection with the testimony of Secretary Dillon the Commission requested and received additional information on Secret Service budget requests for the fiscal years 1960 through 1965. The document containing the information was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1053-F for identification and received in evidence.]

We will adjourn now.

(Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)

_Sunday, September 6, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED

The President's Commission met at 3:20 p.m., on September 6, 1964, at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Dallas, Tex.

Present were Senator Richard Russell, presiding; Senator John Sherman Cooper, and Congressman Hale Boggs, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Dean R. G. Storey, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas; Leon I. Gopadze and Peter P. Gregory, interpreters; and John Joe Howlett, Secret Service agent.

[NOTE.--The witness, Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, having been previously sworn in these proceedings, testified through the interpreters as shown in this transcript as follows: *Translation is by Mr. Paul D. Gregory, interpreter; **translation is by Mr. Leon I. Gopadze, interpreter. Where the answer or a paragraph shown as part of an answer has no asterisk, the answer is by the witness herself without the use of the interpreters.]

Mr. RANKIN. Senator Russell, will you swear the witness?

Senator RUSSELL. Since she is already under oath in this hearing, I assume that oath will carry over?

Mr. RANKIN. All right.

Senator RUSSELL. You understand that you have been sworn?*

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Gregory, have you been sworn in connection with these proceedings?

Mr. GREGORY. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Will you do it, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. RANKIN. Will you rise and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are going to translate of Mrs. Oswald will be truly translated?

Mr. GREGORY. To the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me God.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Gopadze, have you been sworn as a translator in these proceedings?

Mr. GOPADZE. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you rise, please?

Do you solemnly swear that your translation of anything of the testimony of Mrs. Oswald will be true and correct, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. GOPADZE. I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. Mrs. Oswald, we're going to ask you rather informally a number of questions about matters that have come up that we would like to get your testimony about. Senator Russell will start, then Senator Cooper will have some, and then I'll have a few I would like to ask you about, and Representative Boggs will have some.

Representative BOGGS. I suggest we designate Senator Russell as chairman of this meeting.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you record Senator Russell, Miss Reporter, as the chairman of the meeting, please?

The REPORTER. Yes, sir.

Dean STOREY. This is Miss Oliver. She is the reporter to Judge Hughes, a Federal judge here.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; we know her well by her reporting in other matters for us.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, there may be some repetition in what we say, in the testimony that was taken in Washington, because, I among others, could not attend that hearing, so you will understand if we ask questions that are similar to those that were asked of you when you were in Washington on other occasions.*

We will try to avoid any more of that than we can help.

I have read all of your testimony. I don't mean that I recall all of it, but I read it, as well as your memoirs that were submitted to the Commission.

When you first met Lee Oswald, did he ever mention anything about politics or his political philosophy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever ask him his reason for coming to Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Not the first evening when we got acquainted.

Senator RUSSELL. Prior to the time that you were married to him, did you ask him his reasons for coming to Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Why did he say that he had come to Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that the Soviet Union is the outstanding Communist country and he wanted to see it with his own eyes.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, I notice in your testimony that you said that his memoirs insofar as he claimed that he wished to be a citizen of the Soviet Union were erroneous?*

In other words, I want to continue the statement so there won't be any confusion--I'm not trying to trap her. But that he told you that he had been offered citizenship in the Soviet Union and had declined?* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

*Yes, that's what he said to me.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he give any reasons why he declined citizenship in the Soviet Union?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The reason he gave me for declining to become a Soviet citizen was because he said that in case he did not like the way they do things in the Soviet Union, it would be easier for him to leave the country than if he did become a citizen.

Senator RUSSELL. After you were married to Lee, did he complain about the way they did things in the Soviet Union?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. What?

Mr. GREGORY. Senator, excuse me, sir. I'm a little mixed up on your question. Would you mind to repeat that question, sir?

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever, after their marriage, complain about conditions as he found them in the Soviet Union, or the way they did things in the Soviet Union? I believe that was the word you said she used.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did.

Senator RUSSELL. What was the subject of his complaint?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not like his job. He did not like the wage scale that they paid him, not only for him but for people that were engaged in the same line of work.

*Then, he was unhappy about the restrictions that his movements were subjected to, being a noncitizen of the Soviet Union. Every 3 months he was obliged to report--every 3 months or every so often----

Senator RUSSELL. Periodically?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Periodically, he had to report to a certain government institution, where they would extend his permit of residence.

Senator RUSSELL. Were there any other restrictions on his movements? If he had reported duly as he was required, could he have gone down to Kharkov or any other place that he might have wished to go? * **

*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, in addition to restrictions imposed on his movements, there were other things that he was dissatisfied with in the Soviet Union.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you care to give any of those?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was dissatisfied with high prices for everything that he had to pay. He was dissatisfied with the quarters, living quarters that he had.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether or not he had any friends that he made there in Minsk while he was living there?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Did most of them work in the same plant where he did or did he make other friends out in the community?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He had many acquaintances that worked in the same place, but he had no friends. He had two friends at work, in other words, closer than acquaintances--friends--those that I know personally.

Senator RUSSELL. But none other than those that worked there in the same plant?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. There was one young man who was a friend of his, which did not work in the same plant, but was a student at the medical college.

Senator RUSSELL. Did Lee go to school while he was there in Minsk? Did he do any studying in any of the institutes?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. He did not.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Lee wanted to attend Patrice Lumumba Institute in Moscow but his application was turned down. He was very much put out, because he told me that one of the main reasons he came to the Soviet Union was to get education. He said that after his application was turned down. He told that to me after his application was turned down.

Senator RUSSELL. Was that before or after you were married?

Mrs. OSWALD. After.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, in reading your testimony, Mrs. Oswald, I noticed that you referred to a number of foreign students who attended the institutes in Minsk, including, I believe you said, a number of Cubans. Do you know whether or not Lee Oswald was acquainted with any of those Cubans?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I have never met these Cuban friends of his, but I do know that he and Erich; Erich is the medical student previously referred to, they had Cuban friends. What they were talking about, I do not know. I have never met him. Lee was interested in Cuba and in Cuban affairs, but I don't know anything in detail, just through conversations.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether he had any Cuban friends here in Texas or in New Orleans after he came back from Russia?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. [Nodding a negative response.]

Senator RUSSELL. You don't know whether he did or not?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't think he had.

Senator RUSSELL. You don't think he did. Now, you referred to the fact in your testimony about his joining some gun club or rifle club in Minsk?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. And he purchased, I believe, a rifle or he had a rifle?

*Mrs. OSWALD. By the time we got married, he already owned a rifle and he already was a member of a gun club in Minsk.

Senator RUSSELL. From your testimony I gathered that he was not very active in the gun club in carrying on with his rifle?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No. He never went hunting except once during all the time that we lived in Minsk.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever discuss with you his desire to meet any high official with the Soviet Government?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. He never did?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether or not he carried on any correspondence?

Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me----

*The only instance I recall--when we filed an application for our returning to the United States, he visited some colonel, some Soviet colonel, Aksenov [spelling] A-k-s-e-n-o-v, in order to expedite the exit visas for us. I also visited this Colonel Aksenov.

Mrs. OSWALD. I'm sorry----

*Correction. He never got to see Colonel Aksenov because when he went to discuss this question in the--whatever office that was--he talked to some junior officer, and they would not let him have an audience with the colonel.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you go to see the colonel likewise?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. You were both there together?

*Mrs. OSWALD. We never got to see him. I saw Colonel Aksenov later on.

Senator RUSSELL. Was he a colonel in the army or in the militia or in the police or just what? Where did he get his rank?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was a colonel in the MVD, which is the Administer of Internal Affairs.

Senator RUSSELL. He had to do then with the passports. His recommendation would have had to have been had with the passports?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I think so. I do not know definitely, but that meeting was in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was not dressed in a military uniform.

Senator RUSSELL. Had you known the colonel prior to that time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he introduced himself as Colonel Aksenov.

Mr. GREGORY. When?

*Mrs. OSWALD. When I talked to him concerning these documents for exit visas. Even if he were in a uniform, I would not have known what the insignia meant.

Senator RUSSELL. If you didn't know him prior to that time, why is it you got to see him and Lee could not visit him?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee went to see Colonel Aksenov in regard to the exit visas and other documents, he could not see the colonel. Then, on another later occasion, I went to see the colonel and they let me see him, on a later occasion.

Senator RUSSELL. But you don't know why?*

Mrs. OSWALD (no response).

Senator RUSSELL. Did any of your friends or relatives intercede with the colonel in your behalf?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle works in the MVD, but I'm sure that he did not discuss this matter of exit visas with Colonel Aksenov because I think he would have been afraid to talk about it. When my uncle knew that Lee and I were planning to go back to the United States, my uncle was afraid for his own job and for his own welfare.

Senator RUSSELL. I knew you testified before that he did not want you to come to the United States, that your uncle did not, but he was working in the same line of work as this colonel was?*

Mrs. OSWALD. In the same building, but not in the same department. I believe that Colonel Aksenov knew my uncle.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes; but you didn't testify before, I believe, that your uncle would have been afraid to have helped you. You did testify that he did not want you to leave Russia? That's the way I recall it. I could be in error about that--do you know why he was afraid? Why should he have been afraid for you to leave Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle never told me personally that he was afraid that something might happen to him if I went to America, but his wife, my aunt, confided in me that my uncle was afraid for his job and for his well-being if I went to America.

Senator RUSSELL. What rank did your uncle hold in the MVD? If this man was a colonel, what was your uncle, was he a colonel or a major or what?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle has a degree in forestry, but he is also a colonel in MVD. Every employee has to be in the service, in the military service. He has a degree in forestry, but he is also a colonel in MVD.

Senator RUSSELL. He also has the rank of a colonel in the MVD?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He is the head of the forestry department in MVD. I don't know what he is doing there.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever have any occasion or know any other Russian wife of a foreigner who tried to leave Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Zeger. Mrs. Zeger and her husband lived in Argentina for 25 years----

Senator RUSSELL. Well, you testified very fully about them. But I am asking now if you know of any Russian national or citizen who was married to a foreign national who ever was able to get a visa to leave from Russia?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know--I don't know of anyone. I only heard in the American Embassy in Moscow, where I heard of a Russian woman married to an American, who had difficulty leaving the country.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, that's what I had in mind.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Therefore, to the very last moment we did not believe that they would let us out of the Soviet Union.

Senator RUSSELL. Did they examine you very much or ask you many questions about why you wished to leave, other than the fact that your husband decided to return to the United States?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

*No. We only filled out a proper questionnaire containing a statement that this will be a permanent residence in the United States, or leaving the Soviet Union for permanent residence in the United States.

Senator RUSSELL. And none of the officials or police examined you at all about your reason for wishing to leave?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It's very surprising, but nobody did.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you know as to whether or not Lee corresponded with any of his friends in Russia after he came back to this country?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

*He did.

Mrs. OSWALD. With Mr. and Mrs. Zeger.

