Warren Commission (10 of 26): Hearings Vol. X (of 15) (part 2 of 5)

Preface

The testimony of the following witnesses is contained in volume X: Everett D. Glover, who became acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald following his return to Texas in 1962; Carlos Bringuier, Francis L. Martello, Charles Hall Steele, Jr., Charles Hall Steele, Sr., Philip Geraci III, Vance Blalock, Vincent T. Lee, Arnold Samuel Johnson, James J. Tormey, Farrell Dobbs, and John J. Abt, who testified concerning Oswald's political activities and associations; Helen P. Cunningham, R. L. Adams, Donald E. Brooks, Irving Statman, Tommy Bargas, Robert L. Stovall, John G. Graef, Dennis Hyman Ofstein, and Charles Joseph Le Blanc, who testified concerning Oswald's employment history; Adrian Thomas Alba, who was acquainted with Oswald in New Orleans in 1963; Chester Allen Riggs, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Mahlon F. Tobias, Sr., Mr. and Mrs. Jesse J. Garner, Richard Leroy Hulen, Colin Barnhorst, and Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Carl Johnson, who testified concerning Oswald's various residences; and Clifton M. Shasteen, Leonard Edwin Hutchison, Frank Pizzo, Albert Guy Bogard, Floyd Guy Davis, Virginia Louise Davis, Malcolm Howard Price, Jr., Garland Glenwill Slack, Dr. Homer Wood, Sterling Charles Wood, Theresa Wood, Glenn Emmett Smith, W. W. Semingsen, and Laurance R. Wilcox, who testified concerning contacts they believed they had with Oswald under varying circumstances.

Page Preface v

Testimony of-- Everett D. Glover. 1 Carlos Bringuier 32 Francis L. Martello. 51 Charles Hall Steele, Jr 62 Charles Hall Steele, Sr 71 Philip Geraci III 74 Vance Blalock 81 Vincent T. Lee 86 Arnold Samuel Johnson 95 James J. Tormey 107 Farrell Dobbs 109 John J. Abt 116 Helen P. Cunningham 117 R. L. Adams 136 Donald E. Brooks 143 Irving Statman 149 Tommy Bargas 160 Robert L. Stovall 167 John G. Graef 174 Dennis Hyman Ofstein 194 Charles Joseph Le Blanc 213 Adrian Thomas Alba 219 Chester Allen Riggs, Jr 229 Mrs. Mahlon F. Tobias 231 M. F. Tobias, Sr 251 Mrs. Jesse Garner 264 Jesse J. Garner 276 Richard Leroy Hulen 277 Colin Barnhorst 284 Mrs. Arthur Carl (Gladys J.) Johnson 292 A. C. Johnson 301 Clifton M. Shasteen 309 Leonard Edwin Hutchison 327 Frank Pizzo 340 Albert Guy Bogard 352 Floyd Guy Davis 356 Virginia Louise Davis 363 Malcolm Howard Price, Jr 369 Garland Glenwill Slack 378 Homer Wood 385 Sterling Charles Wood 390 Theresa Wood 398 Glenn Emmett Smith 399 W. W. Semingsen 405 Laurance R. Wilcox 414

EXHIBITS INTRODUCED

Page Commission Exhibit No. 427 183 Bringuier Exhibit No.: 1 42 2 41 3 44 4 46 Cunningham Exhibit No.: 1 119 1-A 119 2 121 2-A 121 3 156 3-A 156 Dobbs Exhibit No.: 1 109 2 109 3 109 4 109 5 109 6 111 7 110 8 112 9 110 10 110 11 112 12 113 13 114 Garner Exhibit No. 1 49 Hulen Exhibit No.: 1 280 2 282 3 284 4 284 5 284 6 284 7 284 8 289 9 290 10 290 11 290 12 291 13 291 14 291 15 291 Johnson (Arnold) Exhibit No.: 1 97 2 99 3 99 4 100 4-A 101 5 101 5-A 103 6 101 7 103 Johnson (Gladys) Exhibit A 294 Lee Exhibit No.: 1 87 2 88 3 88 3-A 88 4 88 5 88 6 90 7 91 8-A 91 8-B 91 8-C 91 9 91 Pizzo Exhibit No.: 453-A 350 453-B 350 453-C 350 Semingsen Exhibit No.: 3001 406 5118 406 5119 407 5120 407 5121 407 Tobias (Mrs. Mahlon F.) Exhibit No. 1 233 Tobias (Mahlon F., Sr.) Exhibit No. 2 253 Tormey Exhibit No.: 1 107 2 107 Wilcox Exhibit No.: 3002 415 3003 416 3004 416 3005 417 3006 417 3007 422 3008 423 3009 423 3010 423 3011 423 3012 423 3013 423 3014 423 3015 423 3016 424 3017 424