*With Mr. and Mrs. Zeger, and Erich; the medical student. I don't recall the medical student, and Pavel Golovachev.

Senator RUSSELL. Paul--he was one of your old boy friends, wasn't he?

Mrs. OSWALD. Paul?

Senator RUSSELL. I thought one of them was named Paul?*

Mrs. OSWALD (no response).

Senator RUSSELL. Did he correspond very frequently?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Not often.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you write very often to your family and friends in Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I wrote several letters shortly after we came to America, but I never received any answer. I also wrote to some of my colleagues where I worked.

Senator RUSSELL. In Minsk?

Mrs. OSWALD. And shortly after that, my aunt wrote me. Then I understood that perhaps the letters I wrote my aunt never reached her.

Senator RUSSELL. She did not refer to your letters when she wrote to you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; the only thing that she wrote, she was glad to get--that she learned my address.

Senator RUSSELL. Did she say how she learned it? That was my next question?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The supervisory of a drugstore, an apothecary----

Senator RUSSELL. An apothecary?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Or manager of a drugstore telephoned my aunt and told her she received a letter from me.

Senator RUSSELL. But she did not answer that letter, or if she did, you didn't receive it?

Mrs. OSWALD. No--she answered this letter.

Senator RUSSELL. I understand, but the friend in the apothecary, did he answer?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, in some of your testimony you referred to a time when you became somewhat piqued with Lee about something and wrote one of your old friends there and forgot to put the stamp or didn't know that the stamps had been increased--you recall that testimony, do you not?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you write to any of your other friends there and put the proper stamps on them?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; this was the only letter I wrote.

Senator RUSSELL. The only one you wrote?

*Mrs. OSWALD. This was the only letter I wrote after I found out the proper postage required for mailing letters. After that, my aunt never wrote me.

Senator RUSSELL. Have you corresponded with your uncle or aunt at any time since this great tragedy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I did.

Senator RUSSELL. And did you receive any reply?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Have you written them more than once since this great tragedy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember exactly whether I did or not.

Senator RUSSELL. But you've written them at least once without receiving a reply?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I remember well that I wrote at least once, maybe it was twice or three times, but I don't remember.

Senator RUSSELL. Has any official of the Russian Government communicated with you since this great tragedy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; no one ever communicated with me from the Soviet Embassy or any other representative of the Soviet Government, and I felt rather bad about it, because there I was--all alone in a strange country and I did not receive any encouragement from anyone. They didn't approach me even as a show of interest in my well-being.

Senator RUSSELL. You didn't even hear from them with reference to your application for visas to return to Russia, although you had heard from them prior to the time Lee was killed?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. Not after Lee was killed.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, if I've understood it from reading your testimony, Mrs. Oswald, Lee went to Mexico from New Orleans a day or two after Mrs. Paine brought you back to Texas, is that right?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know definitely, but I believe Mrs. Paine and I left one day before he went to Mexico.

Senator RUSSELL. He had talked to you about going to Mexico, had he not?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he had told me he was going to Mexico.

Senator RUSSELL. And he had told you that he intended to visit the Russian Embassy and the Cuban consulate while he was there?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. And that was at a time when he was very anxious to get to Cuba, I believe?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. When was it, Mrs. Oswald, that Lee told you he thought it was best for you to go back to Russia, as to time? I know you testified he told you that, but was that after the Walker case or before the Walker case? *

*Mrs. OSWALD. I believe it was before he made the attempt on General Walker's life. It may be that I stated it differently in my deposition, but I believe it was before. Lee insisted on my returning to the Soviet Union before the attempt on Walker's life.

Senator RUSSELL. I gather from your evidence, Mrs. Oswald, that Lee was a very devoted husband, unusually so for an American husband, even though you had little spats at times. Do you think that he advised you that because he thought something was going to happen that would involve the family in difficulties?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. You don't think so?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he was not a good husband. I may have said so in my deposition, but if I did, it was when I was in a state of shock.

Senator RUSSELL. You not only said so in your deposition, Mrs. Oswald, but you testified in your testimony before the Commission several times that he was a very good husband and he was very devoted to you, and that when he was at home and not employed that he did a great deal of the housework and in looking after the children?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I also testified to the fact that he beat me on many occasions, so some of the statements I made regarding him were good and some were bad.

Senator RUSSELL. In other words, some of them were not true that you made?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; everything was true.

Senator RUSSELL. Everything was true?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

*I made statements in the record that he was good when he did housework and washed the floors and was good to the baby, and again, he was not good when he beat me and was insolent.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he beat you on many occasions?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Rather--many.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, you only testified to one, did you not, before the Commission?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I was rather embarrassed to discuss this before the Commission, but he beat me on more than on one occasion.

Senator RUSSELL. And you stated at that time that you bruise very readily and that's the reason you had such a bad black eye? Did you not testify to that?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Was that true or not true?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It is true--it is--whatever I said.

Senator RUSSELL. It is true that you bruise easily, but that was just one of many occasions he had beat you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. On one occasion; yes.

Senator RUSSELL. But you didn't testify to the others, did you?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I think I testified only about one particular occasion that I was asked about, whether he beat me or not, and I replied that he did, but he beat me on more than one occasion.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever fail to provide for you and the children?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No----

*While he never earned too much, but when he had the job and earned, say, around $200 a month, we never had any particular need of anything. However, Lee was so frugal, not only frugal, but he kept part of the money in his own possession all the time that was not available for the family.

Senator RUSSELL. You always had plenty to eat and the children had plenty to wear?

Mrs. OSWALD. Not really.

We were never hungry, but we didn't have much. We were never too hungry, but we never had any plentitude. We never had too much, and I wanted--I always wanted this and that, but that was not available.

Senator RUSSELL. But he never made a great deal of money, did he?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I marvel now how we managed to live on what he earned at that time in comparison with what I have now. We spent $12 or $15 a week at that time.

We spent $12 or $15 a week at that time--you know, we can live--that was for milk and so on.

Senator RUSSELL. He didn't spent any money on himself, did he, he wasn't extravagant in his own habits? He didn't spend his money on clothes or whisky or women or things of that kind, did he?

Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, no. He told--somebody told about Jack Ruby--he went to his nightclub, he never did go to nightclub.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, I mean just extravagance in his own habits--he was frugal in his own eating habits, he didn't eat much when he was away from home, did he?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. You knew where he kept his money in your home, did you not?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He had a black wallet, but I never ventured into it.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he not tell you to take some of the money out of the wallet at one time and buy some clothes for the children and yourself?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. GOPADZE. Pardon--you don't understand the question?**

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did. It was the morning before the tragedy.

Senator RUSSELL. Before the assassination of the President?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever talk to you about the result of his visit to Mexico?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he say his efforts were all a failure there, that he got any assistance that he was seeking?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he visited the Cuban Embassy and the Soviet Embassy and that they have the same bureaucracy in the Cuban Embassy that they have in the Soviet Embassy and that he obtained no results.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you have less money in the United States than you had in Russia when you were married over there?

*Mrs. OSWALD. We had more money in the United States than we did in the Soviet Union, but here we have to pay $65 a month rent from $200 earned, and we didn't have to do that in the Soviet Union. Here the house rent amounted to 30 percent of total wages earned, while in the Soviet Union we paid 10 percent of the wages earned. Then, all the medical expenses, medical assistance--expenses are paid there. However, Lee didn't spend much money on medical expenses here because he found ways to get the expenses free; the services free.

Senator RUSSELL. You have testified, I believe, that Lee didn't use his rifle much, the one he had in the Soviet Union. Did he ever discuss shooting anyone in the Soviet Union like he did in shooting Nixon and Walker here in this country?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; not in the Soviet Union.

Senator RUSSELL. You haven't then heard from anyone except one letter from your aunt, since you left Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I received letters from my girl friend.

Senator RUSSELL. Oh, how many letters from your girl friend?

Mrs. OSWALD. Just from one--a Christmas card--I don't remember how many, probably not more than four or five.

*But only one letter from the aunt.

*Mrs. OSWALD. We received letters from Lee's friends written to both of us--several letters.

Senator RUSSELL. Written to you?

Mrs. OSWALD. Written to Lee and to me.

Senator RUSSELL. I see, but it's strange about your family that you didn't hear from them when you had written to them?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It is strange and it's hurtful.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, I believe you testified that Lee didn't ever discuss political matters with you very much? *

*Mrs. OSWALD. He discussed politics with me very little.

Senator RUSSELL. And that when he was discussing political matters with Mr. Paine and Mr. De Mohrenschildt and others, that you didn't pay any attention, that they didn't address any of it to you, that they discussed it between themselves?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I did not participate in those conversations.

Senator RUSSELL. And that he didn't discuss a great many things about his work and things of that kind with you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The only time he discussed his work with me was when he worked for a printing company. He told me that he liked that job.

Senator RUSSELL. Why do you suppose he told you about the fact that he was going to shoot Mr. Nixon and had shot at General Walker?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. As regards General Walker, he came home late. He left me a note and so that is the reason why he discussed the Walker affair with me.

*Now, in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and he put a gun in his belt.

Senator RUSSELL. You testified in his belt--I was going to ask about that, because that was a very unusual place to carry a gun. Usually, he would carry it in his coat. Did you ever see him have a gun in his belt before?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I would have noticed it if he did.

Senator RUSSELL. You wouldn't have noticed it?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I would have noticed it if he did.

Senator RUSSELL. I see--you would have noticed it.

*Mrs. OSWALD. And so--I have never seen him before with the pistol.

Senator RUSSELL. He didn't state to you that he talked to any person in Mexico other than at the Russian Embassy and the Cuban Embassy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No. The only persons he mentioned were the Cuban Embassy and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, going back to your personal relations, Mrs. Oswald, with Lee. Do you think he wanted to send you back to Russia just to get rid of you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. This is the question that I am puzzled about and I am wondering about it myself, whether he wanted to get rid of me.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you think he was really devoted to the children or was he just putting on a show about liking the children?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he loved the children.

*I believe he loved the children, but at times--one side of his life was such that I wondered whether he did or not. Some of the things that he did certainly were not good for his children--some of the acts he was engaged in.

Senator RUSSELL. He knew you would take the children back to Russia with you, if you wanted, did he not?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I would have taken the children with me to the Soviet Union.

Senator RUSSELL. It seems to me that I recall once or twice in this testimony when you had had some little domestic trouble, as all married couples have, that he had cried, which is most unusual for a man in this country--men don't cry very often, and do you think that he cried despite the fact that he wasn't very devoted to you and loved you a great deal?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. The fact that he cried, and on one occasion he begged me to come back to him--he stood on his knees and begged me to come back to him--whether that meant that he loved me--perhaps he did. On the other hand, the acts that he committed showed to me that he didn't particularly care for me.

Senator RUSSELL. You think then that his acts that he committed outside your domestic life within the family, within the realm of the family, was an indication that he did not love you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The fact that he made attempts on the lives of other people showed to me that he did not treasure his family life and his children, also the fact that he beat me and wanted to send me to the Soviet Union.

Senator RUSSELL. And you think that the fact that he promised you after the Walker incident that he would never do anything like that again but did, is an indication that he didn't love you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Logically--yes. That shows to me that he did not love me. At times he cried, and did all sorts of helpful things around the house. At other times he was mean. Frankly, I am lost as to what to think about him.

And I did not have any choice, because he was the only person that I knew and I could count on--the only person in the United States.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he beat you very often, Mrs. Oswald, strike you hard blows with his fists? Did he hit you with his fists?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. When he beat me, sometimes he would beat me hard and sometimes not too hard. Sometimes he would leave a black eye and sometimes he wouldn't, depending on which part of me he would strike me. When we lived in New Orleans he never beat me up.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever beat you in Russia before you came to this country?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Had you ever heard of any husband striking his wife in Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It seems that beating of wives by the Russian husbands is a rather common thing in the Soviet Union and that is why I was afraid to marry a Russian.

Senator RUSSELL. I see. Do they beat them with anything other than their hands?

There was a law in my State at one time that a man could whip his wife as long as he didn't use a switch that was larger than his thumb. That law has been repealed.

But, did they ever whip their wives with anything other than their hands in Russia?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know. I was not interested in what manner they beat their wives.

Senator RUSSELL. That's difficult for me to believe--that a very charming and attractive girl who was being courted by a number of men, I would have thought you would have been greatly interested in all the aspects of matrimony?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. How would I know?

Senator RUSSELL. How would you know it--well, by general conversation. Don't people talk about those things all over the world--in Russia and everywhere else?

Mrs. OSWALD. That's different there.

Senator RUSSELL. People are very much the same, aren't they, all over the world? If a man in the neighborhood gets drunk and beats and abuses his wife and children, isn't that discussed by all the people in the block--in that area?

Mrs. OSWALD. **Sometimes during a life of 20 years with a husband, everything will be all right, and then some occasion will arise or something will happen that the wife will learn about what kind of person he is.

*I know of one family in the Soviet Union in Minsk, where a husband was married to a woman 17 years, and he just went to another woman.

For 1 year.

*For 1 year--then he came back to the first one full of shame and repentance and he cried and she took him back in. He lived with her for 3 days and then left her again. He was excluded from the party.

Senator RUSSELL. Excommunicated from the party?

Mrs. OSWALD. **Expelled from the party.

*But he took all the possessions of their common property when he left.

Senator RUSSELL. I'm taking too much time, and I will hurry along. Did he ever beat you badly enough, Mrs. Oswald, for you to require the services of a doctor, a physician?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever strike you during your pregnancy, when you were pregnant?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. GOPADZE. She said, "I think." She said, "I think."

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did strike me.

Senator RUSSELL. What reason did he give for striking you, usually?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, the reasons were if--they were very petty--I can't even remember what the reasons were after this quarrel was over. Sometimes he would tell me to shut up, and I don't take that from him.

**I'm not a very quiet woman myself.

Senator RUSSELL. "I'm not--" what?

**Mrs. OSWALD. I'm not a quiet woman myself and sometimes it gets on your nerves and you'll just tell him he's an idiot and he will become more angry with you.

*Enraged. When I would call him an idiot, he would say, "Well, I'll show you what kind of an idiot I am," so he would beat me up.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever strike him?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I would give him some in return.

Senator RUSSELL. You would give him some in return.

As I recall your testimony, when he told you about the Nixon incident, you testified that you held him in the bathroom by physical strength for some 4 or 5 minutes, so you should have been able to hold your own pretty well with him if you could do that?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. Probably not 5 minutes, but a long time for him.

*Sometimes one can gather all of his strength in a moment like that. I am not a strong person, but sometimes under stress and strain perhaps I am stronger than I ordinarily am.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever strike him with anything other than your hand?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I think at one time I told him that if he would beat me again, I will hurl a radio, a transistor radio, and when he did strike me, I threw the radio at him.

Senator RUSSELL. You missed him?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No--it broke. I missed him.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes, she missed him.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I tried not to hit him.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, going back a moment or two to your uncle, whom you lived with and to whom I understand you are quite devoted--did he try to keep you from coming to the United States very vigorously?

*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle was against my going to America, but he never imposed his will or his opinion on me.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he or any other members of your family ever tell you why you had such little difficulty in getting your passport approved?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. During the pendency of receiving this exit visa, we never discussed the question, my uncle and my aunt, but when we received it, the exit visa and it was granted to us so quickly, they were very much surprised.

Mr. GOPADZE. Now, Marina, I'm sorry. I would like to make a correction to that point.

Mr. GREGORY. All right.

Mr. GOPADZE. That during the time they were expecting a visa to depart the Soviet Union, the relatives didn't express too much about it--because they didn't [think] they would depart, and when they did receive it, they were very much surprised----

Mr. GREGORY. Correct.

Mr. GOPADZE. With the expediency of the visa. Therefore, they didn't bother asking any questions or into their affairs concerning the departure. The last time they visited their aunt and uncle, they say, "Oh, of all places, you're going to the United States."

Senator RUSSELL. Lee never did make much more than $225 a month, in that area, did he, and he was unemployed almost as much as he was employed?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. How did he manage to pay the State Department the money he had borrowed from them and to pay his brother Robert under those circumstances?*

Mrs. OSWALD. He paid those debts out of his earnings. The first few weeks when we came to the United States, we lived with his mother, and that gave us the opportunity to pay the debts.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, you only lived with Mrs. Oswald a matter of 3 or 4 weeks, didn't you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but he was earning money during that time.

Senator RUSSELL. I understand, but he was not earning more than $200 a month, was he, and he paid four or five or six--what was it, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. RANKIN. It was over $400.

Senator RUSSELL. Over $450 or more to the State Department and some amount to his brother Robert.

Mrs. OSWALD. Around $100.

*It was $100.

It was probably $100.

Senator RUSSELL. That's $550, and a person that's earning $200 a month part of the time, and having to support a family, that's a rather remarkable feat, isn't it, of financing?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I think that at the time we were leaving Russia, some of the rubles were exchanged for dollars, and maybe he kept part of that money, of which I have no knowledge, when we arrived in the United States. The only thing I know is that we lived very, very economically and Lee was saying all the time that the debts have to be paid as quickly as possible.

Senator RUSSELL. I was under the impression that there was a very drastic limit on the number of rubles that could be exchanged, that it was a hundred or 130 or something in that area?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. According to the law in the Soviet Union, they allow about 90 rubles per person to be exchanged into foreign currency or dollars--$180 in our case because Lee was including the baby, and she----

Senator RUSSELL. For each of them--the exchange.

Mrs. OSWALD. Not for Lee.

Senator RUSSELL. No; he couldn't bring out any more than he took in with him. Well, he wasn't a visitor, though--yes, he was a visitor then. I know they checked my money when I went in there.**

**Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the reason why they didn't allow Lee to exchange $90, but I believe that there is a Soviet law that for Soviet citizens they allow $90 for each person. Excuse me.

*I believe that a foreigner is also entitled to exchange rubles for dollars, but in a very limited amount.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, do you have any plans to return to the Soviet Union, or do you intend to live in this country?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course--to remain in the United States.

Senator RUSSELL. I have a few other questions, but I'm already taking too much time.

Senator COOPER. I want to say something off the record.

(Conference between Senator Cooper and Senator Russell off the record.)

Representative BOGGS. I have just one question.

Senator COOPER. All right.

Senator RUSSELL. Go right ahead.

Representative BOGGS. Mrs. Oswald, have you been taking English lessons?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. Do you speak English now?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I can't call it speaking English.

Representative BOGGS. But you understand English, you replied to my question a moment ago?**

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. But you have been speaking English, studying English, and whom do you live with now?

Mrs. OSWALD. With myself and my kids, with my neighbors.

Representative BOGGS. Do you read English?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. A little bit.

*A little bit.

Mr. GOPADZE. Naturally, she knows the English alphabet, but she doesn't read too much.

**Sometimes I read on my own, but on the other hand, it might be entirely different for an American.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, I believe you can speak it pretty well, Mrs. Oswald. You are a very intelligent person, and I've never seen a woman yet that didn't learn a foreign language three times as fast as a man.

Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you.

Senator RUSSELL. They all do, and in some places in Russia you run into women that speak three or four languages very fluently, including in the high schools, where they have 10 or 12 years of English, starting in the first grade with it?

Mrs. OSWALD. That's the way they try--to learn it in school.

Senator RUSSELL. Is that your foreign language? I understand in Russia each student has to study some one foreign language all the way--or at least for 5 or 6 years?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but I don't like this system of education in Russia to study some languages--well, he can speak, you know.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, your attorney--your then attorney, according to the record, asked the Commission some questions about your memoirs, your diary or whatever it was that you have written--your reminiscences, and that they not be released. Have you ever made arrangements yet to sell them? Have you gotten rid of them? Because--the record of the Commission will be printed at a rather early date?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not want these memoirs to be published by Warren Commission.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes; I understand that.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I am now working on a book and I may wish to include these memoirs in that book. I have no objection to the publication of the material in those memoirs that have any relation to the assassination of the President, or anything that is pertinent to this particular inquiry.

Senator RUSSELL. Of course, a great deal of it is very personal. It's about your social relations when you were a young woman. Of course, you are a young woman now, but when you were even younger than you are now, and the friends that you had, and things of that nature, and this report is going to be published before too long. And that's among the evidence there, and I was trying to get some timing on your book or whatever it is you are going to publish that would utilize this material, in an effort to help you--that is the only purpose I had, to try to see that you don't lose the publicity value of the memoirs.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I understand that and I'm certainly grateful to you for it.

**Would it be possible to publish in the report only parts of my life, that pertaining to the assassination, instead of my private life?

Senator RUSSELL. I cannot answer that, and only the entire Commission could answer that, but when I read that in the testimony, I was hoping that you had found some means of commercializing on it either to the moving picture people or to the publishing world.

Mrs. OSWALD. As yet, I have not availed myself of that opportunity, sir.

Senator RUSSELL. When do you think you will publish this book?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The publisher will possibly publish the book toward the end of December, maybe in January and even perhaps----

Mr. GOPADZE. Not the publisher. The person who writes the story is hoping to be able to finish it in the latter part of December.

Senator RUSSELL. Of course, it goes into much more detail, I'm sure, than this sketch we have, because this wouldn't be anything like a book. It would be more of a magazine article.

**Mrs. OSWALD. Would it be possible to delete it from the Commission's report?

Senator RUSSELL. I can't answer that because I'm not the whole Commission.**

Very frankly, I think the Commission would be disposed to publish all the material that they have, is my own honest view about it. The reason I am discussing it with you is to find out if you have done anything about it. Of course, if you are writing a whole book, it won't be so important, just this one phase of it.