Hearings Before the President's Commission

on the

Assassination of President Kennedy

TESTIMONY OF EVERETT D. GLOVER

The testimony of Everett D. Glover was taken at 11 a.m., on March 24, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Glover, would you stand? Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in response to my questions in the taking now of your deposition?

Mr. GLOVER. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Glover, you have received, I think, sometime last week a letter from Mr. Rankin, general counsel for the Commission, advising you we desire to take your testimony by deposition.

Mr. GLOVER. Advising me that you wanted to take my testimony. I don't know whether it was specifically deposition, but yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now the Commission has been established to investigate and report all the circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and any participation by Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald and others in that tragic event.

We understand that you had some acquaintance with the Oswalds as well as people in the community who, in turn, had an acquaintance with the Oswald's, and that you also had an acquaintance with George De Mohrenschildt, naming him in particular, although there are others I will probably examine you about. But it is in those general areas that I will proceed.

Now you are at liberty to have counsel present should you so desire, and since you don't appear to have anybody with you, I assume you do not wish any counsel?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Your name is Everett D. Glover?

Mr. GLOVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Do you reside in Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. GLOVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Where is your present residence?

Mr. GLOVER. My present residence is 9838 Webbs Chapel Road, Dallas, 20.

Mr. JENNER. How long have you resided there, sir?

Mr. GLOVER. Since January 1, of this year, 1964.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you reside immediately prior to that?

Mr. GLOVER. 5723 Southwestern Boulevard. I forget the zone in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. How long had you resided there?

Mr. GLOVER. Sometime around April 20, of 1963.

Mr. JENNER. I will have to keep going back. Where did you live prior to that?

Mr. GLOVER. I lived at 4449 Potomac in Dallas also. It is in University Park.

Mr. JENNER. For what span of time?

Mr. GLOVER. Span of time there, I don't have the figures right in my mind, but approximately 2 years there.

Mr. JENNER. That would take you back to sometime in 1961?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. We'd have to check these to be sure, this is approximately.

Mr. JENNER. That is sufficient. I will ask you this general question. Over how long have you resided in Dallas or the Dallas area?

Mr. GLOVER. Since 1955. June 2, 1955, I took a position with Socony Mobil Oil Co. and came here to work on that day. I have lived here since that time.

Mr. JENNER. Are you married?

Mr. GLOVER. I am married; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a family?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I am married for the second time at the present time. My former wife and a son by my former marriage are living in Pennsylvania.

Mr. JENNER. Of what country are you a native?

Mr. GLOVER. United States.

Mr. JENNER. You were born in the United States?

Mr. GLOVER. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. How old are you?

Mr. GLOVER. 47 years old.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you born in the United States?

Mr. GLOVER. I was born in Worcester, Mass. I resided in Millbury, Mass., but I was actually born in the city of Worcester.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about your education, please. Elementary school and high school and if you went beyond high school.

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I went to college at North Clark University in Worcester, Mass., and I later went to the University of Wisconsin. I completed a master's degree there and a great deal of work on a doctor's degree.

Mr. JENNER. So you have a bachelor of arts degree?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And master's degree and you have completed a good deal of work on a Ph. D.?

Mr. GLOVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. You were first married when?

Mr. GLOVER. 1940.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you residing then?

Mr. GLOVER. At that time I was residing in Worcester, Mass.

Mr. JENNER. What was your wife's maiden name?

Mr. GLOVER. The name was Mary Elizabeth Butler.

Mr. JENNER. She was a resident of Worcester, was she?

Mr. GLOVER. She was a resident of Worcester.

Mr. JENNER. And was a native-born American?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; she was.

Mr. JENNER. How many children do you have by that marriage?

Mr. GLOVER. I have one.