Mrs. OSWALD, during the course of your testimony, you testified that Lee often called you twice a day while he was working away from home.

Why do you think he called you if he was not in love with you?***

*Mrs. OSWALD. When he was away from me, he told me that he missed me.

Senator RUSSELL. You don't think that's an indication that he loved you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. This shows--this would show that he loved me. He was a dual personality.

Senator RUSSELL. Split personality.

Mrs. OSWALD. Split personality--that's it.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, I noticed that one of the witnesses, I've forgotten which one it was, that ran the boarding house where Lee lived, testified that he called someone every night and talked to them at some length in a foreign language. That couldn't have been anyone except you, could it, that he was calling?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I believe that I was the person he talked to.

Senator RUSSELL. He did call you quite frequently, did he not when you were in Irving and he was in Dallas, for example?

Mrs. OSWALD. Every day.

Senator RUSSELL. But he didn't call you to abuse you over the phone, did he?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course not.

Senator RUSSELL. It was the ordinary small talk you would have between a man and his wife--he would ask you about how the children were--one of them--was?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He always talked about our daughter June.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever say anything about, "I love you" or anything like that over the phone?**

Mrs. OSWALD. (no response).

Mr. GOPADZE. Did he?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. He did?

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, you've testified before, and I'm just going on recollection, but I'm sure I'm right about this, that he told you in New Orleans that he was going to Mexico City and that he was going by bus and that a round trip would be much cheaper than a one-way fare. I noticed something in the paper the other day where you had found a one-way ticket or stub on the bus from Mexico City to Dallas, I believe it was. How did you happen to come into possession of that stub?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. You say round trip was cheaper than one-way?

Senator RUSSELL. Yes; that's what you testified he told you in New Orleans when he said he was going. But here, according to the press--I don't know--a one-way stub turns up where he came back here to Dallas. Where did you get that stub?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. My statement apparently was misinterpreted in the record, because Lee stated that the cost of the ticket, say, from Dallas to Mexico is cheaper than it is from Mexico City to Dallas or from one point to Mexico and from Mexico to that same point.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, that very easily could have become confused in translation, but it certainly is in there.*

Mr. RANKIN. I think they have confused your question, Senator, I think they have confused your question. I think they think that you were saying that a round trip was cheaper than one way? Or--two ways?

Senator RUSSELL. I'm sorry, Mr. Gregory. You misunderstood it. I didn't mean that a round trip was cheaper than one way. I meant that a round trip was cheaper than to go there and back on individual tickets--than two ways.

Mr. GREGORY. She understood you correctly. I misunderstood you, Senator. I'm sorry.

*Mrs. OSWALD. The fact remains, according to Lee, that it is cheaper from Mexico--a one-way ticket from Mexico City, say, to Dallas costs less than from Dallas to Mexico, Mexico City. Or vice versa.

Senator RUSSELL. Be that as it may, how about the stub?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I found the stub of this ticket approximately 2 weeks ago when working with Priscilla Johnson on the book. Three weeks.

*Three weeks ago--I found this stub of a ticket among old magazines, Spanish magazines, and there was a television program also in Spanish and there was the stub of this ticket.

Mrs. OSWALD. But this was, you know, a piece of paper and I didn't know this was a ticket.

Senator RUSSELL. You didn't know it was a ticket?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. Until you showed it to Miss Johnson?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--it was in the TV book and then Mr. Liebeler called me on telephone and asked me some questions about Mexico.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes?

Mrs. OSWALD. And I told him, "Just a minute, I'll go and inquire and tell him what I have," and I told him I have some kind of piece of paper. I don't know what it is. I don't know whether it would be interested--the Commission, and somebody who was at my house one time----

*Read what was on the stub.

Senator RUSSELL. You could read the stub all right, could you, Mrs. Oswald? There wasn't anything complicated there, you could read "One-way ticket," couldn't you? You know that much English?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It was a mixture of Spanish and English.

Senator RUSSELL. Oh, I see--it had it both ways, and the name of the bus company, too, perhaps.

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't understand this in languages--you can't say this.

Senator RUSSELL. Where had that magazine been that had this bus ticket in it, was anything else in it, any tickets to bull fights or anywhere else?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I turned all of this material over to the FBI, thinking that they might find something of interest in it. I did not try to determine for myself what it was.

Senator RUSSELL. Was it in the possessions that were removed from Mrs. Paine's room, or was it in some of Lee's material that was moved from his boardinghouse?*

Mrs. OSWALD. It was with Mrs. Paine.

Senator RUSSELL. Didn't you testify, Mrs. Oswald, that Lee couldn't read Spanish, when you were testifying before? What was he doing with a Spanish magazine?

Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't a Spanish magazine, it was a TV program.

Senator RUSSELL. Pardon?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was a TV program.

*It was not a Spanish magazine, it was a TV program.

Senator RUSSELL. Oh, it was not a magazine, it was a TV program. I understood you to say it was a Spanish magazine? I'm sorry.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I found all this among my old magazines and newspapers, that I was collecting after the assassination of the President, and there also were English books which could have been in that small suitcase in which I put everything.

Senator RUSSELL. How did the FBI happen to overlook that when they made the raid out there at Mrs. Paine's? I thought they carried off everything you had out there, practically?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The reason they overlooked this particular suitcase is because I took it with me to----

**To the hotel--the first night they moved us.

*When we stayed in the hotel.

It was in Dallas.

Senator RUSSELL. It was in Dallas. That's when they were at the big hotel--where you spent one night there?

*Mrs. OSWALD. It was in Dallas and I took it with me because there were children's books.

Senator RUSSELL. I thought the FBI had already removed your passports and your diploma and everything before that time?

*Mrs. OSWALD. The first day when Lee was arrested, the FBI made a search.

Mr. GOPADZE. The FBI or police.

Mr. GREGORY. The FBI or police.

Senator RUSSELL. I believe it was the police then.

*Mrs. OSWALD. The police made the search in the Paine's house.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes.

*Mrs. OSWALD. And everything was there. I did not take anything with me that first day when I was arrested.

Senator RUSSELL. When you returned to Mrs. Paine's you found they had left this particular program there with this bus stub? You testified they had removed your passport and your diploma and Lee's union cards and Social Security card and everything else--I was just wondering how they happened to leave this particular article with the bus stub in it?*

Mrs. OSWALD. **I never retained that for any special reason.

Senator RUSSELL. I'm quite sure of that. I wasn't asking that at all.**

Mrs. OSWALD. **I don't know the reason.

Senator RUSSELL. They just overlooked that?

Mrs. OSWALD. **It was just overlooked--the same way they overlooked that other.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, what are your relations now with the friends that you made in the Russian community here in Dallas? I don't remember all of the names--one of them was named Elena Hall, is that right, and Katya Ford, Anna Meller, De Mohrenschildt, De Mohrenschildt's wife and children--are you still on friendly terms with them, do you see them occasionally?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. As far as I'm concerned, I consider all of them as my friends, but George Bouhe, and Katya Ford are the only two people that come to visit me. Others perhaps feel that it is not healthy for them to come to see me.

Senator RUSSELL. I wondered if they had expressed their opinion or whether they were afraid of you on account of publicity contamination?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No, they never said that to me personally that they are afraid to come to see me. When we meet in the church, they are all very pleasant to me, but they never invite me.

Mr. GOPADZE. No.

**Mrs. OSWALD. Sometimes they invite Katya Ford, but they never invite me. Nataska Krassovska is very nice to me.

Senator RUSSELL. When was the first time you ever heard of Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein?*

Mrs. OSWALD. When he killed him.

Senator RUSSELL. You had never heard of him until that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. (Nodding a negative response.)

Senator RUSSELL. That's all.

Senator COOPER. What is your address now, Mrs. Oswald, and with whom do you live?

Mrs. OSWALD. 629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Tex.

Senator COOPER. Does someone live with you or do you live with someone?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I live by myself with my children.

Senator COOPER. After the death of your husband, you had a lawyer, Mr. Thorne, and a business agent, Mr. Martin, and they were discharged. Was there any particular reason for discharging them?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I got rid of them because the contract that they prepared was unfair to me, and it was prepared at a time when I did not understand it and when it was not translated to me.

Senator COOPER. Now, you later employed Mr. McKenzie as your attorney and you have since discharged him, haven't you?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I employed Mr. McKenzie to wind up the affair with Mr. Martin and Mr. Thorne, and he was not employed on any other basis--just for that particular thing.

**Not permanently.

*Not permanently--just for that particular thing, despite the fact that he did give advice on other business of mine. Of course, I needed an attorney in my dealings with the Commission that's what he told me--that I needed an attorney to deal with the Commission.

Mr. GOPADZE. She said----

Mr. RANKIN. She said more than that.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Now, as I feel now, I don't need any lawyer before the Commission.

Senator COOPER. If you'll just answer my question now: Do you have a lawyer to represent you now?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator COOPER. Who is your business agent?

Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Katya Ford.

Senator COOPER. Can you tell the Commission about how much money has been donated to you or how much you have earned through contracts?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know at this time how much money I have.

Senator COOPER. Approximately?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Donations were $57,000, from which twelve and one-half thousand plus expenses were paid to Martin and Thorne, and $15,000 to Mr. McKenzie.

Senator COOPER. Do you have any contracts, have you made any contracts for the sale of your writings which may be payable in the future?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. The publishing company contract with me is all.

*I have not signed any contracts with the publishing company, except I have already signed several contracts with Life Magazine.

After the diary was published.

**After the diary was published.

Senator COOPER. That's for $20,000?

Mrs. OSWALD. $20,000 plus $1,000 for Parade Magazine, and one girl--Helen--I don't know her last name, I know we did----

*Also, I signed--I agreed with a girl by the name of Helen--I cannot remember her last name, for possible future stories Helen might write.

We have interview.

Senator COOPER. You testified that your uncle is an official and a Colonel in the MVD?* ** And, a member of the Communist Party, is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Do you know that any other members of your family are members of the Communist Party?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. The husband of another aunt.

Senator COOPER. Is that the aunt you visited from time to time?* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator COOPER. At Kharkov?

Mrs. OSWALD. At Minsk.

Senator COOPER. With whom did you file your declaration for an exit visa?** *

*Mrs. OSWALD. There is a special institution in Minsk where prospective departees filed application for exit visa. They leave the application in that institution, and that institution transmits it to Moscow where the decision is made whether to grant or to deny the exit permit. The reply then comes to the MVD in Minsk.

*I want to assure the Commission that I was never given any assignment by the Soviet Government or the American Government, and that I was so surprised myself that I got the exit visa.

Senator COOPER. When you talked to Colonel Aksenov, what did he tell you when you asked him about the exit visa?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. When I went to see Colonel Aksenov, I went to ask him about the state in which my application is for exit visa, and he replied----

Mr. GOPADZE. No. "Was it favorable or not," and he said it was favorable.

Mr. GREGORY. Yes, and he said----

Mr. GOPADZE. That it takes official process of getting the answer.

*Mrs. OSWALD. He said, "You are not the only one who is seeking exit permit, and so you have to wait your turn."

Senator COOPER. Did he attempt to discourage you from seeking the exit visa?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator COOPER. Did Lee Oswald ever express any opinion to you as to why he thought an exit visa might be granted to you and your daughter?

*Mrs. OSWALD. He encouraged me and he thought that I would consider that he exerted every effort on his part for me to get this exit. Maybe he just was saying that that way, but never hoped that actually I would get the exit permit.

Senator COOPER. During that time or at any other time, did Lee ever say to you that he might do some work for the Soviet Union if you did return to the United States?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not.

Senator COOPER. I would like to turn to your testimony about your knowledge of the rifle that Lee possessed. Now, as I remember your testimony, you stated that you first learned that he had the rifle early in 1963.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. In the year that he bought it, I learned it.

Senator COOPER. You had seen him clean it, you had watched him sight the rifle in New Orleans and work the bolt?* **

Mr. GREGORY. In New Orleans?

Senator COOPER. Yes; in your testimony, you said you saw him sitting on the little back porch----

Mrs. OSWALD. On the little back porch--yes.

Senator COOPER. And sight the rifle?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I'm sorry, I might be mixed up.

Senator COOPER. When you testified that you believed he did some target practice at least a few times?

*Mrs. OSWALD. In Dallas or New Orleans?* **

*Yes; when we lived on Neely Street.

Senator COOPER. He told you that he had used this rifle to fire at General Walker?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator COOPER. He told you he had threatened Vice President Nixon, you had said?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not say "Vice President Nixon," he just said "Nixon."

Senator COOPER. Now, was it your opinion throughout these months that he was keeping this rifle for his purpose of using it again, firing at some individual, perhaps an official of the United States Government?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. **He never expressed himself.

*When the assassination of President Kennedy took place, I was asking people whether--people in general--whether General Walker was with President Kennedy. It perhaps was a silly question, but I thought that he----

Senator COOPER. Listen to my question: During this time, didn't you have the opinion that he was keeping possession of this rifle and practicing with it for the purpose of using it to shoot at some individual, and perhaps an official of the United States Government?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I never thought--I was afraid to think that he would do anything like that until the shooting of General Walker occurred.

Senator COOPER. But now my question. After that--the continued possession----* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. After the attempting of the killing of General Walker, I thought he might do it, but I didn't visualize that he could do anything like that.

Senator COOPER. When you testified before the Commission, you said--generally--you didn't think Lee would repeat anything like that--"Generally, I knew that the rifle was very tempting for him".

"Very tempting for him"--what did you mean by that, about the rifle being very tempting for him? Did you believe he might be tempted to shoot at someone else?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I was afraid that he did have temptation to kill someone else.

Senator COOPER. Mrs. Oswald, you testified that when you talked to Lee after he had shot at General Walker, or told you he had shot at General Walker, he said that it would have been well if someone had killed Hitler because many lives would be saved, is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator COOPER. After that, you testified that many times or a number of times he read you articles about President Kennedy?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator COOPER. And said at one time, discussing President Kennedy's father, that he had made his money through wine and he had a great deal of money, and that enabled him to educate his sons and to give them a start.

I want you to remember and tell the Commission if he did ever express any hatred or dislike for President Kennedy. You have several times--not changed--but you have told the Commission things you did not tell them when first asked.

Now, if he did speak to you about President Kennedy, we think you should tell the Commission?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think he ever expressed hatred toward President Kennedy, but perhaps he expressed jealousy, not only jealousy, but envy, but perhaps he envied, because he said, "Whoever has money has it easy." That was his general attitude. It was not a direct quotation.

Representative BOGGS. Pursuing this--I asked you that very question in Washington back in February, and the answer was "No." I asked you whether or not your husband ever expressed hostility toward President Kennedy--is your answer still "No"?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. My answer is "No."

**He never expressed himself anything against President Kennedy, anything detrimental toward him. What I told them generally before, I am repeating now too.

Representative BOGGS. Did he ever indicate to you, except in the Walker situation where he said he'd shot at General Walker, that he would kill anyone?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative BOGGS. What about Nixon?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did tell me he was about ready to commit that particular act, with respect to Nixon. That's when I kept him in the bathroom, but he never said, "Well, today it's Walker and then I'm going to kill someone else." He never said that. He never related to me any of his plans about killing anybody.

*In other words, he never said to me, "Now, I'll kill Walker and then I'll kill this fellow" and so on--he never did.

Senator COOPER. You testified that your husband said that he did not like the United States for several reasons; one, because of certain Fascist organizations; two, because of difficulty of securing employment; and another reason--because of the high cost of medical care. Did he ever say that those things that he did not like could be remedied or changed if an official of the Government were done away with?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he never told me.

**No; he never told me--he never told me.

Senator COOPER. Did any official of the Soviet Union, or any person who was a Soviet citizen, ever talk to you or ever talk to Lee to your knowledge, during the time that you were in the United States?

Mr. GREGORY. At any time before or after?

Senator COOPER. Yes?

Senator RUSSELL. You said--in the United States, didn't you?

Senator COOPER. Yes; in the United States.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; no one ever did. The only time Lee talked with a representative of the Soviet Union was in Mexico, but not me and Lee, we were never approached by the Soviet representatives.

Senator COOPER. When was the first time you ever heard of Police Officer Tippit?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. When there was a broadcast over the radio that Officer Tippit was killed.

Senator COOPER. Have you seen Mrs. Paine since the time you left her home after the assassination?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

I saw her twice since I left Irving, since I lived with her in Irving.

Senator COOPER. When was that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Once, when I lived with Katya Ford in February of this year, and the next time I do not recall--maybe 1 month later.

In my house.

Senator COOPER. You had quite an association with her, and I need not recall all of the facts, but is there any reason now that you do not wish to see her?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. One of the reasons is that she belongs to the Civil Liberties Union and I don't want to get mixed up in anything. I already have plenty of grief.

Senator COOPER. Just one other question--is there any other fact about this subject, which you have been asked by the Commission or by anyone else that you have knowledge of that you have not told us about it? Any fact that would bear on this inquiry?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I would be glad to, but I don't know of any.

Representative BOGGS. May I just ask one or two questions?

Have you seen Mrs. Marguerite Oswald at any time since you first appeared before the Commission?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative BOGGS. Have you heard from her?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative BOGGS. You've had no communication from her either directly or indirectly?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

*She tried to get in touch with me.

**Through Attorney McKenzie.

Representative BOGGS. And you refused to see her?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

*I think that she may have been bad influence with the children--improper influence with the children.

**I feel that--I hardly believe--that Lee Oswald really tried to kill President Kennedy.

Mrs. OSWALD. I feel in my own mind that Lee did not have President Kennedy as a prime target when he assassinated him.

Representative BOGGS. Well, who was it?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was Connally. That's my personal opinion that he perhaps was shooting at Governor Connally, the Governor of Texas.

Senator RUSSELL. You've testified before us before that Lee told you he was coming back to Texas--if he was back in Texas, he would vote for Connally for Governor. Why do you think he would shoot him?

Mrs. OSWALD. **I feel that the reason that he had Connally in his mind was on account of his discharge from the Marines and various letters they exchanged between the Marine Corps and the Governor's office, but actually, I didn't think that he had any idea concerning President Kennedy.

Representative BOGGS. Well, now, my next question is--did he ever express any hostility to Governor Connally?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He never expressed that to me--his displeasure or hatred of Connally, but I feel that there could have been some connection, due to the fact that Lee was dishonorably discharged from the Corps, and there was an exchange of letters between the Governor's Office and Lee. That's my personal opinion.

Representative BOGGS. Just a minute. Excuse me, Senator.

I asked you in February, Mrs. Oswald, I said, "What motive would you ascribe to your husband in killing President Kennedy?" And, you said, "As I saw the documents that were being read to me, I came to the conclusion that he wanted by any means, good or bad to get into history, and now that I've read a part of the translation of some of the documents, I think that there was some political foundation to it, a foundation of which I am not aware."

And then you go on and you express no doubt in your mind that he intended to kill President Kennedy.

Mrs. OSWALD. **Did I say that, this last time in Dallas? The last time in Dallas, apparently there was some misunderstanding on the part of my answers to the Commission, because I was told by Mr. McKenzie that it wasn't reported accurately.

*The record should read that on the basis of the documents that I have read, I have no doubt--that I had available to me to read--I had no doubt that he did----

Mr. GOPADZE. That he could kill him----

Mr. GREGORY. Could or have wanted to--could have wanted to----

Mr. GOPADZE. He could kill--she doesn't say "want"--he could have killed him.

Representative BOGGS. Let's straighten this out because this is very important.

Mrs. OSWALD. Okay.

Representative BOGGS. I'll read it to you, "I gather that you have reached the conclusion in your own mind that your husband killed President Kennedy?" You replied, "Regretfully--yes."

Now, do you have any reason to change that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. That's correct. I have no doubt that he did kill the President.

Representative BOGGS. Now, the other answer as I read it was: "On the basis of documents that you had seen presented at the Commission hearing"--isn't that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. **The word "documents" is wrong--the facts presented--that's what I mean.

Representative BOGGS. Again we get back to the question of motive. You said again today that you are convinced that Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy.

You said something additionally today, though, and that is that you feel that it was his intention not to kill President Kennedy, but to kill Governor Connally.

Now, am I correct in saying that she had not said this previously?

Mr. RANKIN. Ask her that.* **

Representative BOGGS. Let's get an answer. I think this answer is quite important.

*Mrs. OSWALD. On the basis of all the available facts, I have no doubt in my mind that Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy.

*At the same time, I feel in my own mind as far as I am concerned, I feel that Lee--that my husband perhaps intended to kill Governor Connally instead of President Kennedy.

Representative BOGGS. Now, let me ask you one other question: Assuming that this is correct, would you feel that there would be any less guilt in killing Governor Connally than in killing the President?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I am not trying to vindicate or justify or excuse Lee as my husband. Even if he killed one of his neighbors, still it wouldn't make much difference--it wouldn't make any difference--a killing is a killing. I am sorry.

Representative BOGGS. There are one or two other questions I want to ask her.

I know you've been asked a lot of questions about this thing. How old were you when you left Russia?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Twenty years. My birthday--I was 21 when I came here. In July--my birthday was in July.

Representative BOGGS. Were you a member of the Communist Party in Russia?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

*I was a member of a Komsomol organization.

Representative BOGGS. What is that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It is an association of young Communist youth. It is not party, sir. In order to become a member of the Communist Party, one has to be first a member of the Komsomol, but I didn't even have the membership card in Komsomol Association.

Representative BOGGS. Would it be normal for one to graduate, so to speak, from the Komsomol to the membership in the Communist Party?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It is a prerequisite for a prospective member of the Communist Party to be first a member of the Komsomol organization, but not every member of Komsomol becomes a Communist Party member.