Mr. JENNER. He is with his mother, is he?

Mr. GLOVER. He is with his mother now in Pennsylvania; yes.

Mr. JENNER. That marriage was terminated in divorce when?

Mr. GLOVER. In Texas last year, 1963, in June, I believe it was, the 29th.

Mr. JENNER. All right, had you been separated from your wife prior to that time?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I had been separated.

Mr. JENNER. When did the separation occur?

Mr. GLOVER. The separation occurred on approximately September 1 of 1962.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you residing then?

Mr. GLOVER. I was residing at 4449 Potomac.

Mr. JENNER. Did your wife leave this vicinity then?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; she left this vicinity then.

Mr. JENNER. And returned to where or went to where?

Mr. GLOVER. She didn't return. The circumstances of her leaving were that my son is very interested avocationally in ice skating, and he had earned enough money selling the Times Herald, the local newspaper, to take him for 1 summer's ice skating, and it so happened that he ended up in Hershey, Pa., which has a teacher or pro who is very good, and the circumstances just happened that way.

Mr. JENNER. Indoor arena rink?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he stayed there for the summer and he wanted to stay there beyond that time very badly. He wanted to continue his ice skating under some such situation as he had there, and my wife and I had not gotten along too well, and it seemed like a natural time to make a separation, so she left and went to Pennsylvania during this time at approximately the end of the summer and stayed there, and I filed for a divorce.

Again I am not sure of the actual date, but approximately December 1 of that year, 1962. And the divorce was granted in the summer in 1963, approximately June 29, of 1963.

Mr. JENNER. And you remarried when?

Mr. GLOVER. I remarried August the 26th of this same year, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. And remained in the same quarters, did you?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I moved about April 20 to 5723 Southwestern Boulevard after having sold the house at 4449 Potomac, which I owned, and made the divorce settlement.

Then I moved to 5723 Southwestern Boulevard where I rented a house with two colleagues of mine where I worked, who were all unattached, since I had to move from 4449 Potomac. One moved in on December 1, 1962, and another one on January 1, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. Now when you and your wife separated, that is when she went to Pennsylvania, Hershey, Pa., with her son for this period, did anyone join you in your quarters as roommates or persons living with you?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, these are the people I just referred to. One man, Richard L. Pierce, who works with me in the same section of my laboratory, joined me December 1, of 1962, and the second man, Volkmar Schmidt, who came from Germany and worked with the company as a geologist, came to live with me approximately January 1.

It was an arrangement we tried out to see if there would be mutual satisfaction.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a German derivation?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not.

Mr. JENNER. What is yours?

Mr. GLOVER. My background on that respect, my derivation would be English on both sides. I know on the Glover side it is English and goes back down to the 1700, but I don't know the other side very well.

Mr. JENNER. All right. What is your occupation, profession, business or avocation?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, occupation is as a chemist working with the geology group in the exploration section of Socony Mobil Oil Co., Field Research Laboratory here in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Your master's degree was in what?

Mr. GLOVER. It was in soil science.

Mr. JENNER. Involved chemistry?

Mr. GLOVER. Involved chemistry of fine grain material such as soil, sediments, and so forth.

This is the reason that I am working where I am, because of the kind of work I do, in the geology section. It is not soil per se, but using techniques in dealing with problems similar to soil problems.

Mr. JENNER. And in turn, related to the discovery or production or recovery of oil?

Mr. GLOVER. It is related particularly to the exploration for oil. That is the study of the mechanical constituents of rocks in which the oil is found.

I would say involving research work in order to find some more easily recognized signs of oil. That is the long term objective.

Mr. JENNER. I would say this to you, sir. It is common that witnesses can, especially in this type of examination where the witness sits across the desk from a questioner, to drop his voice. So to the extent that you can recall it, you won't do it all the time, keep your voice up.

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Are you acquainted with a Mr. George De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. When and under what circumstances did you first become acquainted with Mr. George De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. Again this is connected with my ice skating activities which I didn't mention. I mentioned my son's.

One of my avocations is ice skating. I do not know the exact time, but sometime in the period, I would say 1956 to 1959, when I have been ice skating, I met Mrs. De Mohrenschildt on the ice rink skating by herself. She skated a considerable time, maybe, probably, part of a year, and then later she brought Mr. De Mohrenschildt there, and that is the first acquaintance I had with them. This was a casual acquaintance.