Mr. RANKIN. What percentage?

Senator COOPER. She was expelled?

Senator RUSSELL. No; she testified she quit the Youth Movement.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I was dismissed.

**I was expelled from Komsomol.

Senator RUSSELL. Why--for what reason?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. The reason given to me for being expelled from Komsomol was because I did not get my card, because I did not take out my Komsomol card for 1 year. That was the reason given to me, but I believe the true reason why they expelled me from Komsomol was because I married an American.

It also happened about the time when I visited the American Embassy. I was expelled the following week after I visited the American Embassy in Moscow.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you pay any dues to the Komsomol?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; 30¢

*Yes; 30¢ every month.

Senator RUSSELL. I thought that practically all young people belonged to the Komsomol?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. There are many more of them than there are members of the Communist Party, aren't there?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Nearly every city in Russia has a big building, there is a Youth Komsomol Building?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I was persuaded or talked into joining the Komsomol organization.

Senator RUSSELL. I thought that was automatic?**

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

*No--one has to be accepted into Komsomol. It is not automatic.

Representative BOGGS. One further question, and this is off the record.

(Interrogatories and answers off the record at this point.)

Representative BOGGS. In response to Senator Russell, I gathered that you plan to stay in the United States?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; if possible.

Representative BOGGS. Do you aspire to become a citizen of the United States, or are you a citizen?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I am not a citizen. I wish to become an American citizen.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, when you were before us before, you testified that you were not a member of any church, but you had your own religion in your own heart, as I recall?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. In Russia I did not belong to any church. No one belongs to any church in Russia.

Senator RUSSELL. Except old women?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I'll say this--that I believe it's unhealthy in the Soviet Union to openly belong to any church. While there is no persecution of religious belief in Russia, the officials look at it with much disfavor.

Senator RUSSELL. But you are not actually a member of the church, are you?* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. In Russian churches, they don't have a fee or they don't have any membership, they have dues in Russian churches.

Senator RUSSELL. But you've not been baptized in any church?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, yes; I have been baptized.

Senator RUSSELL. When were you baptized?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Senator RUSSELL. Are you actually a member of the church?* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. Actually, I am not a member as you know in the United States. However, I belong to the church, the Russian church here in Dallas, and I don't pay dues.

Senator RUSSELL. You are more of a communicant now than you are a member of the church?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think the understanding of church membership is different in the Soviet Union or in the understanding of a person that was brought up in the Soviet Union.

Senator RUSSELL. I am concerned about this testimony, Mrs. Oswald, about your believing now that Lee was shooting at Connally and not at the President, because you did not tell us that before.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. At that time I didn't think so, but the more I mull over it in my own mind trying to get it in my own mind what made him do what he did, the more I think that he was shooting at Connally rather than President Kennedy.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, did you not testify before that Lee wrote a letter to Connally when he was Secretary of the Navy about the nature of his Marine discharge?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. And that when he got a letter back, that you asked him what it was?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. And he said, "Well, it's just some Bureaucrat's statement"?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

*Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you not further testify that Lee said in discussing the gubernatorial election in Texas that if he were here and voting, that he would vote for Mr. Connally?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator RUSSELL. Now, do you think he would shoot and kill a man that he would vote for, for the Governor of his state?* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. The only reason is--I am trying to analyze, myself, there was a reason--more reason to dislike Connally as a man than he had for Kennedy.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, she testified before that he had spoken, as far as Lee spoke favorably of anyone, that he had spoken favorably of both Kennedy and of Governor Connally.**

**Mrs. OSWALD. He also told me that he was also favorable toward Connally, while they were in Russia. There is a possibility that he changed his mind, but he never told her that.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, I think that's about as speculative as the answers I've read here. He might have changed his mind, but he didn't tell her anything about it, as she testified--that discussing politics in Texas, that he said that if he were here when they had the election, that he would vote for John Connally for Governor, and that was after he got the letter about the Marine corps.* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. That happened in Russia when he received some kind of pamphlet with a picture of Connally, a separate time, at which time he remarked that when he returned, if and when he returned to Texas he would vote for Connally.

Senator RUSSELL. That's right--that's exactly right, but yet now you say that he was his prime target.

I want to know what Connally had done to Lee since he got back from Russia that would cause him to change his mind, to shoot him?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know, but there is a possibility that Lee became hateful of Connally because the matter of this dishonorable discharge was dragging so long.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes; but Connally had left the Navy, where he had anything to do with the discharge, before he got the pamphlet about his being a candidate for Governor?** *

**Mrs. OSWALD. I am not sure when that particular thing happened, whether Mr. Connally was the Secretary of the Navy or what he was doing.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, it's a matter of common knowledge that he ran for Governor after he resigned as Secretary of the Navy.

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you not know that when Mr. Connally was running for Governor of Texas, he was no longer Secretary of the Navy and had nothing to do with the Marine Corps?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I knew--I knew that he was not the Secretary of the Navy any more because Lee told me that Connally stated in the letter to Lee that he was no longer Secretary of Navy and hence he couldn't do anything for him, and that Connally referred the petition to the proper authorities.

Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, didn't Lee read about government a great deal? Didn't Lee read about civic affairs and about government a great deal?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He read books about Kennedy, about Hitler, about others.

Senator RUSSELL. Haven't you been in this country long enough to know that the President is Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy and he's even head of the Secretary of the Navy. He can order him to do anything he wants to?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't pay any attention to it or I didn't know it or wasn't told.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you have any facts on which you base your opinion now that Lee Oswald was shooting and was intending to kill Connally rather than President Kennedy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I have no facts whatsoever. I simply express an opinion which perhaps is not logical at all, but I am sorry if I mixed everybody up.

Senator RUSSELL. You haven't mixed anybody up, except I think that you have your evidence terribly confused.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have no facts whatsover. I'm sorry I told them that.

Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether or not Lee knew Connally personally or did he know that he was going to be in this motorcade at all?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I did not know whether Lee knew or ever contacted the Governor personally, and I don't know whether Lee knew that the Governor would be in the motorcade.

Senator RUSSELL. But Lee did take his gun into town that day, and so far as you know, I believe you said that was the first day he had carried it into town?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not personally know that Lee took the rifle that morning or the night before. Apparently the Commission has witnesses or information to that effect, but of my own knowledge, I don't know.

Senator RUSSELL. Did you not testify that you thought this was Lee's rifle that was shown you as the one that shot Connally and the President?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I testified that that was the rifle.

Mr. GOPADZE. No--I'm sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had.

Mr. GREGORY. Yes; that's right.

Senator RUSSELL. That's all I asked her. That's just exactly what I asked her.

Mr. GREGORY. Yes; that's correct.

Senator RUSSELL. In discussing the motorcade, did he say anything about Connally would be riding with the President?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not.

Senator RUSSELL. I believe you testified, did you not, Mrs. Oswald, that the day before Lee told you that he fired at General Walker, that he seemed to be under great emotional stress, strain, very tense?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was angry and excited. He was angry and excited.

Senator RUSSELL. Did he show any of that on the morning that he left home when the President was assassinated?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I did not notice any difference in Lee's attitude during that morning from any other day. But sometimes, quite often, he was impulsive and nervous and excited. I got tired from watching him in those particular moods, in his moods, and I didn't pay any attention.

Senator RUSSELL. Why did you happen to watch him then on the morning that he shot at General Walker?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I simply--his mood left no impression on me that particular morning. There was nothing extraordinary about it.

Senator RUSSELL. On the Walker morning?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, no--on the morning of the President's assassination.

Senator RUSSELL. Yes, but you said you noticed it on the morning before he shot Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. Are you talking about Walker?

Senator RUSSELL. If you didn't notice his moods, how did you happen to notice it on the day before he shot at General Walker?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. The reason I didn't notice that particular morning about his mood was because the night before we had a little quarrel and I didn't pay any attention to that, particularly, and I was thinking that it was due to that quarrel we had the night before.

Senator RUSSELL. Well, of course, that was the quarrel you had about him registering under an assumed name or giving an assumed name at his room.**

Was that not the time, did you not try to telephone him and they told you that no such person stayed there at all?

*Mrs. OSWALD. That was the cause of the quarrel. You see, at this particular morning of the assassination, I was very tired because the baby woke up several times during the night and I was very tired, and in the morning I did not register or I did not even attempt to register his moods.

Senator RUSSELL. I think you testified before that you only saw him when he got up, that you stayed in bed and that he got up and fixed his own coffee and got out.* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. The only extraordinary thing that I noticed about him the morning of the assassination was that when Lee was leaving the house, he asked me if I purchased a pair of shoes.

Senator RUSSELL. For June?

Mrs. OSWALD. For me.

Senator RUSSELL. And for June?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. And for the baby.

Senator RUSSELL. And for June?

*Mrs. OSWALD. And that was the only thing that was extraordinary, and I wondered what was happening that he became, that he was so kind all of a sudden.

Senator RUSSELL. That was out of the money in the black wallet, too?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

*Yes--that was a fleeting thought in my mind of why the change in him.

Senator RUSSELL. But apparently he was not as excited and as upset as he was the morning before the Walker shooting?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was just as usual--sort of sleepy that particular morning. He was not excited. Then, I was so sleepy myself that I didn't pay any attention.

Senator RUSSELL. But you did testify that he was unusually excited the night before he shot at General walker, did you not?

*Mrs. OSWALD. The more time is passing, the more I am mixed up as to the exact occurrence. I'm forgetting these fine details with the passing of time.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could take a 5-minute recess? The reporter has been at it a long time?

Senator RUSSELL. Oh, yes; I don't know how she's stood it. I've never seen one in the Congress that took it anything like that long.

The REPORTER. Thank you.

Mr. RANKIN. And we will let you have a 5 minute recess, Mrs. Oswald.

(At this point the proceedings were recessed and resumed as stated, at 6:40 p.m., Sunday, September 6, 1964.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Oswald, you have not appeared here today with a lawyer, have you?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You have not, is that right? You have no lawyer with you?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator RUSSELL. No.

Mr. RANKIN. When you appeared before the Commission the other two times, you did have a lawyer with you, did you not?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--the other two times.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there some reason why you do not have a lawyer at this time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. That attorney cost me too much.

Mr. RANKIN. And--before this hearing, Mrs. Oswald, we offered to, that is the Commission offered to furnish you an attorney if you wanted one to be supplied to you for this hearing, did it not?* **

**Mrs. OSWALD. You did so?

Mr. RANKIN. I understood that that message was given to you by the Secret Service that we would ask for the appointment of counsel to attend the meeting with you, if you wished it, and you said you didn't need it, you would just tell the truth?

Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Sorrels called me on telephone and he asked me if I have a lawyer, an attorney, and I said, "No," and he told me, "Do I want to have one?" and I said, "No."

Mr. RANKIN. And you understood that you would be supplied a lawyer if you wanted one and you said you didn't, is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You referred to the fact, when you were asked, that your husband had a rifle in the Soviet Union while he was there. In your prior testimony, you referred to either a rifle or a shotgun, do you know which it was?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know the difference between the shotgun and the rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know that he had one or the other?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I know that there is a difference between this particular rifle and another rifle, but I don't know what the difference is. It was perhaps a different color.

Mr. RANKIN. You know that in the Soviet Union he did have either a rifle or a shotgun, do you?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Turning to the period when you were in New Orleans, just before you went back to Dallas with Ruth Paine, do you recall that time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--faintly.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember that was the latter part of September?*

Mrs. OSWALD. **Possibly.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember what date you went back to Dallas from New Orleans?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't the 26th of September?

Mr. RANKIN. Wasn't it about the 23d of September that you went back?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. The 23d?

*I do not know.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember that you had a discussion with your husband about the unemployment check that he was to receive about that time?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I remember Lee told me that he was expecting an unemployment check just before he left for Mexico.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you that he had changed the postal address and that that check would probably come to Ruth Paine's?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he was going to change his address and that the letters would come to that new address of Ruth Paine.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the unemployment check ever come to Ruth Paine's?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. When he returned from Mexico, he asked me if the unemployment check arrived, and I replied that I did not know. No; there was no check.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about getting the check at New Orleans and cashing it himself?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not remember it right now, but if I mentioned that to the Commission before, then it was so.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection about it now?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not recall distinctly now, but I think there was some conversation about the check being long in transit, that the check was sent from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving.

Mr. RANKIN. Well apparently, Mrs. Oswald, the facts show that the check was cashed by your husband with a stamped mark of the bank, dated the 26th of September, in New Orleans. Does that refresh your memory at all?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I was not with Lee at that time.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever tell you anything about it?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not remember at this moment.

Mr. RANKIN. Apparently he cashed the check at the little store, or the supermarket, near where you lived there in New Orleans. Did he every tell you that?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me. I do not remember that he told me.

Mr. RANKIN. Did Lee ever tell you where he stayed the night after you left, that is, the night of the 23d of September?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he stayed in that same house.

Mr. RANKIN. At the house where you had lived?**

**Mrs. OSWALD. He stayed with his aunt. I remember something that he stayed a couple days with his aunt in New Orleans.

*Did I leave on the 23d?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not recall distinctly at this moment, but I believe he said he spent the first night at the house where we lived, and perhaps one or two nights at Aunt Lillian's.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there something else?

Mrs. OSWALD. It is so difficult for me to remember now.

Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband have any Cuban friends at New Orleans?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember the time a man by the name of Bringuier came to the house there? Bringuier [spelling] B-r-i-n-g-u-i-e-r.

*Mrs. OSWALD. Someone came, but I don't know from which organization or who he was.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there more than one person who came asking about that or only one?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Just one.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall that your husband hired someone to help hand out leaflets about fair play for Cuba on the streets of New Orleans?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He mentioned that he hired a boy to help him, by giving him some money to buy ice cream or something--I don't know.

Mr. RANKIN. I'll hand you what is marked as Frank Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A, which is a photograph, and ask you if you recognize your husband there, and also, any of the other men there in the picture?*

*Mrs. OSWALD (examining instrument mentioned). I recognize only my husband.

Mr. RANKIN. Is your husband the man with the marks that sort of look like a "T" in light green?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. I ask you if you recognize anyone besides your husband in Frank Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No. *No. [Examining instrument mentioned.] No.

Mr. RANKIN. But you do recognize your husband there?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--yes.

Mr. RANKIN. He has a green mark over his photograph, does he not?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not your husband consulted any attorneys in New Orleans while he was there?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of a Clay Bertrand, [spelling] B-e-r-t-r-a-n-d?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband ever say anything about consulting an attorney about his discharge from the Marines or about his American citizenship?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not your husband was in Dallas in September between the 23d, the date that you left with Mrs. Paine, and the 26th of September--at any time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever say anything about anything like that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever know a Sylvia Odio, [spelling] O-d-i-o?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You never heard of her?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Sylvia Odio is a woman in Dallas who said that your husband, along with two Cubans, came to see her under the name "Leon Oswald," on the evening of the 25th or the 26th of September 1963. Do you know anything about that?*

**Mrs. OSWALD. No; I do not know about this.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever heard of her?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever hear of a person by the name of Rodriguez [Spelling] R-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z, that your husband was said to have known in New Orleans, while you were there? Do you know whether your husband ever knew a Rodriguez [spelling] R-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z in New Orleans?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He may have known him, but I don't know anything about it.

Mr. RANKIN. He never told you that he knew anyone like that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me.

Mr. RANKIN. When you lived in New Orleans and after your husband lost his job, did he stay away from home in the evenings much?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was not at home during the day time, but he was at home most of the time in the evenings.

Mr. RANKIN. And by being at home in the evenings, what time do you mean--from 6 o'clock on, or 7 o'clock, or what time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. After 7.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever show signs of having been drinking or being drunk when he came home?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Never.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever talk about having seen some friends or some Cubans or Mexicans in the bar or some bar in New Orleans?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; it's strange for me to hear that Lee visited bars or that he drank.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you know of his drinking at all in New Orleans?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I never did.

Mr. RANKIN. He was arrested in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba matter around August 9, if you will recall. You may not remember the exact date, but I refresh your memory and call your attention to the fact that it was that date--August 9?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I know about this.

Mr. RANKIN. How did that come to your attention, how did you learn about it?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. That night I waited for him until 3 o'clock in the morning. Then, I went to bed. When he came in the morning, I asked him where he had been and he told me he was arrested by the police.

Mr. RANKIN. Had he stayed out all night that way before?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. It hadn't ever happened before?**

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You say it never happened that he would even stay out late in the evening?*

Mrs. OSWALD. No; sometimes he was delayed, but he would be home by 9 o'clock.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever hear your husband say anything about being associated with any pro-Castro or anti-Castro groups in Dallas?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't know that he belonged to any organization in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you know of any such associations or any associations with Cubans after he returned from Mexico City?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever mention Sylvia Odio to you or any name like that, that you recall?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, when you testified before the Commission before, you were asked what kind of a job your husband had at the Minsk factory, do you recall that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You said he read blueprints and translated them into the finished product. Do you remember your husband saying anything like that to you?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think I testified to that.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't recall testifying to that?*

Mrs. OSWALD. I testified that he was a--slesar.

Mr. GREGORY. Off the record, please?

She names a trade and that Russian word stands for locksmith, but I know that he was not a locksmith, I mean, from the description of work that he was doing. He was working at a factory where he was assembling details for--metallic details. He was a machinist apprentice working on parts for radio receivers.

Mr. RANKIN. He told the FBI at one time in one of the interviews that he was busy reading blueprints and translating them.

Mr. Gregory, are you telling me what she says his job was or are you telling me what you know?

Mr. GREGORY. No; she's telling me, but Mrs. Oswald tells me that the technical name of his job was the Russian word (spelling) s-l-e-s-a-r'.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you describe, Mrs. Oswald, what he did in that job so it will be clearer than just that word. Tell us what he did?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I have never been at the plant where Lee worked or in any factory, but from the description that Lee gave me----

Mr. RANKIN. Tell us that?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. He was grinding details--detailed parts for small parts, small metallic parts for radio receivers, on a lathe.

Perhaps he was boasting about the importance of his work when he told you about reading the blueprints and translating them into the finished product. He may have actually done that kind of work, but I know nothing about that.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the only work that he told you he was doing during the period that you were there in Minsk, this job of grinding these parts on the lathe?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. While he and I lived together--yes. That was the kind of work that he was doing in Minsk.

Mr. RANKIN. And that's all that you know of?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. That's all I know about his work.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, turning to the period that your husband was in Moscow in 1959 when he first came there, and, of course, you were married later than that, did he tell you about his experiences when he first came to Moscow?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that for the most part he visited museums and studied the Russian language.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about the intourist guides, the women studied the Russian language.

Mrs. OSWALD. The Russian guides?

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you about any of the others that he knew there?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did, but I don't remember their names, except Rimma. The only reason I remember Rimma Sherikova is because she visited us in Minsk. She did not come especially to see us, but she was passing through Minsk and stopped to see us.

Mr. RANKIN. What did your husband tell you about Rimma?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. That she was a very fine, pretty, smart young girl, and unfortunately, older than he is, and that she helped him a great deal.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you how she helped him?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. First of all, as an interpreter.

Mr. RANKIN. What else?

*Mrs. OSWALD. And that he spent time with her and did not feel lonesome.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about Rimma or the other intourist guides helping him with learning Russian?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say how much they did that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about the guides helping him in dealing with the Embassy about his citizenship or giving up his citizenship?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me about that.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about the guides giving him any financial help?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me.

Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband say anything about when he learned that he might be able to stay in Russia, how he learned it?

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not. He, Lee, took part in radio broadcasts, propaganda in favor of the Soviet Union, which he felt helped him to get permission to stay in the Soviet Union.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say when he did that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. That was before my time.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me about it. Lee told me that the Soviet Union offered him Soviet citizenship, but he turned it down. He told me that he turned it down. At the same time, other developments as I recall, left the impression with me that he actually wanted to become a Soviet citizen, but I didn't connect the two. There is a discrepancy between the two, but at the time, I couldn't reconcile these apparent differences in what he said.

Mr. RANKIN. You know he told the reporters that he talked to in Moscow in November, that the Government was going to let him stay, but his diary says he didn't get that word until January the 4th of the following year. Now, do you know anything about that, how that happened?*

Mrs. OSWALD. 1960?

Mr. RANKIN. 1959 in November is when he told the reporters, and it was January 4, 1960, that he actually put it in his diary that he had the first learning of it?*

Mrs. OSWALD. That they would let him stay in the Soviet Union?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. Newspaper reporters?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; newspaper reporters--Miss Johnson and Miss Mosby.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He made the entry into his diary, I think, at a later date, and they may not be correct or precise--just one.

Mr. GREGORY. I think she's a little tired. She's saying many words, but I can't connect them. She says, "To be brief, I don't believe I know."

Mr. RANKIN. We will soon be through, Mrs. Oswald. There are just a few more questions.*

When your husband said that he had spoken over the radio and he thought that helped him, did he tell you what he said over the radio?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. He spoke over the radio of how everything--how wonderful everything was in the Soviet Union, or what he thought they liked to hear.

Mr. RANKIN. And did you understand that he spoke that in Moscow while he was there?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; while he was in Moscow.

Mr. RANKIN. That was during the period after he had first come to the country and before he came to Minsk, is that right?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you recall any more than you have told us about the time you had the interview with the MVD about your visa--what they said to you and what you said to them?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. First of all, Colonel Aksenov asked me why I wanted to go to America, "Is it so bad here that you want to leave?" And I replied that I wanted to go to America with my husband and that I believe that I have that right.