Mr. JENNER. Is this the present Mrs. De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. This is the present Mrs. De Mohrenschildt.

Mr. JENNER. Was she then married to Mr. De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. I have no way of knowing. I wouldn't have thought of this particularly except in conversation with the FBI. By their reaction, what he said, apparently there was some question about this, but I wouldn't have known that myself. I assumed she was.

Mr. JENNER. Well, in order that we are certain we have the same lady in mind, did you learn what her first name was?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. The name she wanted to be called was "Jon," the French J-e-a-n-n-e.

I didn't see it written down, but she insisted on her being called "Jon," the French.

Mr. JENNER. By American, it is Jeanne?

Mr. GLOVER. Jeanne, right.

Mr. JENNER. When you talk about ice skating, you mean figure skating?

Mr. GLOVER. Figure skating; right.

Mr. JENNER. This relationship, at least for a time, was relatively casual?

Mr. GLOVER. It was very casual. In fact, they did not seem very much interested in other people.

Mr. JENNER. Did that acquaintance ripen eventually into a friendship, or at least a closer relationship than that you have indicated?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, there are two phases of my acquaintance with them. The first phase ended when they didn't come to the skating rink any more, and I cannot recall when this was. But if it were necessary to find out, I could possibly find out more in detail, because they joined the Dallas Figure Skating Club which I belonged to, and it was after I had belonged to that organization a year or so that they left.

Mr. JENNER. Would you give me for the moment your best recollection as to when the first period of time to which you have reference ended?

Mr. GLOVER. Ended?

Mr. JENNER. That is, the casual acquaintance.

Mr. GLOVER. I really honestly don't know when that was.

Mr. JENNER. Maybe we can get at it this way. What is your present recollection as to the intervening span in which you had either little or no contact with the De Mohrenschildts? How long did that run?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I know when I met them--I think I know when I met them again. This was in connection with playing tennis. And that must have been in the spring, I believe, of 1962, sometime in that period.

Mr. JENNER. You and your former wife were still living together at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, that's right; my former wife was still in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Would you say that the intervening period when you had a little or no contact with the De Mohrenschildts covered as much as a couple of years?

Mr. GLOVER. I would say that is what I think, but I could check this point if necessary.

Mr. JENNER. We will let you know as to whether we want you to do that.

That acquaintance was then renewed under what circumstances?

Mr. GLOVER. I went to a party at a friend's house one night.

Mr. JENNER. Who is the friend?

Mr. GLOVER. The man's name is Lauriston C. Marshall.

Mr. JENNER. That is a new name to me.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, he is called Larry, but his name, I am quite sure, was----

Mr. JENNER. L-a-u-r-i-s-t-o-n C. M-a-r-s-h-a-l-l?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. GLOVER. He lived in Garland here.

Mr. JENNER. Garland, Tex.?

Mr. GLOVER. Right. This is not where I met the De Mohrenschildts, but that is the connection. I was at his house and I met Sam Ballen. And something was said about playing tennis, and it turns out that he likes to play tennis and I also like to play tennis. I hadn't played very much since I had been in Dallas, but I always wanted to play more than I had a chance to, and he said, "How about tomorrow morning?" and I agreed, okay.

So when I went to play tennis the next morning, it turned out that the other two people involved in this match of four people, doubles, was the De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. JENNER. You played doubles in tennis with him the next morning, Sunday morning?

Mr. GLOVER. This sounds right. I believe it was a Saturday night party, and I was playing Sunday morning. I believe that is what it was.

Mr. JENNER. And your friendship with the De Mohrenschildts blossomed?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, we played tennis an awful lot more. That was the basis.

Mr. JENNER. You say the double, the lady who played tennis with you on that initial occasion, was the same lady who had accompanied Mr. De Mohrenschildt earlier on the ice rink?

Mr. GLOVER. That's correct.

Mr. JENNER. Will you tell me, please, and I want you to tell me in your own words. I will try not to interrupt you, or at least I will keep it to a minimum, what you learned about George De Mohrenschildt first?

Mr. GLOVER. You mean what I learned about him from my complete acquaintance with him?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. GLOVER. What he was like and so forth?