Mr. RANKIN. What did they say to that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Then he said, "You will simply have to wait because you are not the only one who wants to leave. You will have to wait your turn."

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything else that was said at that time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. At that time I was pregnant and Colonel Aksenov suggested that may be it would be better for me to wait until the baby came.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that I would prefer to leave as soon as possible.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that all you remember of the conversation?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing of importance.

Mr. RANKIN. Where did this conversation occur?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. In the MVD building in Minsk.

Mr. RANKIN. And who was present besides you and Colonel Aksenov?*

Mrs. OSWALD. At first there were two military men who later left, and they accompanied me or rather they showed me to the room where Colonel Aksenov was. We were the only two in the room.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, your husband said that before you both left for the United States, he had an interview with the MVD. Do you recall that?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Before we left where?

Mr. RANKIN. Before you left the Soviet Union?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything like that while you were in Moscow before you left for the United States?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You were never told about anything like that by your husband?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. By anyone else?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Nobody.

Mr. RANKIN. You were not present at any such meeting?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any meeting of that kind in Minsk?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He never told me that he had interviews.

Mr. RANKIN. He said he quarreled with them trying to expedite the visas, the exit permits, and where was that?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. In Minsk.

Mr. RANKIN. And did he tell you whom he talked to when he quarreled with them about the exit visas?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know their names, but all the people that were empowered with issuance of the exit permits.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that the time that you said he tried to get to see Colonel Aksenov and they wouldn't let him?* **

Mrs. OSWALD. It could have happened before we moved because he apparently had a conversation with the Colonel.**

**I remember it was cold.

Mr. GREGORY. May I ask Marina--will you mind to read the question?

The REPORTER. "Was that the time that you said he tried to get to see Colonel Aksenov and they wouldn't let him?"

Mr. RANKIN. I was asking about the meeting with the MVD.

Mr. GREGORY. Lee meeting with the MVD in Minsk?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes--about the exit visas.

Mr. GREGORY. And you wanted to know the year and the month of the year?

Mr. RANKIN. No; I was first trying to find out what meeting she was talking about and whether it was the one she referred to later.

Mr. GREGORY. When she could not get the audience with the man?

Mr. RANKIN. That's right.* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. It was approximately in January 1962.

Mr. RANKIN. And did he tell you what happened at that meeting?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not meet with--he did not get to see Colonel Aksenov.

Mr. RANKIN. But he did see someone else in there?

*Mrs. OSWALD. Apparently he talked to someone who substituted or was inferior to Colonel Aksenov.

Mr. RANKIN. And what did he tell you happened at that time?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Lee told me that when he came to MVD he asked to see Colonel Aksenov, and the people in the office asked him the nature of the business he wanted to discuss with him, and he told them that it was about exit visas, and they told him that he could not see Aksenov, but that they, whoever "they" were, were empowered to act on that question, but he insisted on seeing the colonel, and he did not get to see him.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Then he came home--then I went to MVD, then he sent me to MVD. I said, "I don't want to go there and he said, "I insist." Then, I was afraid to go there, but I did go, and the Colonel did not eat me up.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to the colonel about both your visa and your husband's at that time?*

Mrs. OSWALD. The conversation with Colonel Aksenov was to find out why the delay in the issuance of the exit permits.

Mr. RANKIN. That's all I have.

Senator COOPER. There has been a good deal of testimony that you and your husband were good friends with the De Mohrenschildt family?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Is it correct that when he came to your house on one occasion that he saw the rifle, your husband's rifle?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. It is possible that I have shown the rifle to them.

Senator COOPER. Do you remember when Mr. De Mohrenschildt said something like this after the Walker incident: "How could you miss it?" or something like that.*

*Mrs. OSWALD. De Mohrenschildt--as soon as he opened the door, he said to Lee, "How could you have missed, how could you have missed him?"

Senator COOPER. Do you have any explanation for that?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know whether Lee told De Mohrenschildt about shooting at Walker, and then Lee looked at me thinking--whether I told De Mohrenschildt about it--I don't know. He even couldn't speak that evening. Lee could not speak that evening. We were on the porch.

Senator COOPER. Did he later ask you if you had told De Mohrenschildt?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He asked me if I told De Mohrenschildt about it and when I said I didn't, he said, "How did he guess it?"

Mr. GOPADZE. No; she said, "Maybe you have told him."

*Mrs. OSWALD. Then he said, "Maybe you've told him about it", and then he added--he said, "How did he guess it?"

Senator COOPER. De Mohrenschildt said he had lived in Minsk, did he ever talk to you about Minsk?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did say he lived in Minsk when he was a small child.

Senator COOPER. You said also you heard them talking on occasions, that is, you heard Lee Oswald and De Mohrenschildt talking about Russia, did you hear them talking about political problems, political affiliations?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; they discussed politics.

Senator COOPER. Was De Mohrenschildt living in Dallas at the time of the assassination of President Kennedy?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He lived in Haiti.

Mr. GOPADZE. Do you know if he was in Haiti?

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know whether he lived in Dallas at the time of the assassination or whether he lived in Haiti.

Senator COOPER. Could you think back, Mrs. Oswald, is there any fact which comes to your mind which would lead you to believe that any person or persons were associated with your husband in any plan to assassinate President Kennedy, or you thought, Governor Connally?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, I don't know anything about it.

Senator COOPER. But my question was--not whether you knew. I asked you whether you had any facts which would lead you to believe that there was anyone?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this.

Senator COOPER. One other question. Did Lee Oswald ever say to you that he had any kind of connection with the Cuban Government or any of its agents?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not tell me.

Senator COOPER. I said one more, and this is the last one, I promise you.

Once you said that when you went to New Orleans together, he said something like this: "I'm lost." If that's correct, what was he talking about? Do you remember that?* **

*Mrs. OSWALD. On that particular occasion he sat by the icebox or the frigidaire and he sat there and he had his head in his hands and he said, "I am lost." I believe that that was the result of all the failures of his.

Senator COOPER. Did you feel sympathy for him and love for him in those days?*

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I felt sorry for him. I knew it was difficult for him with his family. I felt sorry for him.

Senator COOPER. All right.

Senator RUSSELL. When you testified the second time in Washington, Mrs. Oswald, that you didn't think Mr. De Mohrenschildt was as dangerous as he sounds--that was your personal opinion--what did you mean by that?*

Here it is: "Mr. Mohrenschildt once took us out to the Fords' house. It was at New Year's, I think--Katya Ford's house. It was either Christmas or New Year's. I don't think Mr. De Mohrenschildt is as dangerous as he sounds. That's my personal opinion."

No one had said anything about him being dangerous, so why was that your opinion?** *

Mr. GREGORY. Off the record.

Senator RUSSELL. She understood that.

Mr. GREGORY. This goes into the record, of course?

Senator RUSSELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREGORY. I think she's hesitated----

Senator RUSSELL. I think she should explain it.

*Mrs. OSWALD. George is such a big mouth.

Senator RUSSELL. Let's let her testify, if you don't mind?

Mr. GREGORY. I'm translating what she said.

Senator RUSSELL. Oh, is that what she said? I see. I'm sorry. I'm sorry--I didn't hear it.

*Mrs. OSWALD. George is such a loud mouth or big talker----

Senator RUSSELL. Big talker--that would be the equivalent, I'm sure.

*Mrs. OSWALD. I simply do not believe that--it is my intuition----

Mr. GOPADZE. No; that point?

*Mrs. OSWALD. It is my opinion that people that talk too much do little.

Senator RUSSELL. And did he talk too much or talk very loud? I don't know Mr. De Mohrenschildt.** *

Mrs. OSWALD. Very loud.

*He jokes all the time and people don't know when he talks sense and when he jokes.

**Sometimes he would say something jokingly and people would think that he's telling the truth.

Senator RUSSELL. Was that boasting about some imaginary achievement of his?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. It's simply his manner of speaking--of talking. It's his character.

Senator RUSSELL. He didn't talk then about his feats of any kind, about performing any great feats?*

*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he never did.

Senator RUSSELL. It was merely his tone of voice and his manner of expression that made him sound dangerous?**

**Mrs. OSWALD. He was boasting about it, but he never would follow through.

Mr. RANKIN. You might tell the full story.

Mrs. OSWALD. Quite often he would be boasting about something big but he never did follow through.

Senator RUSSELL. So he did talk about great achievements most of the time?*

**Mrs. OSWALD. Just like a fellow who is just a happy go-around man, a happy go-lucky man.

Senator RUSSELL. If there is nothing further, the Commission thanks you very much for your assistance, and you, Mr. Gregory, and above all, the very remarkable reporter who has been able to stay with us from the beginning.

The Commission will now recess subject to the call of the Chairman or Chief Justice Warren.

Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you very much.

Senator RUSSELL. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 8 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be due to mispronunciations were not changed.

Some simple typographical errors were corrected.

Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.

Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.

Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.

Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of conversation?") retained.

Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.

Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed.

Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and corrected, but some almost certainly remain.

The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be available at Project Gutenberg.

Asterisks in the Marina Oswald testimony have been reproduced as originally printed.

Page vii: No Table of Contents entry for "Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald (resumed)" beginning on page 588.

Page 47: "is a photostat is a photostat" was printed that way.

Page 51: "Will you tell us on what date you wrote or dictated Exhibit 711?" occurs twice. The second occurrence either was spoken by Mr. Rankin or is a typesetting error.

Page 88 and elsewhere: "Mr. Specter" misprinted five times as "Mr. Spector"; corrected here.

Page 107: "these tall building on either side" should be "buildings".

Page 138: "contains angels of sight" is a misprint for "angles".

Page 139: One occurrence of "Main Street" was misprinted as "Maine Street"; corrected here.

Page 142: "Dr. Hume" is a misprint for "Dr. Humes".

Page 152: "The other hand, his left hand is on his lapel" was misprinted as "left had"; corrected here.

Page 163: "Did the surveyor make that placement" misprinted as "surveyer"; corrected here.

Page 177: "Those are 88 mm., too" is a misprint for "8 mm."

Page 186: "implusive" probably is a misprint for "impulsive".

Pages 273 and elsewhere: "Mr. Snyder" misprinted six times as "Mr. Synder"; corrected here.

Page 298: "exist visa" probably is a misprint for "exit visa".

Page 306: "would't" was printed that way.

Page 335: "name." is repeated, originally on the next line; looks like a misprint.

Page 365: "How could you tell us" possibly should be "Now could".

Page 482: "Do you thing that is a handicap" should be "think".

Page 528: "handwriting. It that yours?" should be "Is".

Page 529: "handwriting it that?" should be "is".

Page 530: "I do not know which exhibit is." should be "it is".

Page 562: "miles and hour." should be "an".

Page 563: "take as much as minute" probably should be "as a minute".

Page 611: "whatsover" was printed that way.

Page 613: "Did he every tell you that" should be "ever".

Page 618: 'I said, "I don't want to go there and he said, "I insist."' either is missing a closing quotation mark or has a spurious opening one.