Mr. JENNER. What he was like, what you learned from him, if you can indicate information you received directly from him as to his travels, if any, as to his work, as to any associations he had.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, it is pretty hard to produce some order out of it, because I never got a complete picture. But he had apparently, and I believe this to be true, had come back from a trip to South America. I mean to Mexico where he had walked from the north edge of Mexico down to Central America, to Panama.

Mr. JENNER. Your information in this respect was obtained directly from him?

Mr. GLOVER. Directly from him and also by films which he had showing his trip, and also the fact that he apparently corresponded with Sam Ballen during the time that he had been down there, and that was mentioned, the fact that he had corresponded.

Mr. JENNER. Who mentioned it, Ballen or De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. I couldn't be sure about that, sir, but from one or the other people, I am sure I got the distinct impression that they corresponded.

He sent letters to Sam Ballen during the time he was there, so I do believe, and I have no reason not to believe, that he made such a trip, seeing the film.

Mr. JENNER. You saw the film?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You also talked to Mr. De Mohrenschildt, or he with you?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You had conversations with him about his trip to Mexico, and he told you about it?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he exhibit the film?

Mr. GLOVER. He exhibited the film.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. De Mohrenschildt the lady called Jeanne and who preferred to be called "Jon" (Jeanne)?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was she present when the film was shown?

Mr. GLOVER. She was present.

Mr. JENNER. And you also had conversation with her?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Did she confirm, as well as Mr. De Mohrenschildt, their trip, walking trip into Mexico?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said about the De Mohrenschildts, either of them having any--having met any officials with the Soviet Union?

Mr. GLOVER. During that trip?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. GLOVER. No, sir; not that I remember.

Mr. JENNER. Not at all?

Mr. GLOVER. Nothing was said.

Mr. JENNER. You have no impression on that score, then?

Mr. GLOVER. I cannot remember any such thing was said.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then, it is your impression that this was a walking pleasure trip, a vacation, that sort of thing in which he and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt traveled from the border--that would be the north border of Mexico down as far as Panama?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, but I would amend your statement a little bit. You said pleasure trip. It was in a sense, the way I understood the reason for this was, that De Mohrenschildt had a son and daughter by his, according to him, I believe, last marriage. The son had died of cystic fibrosis, and I had the impression that he was very much attached to his son, and this was one of the reasons that he sort of threw up everything. I had been given to believe he was in the oil consulting business.

Mr. JENNER. You were given to believe that De Mohrenschildt was in the oil consulting business?

Mr. GLOVER. Previous to that and after that time, too, and that he had thrown everything up and done this. He said that he and someone else started to make this trip at a much earlier time. I am not sure what time it was, but it was a long time. Seems to me he said they tried to drive a Model "T" Ford and hadn't been successful.

Mr. JENNER. That would be quite a long time ago?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. That might be older than De Mohrenschildt is. I don't know when he came here, really, of course.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. GLOVER. But anyway, maybe it is a Model "A" Ford. I really am not sure about that point. It doesn't sound right, a Model "T" Ford.

Mr. JENNER. A Model "T," say that is my error, and the Model "A"----

Mr. GLOVER. Model "A" came in 1927 and 1928.

Mr. JENNER. 1927, 1928, and 1929. I was about a junior in college then.

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. I am a little bit younger than that. I was 10 years old in 1927, but I distinctly remember the Model "T's." I am not sure, but the important thing as far as my recollection was, he said he wanted to take this trip and started to take it with another fellow and he didn't get very far, but then he this time did take the trip and the feeling I had was the motivation was--he had been completely broken up by his son dying and he wanted to do this a long time ago, he went ahead and did it.

And his wife wanted to do it with him and they did it.

Mr. JENNER. So the impression you obtained from the conversation you heard overall was that the trip was not motivated by any objective or plan to have any contact with any persons connected with the Soviet Union, or representing the Soviet Union?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I did not get any such impression.

One other thing, I did get the impression, he mentioned specifically that he had some business along the way, which was looking at old mining areas.

Now I got the impression, although it was a hazy one, that he was actually being paid by some private concern to look at old mining areas as he passed through there.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Did you have any impression of any other trips that Mr. De Mohrenschildt made outside of this country?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. He told me that after the war he was on a, I don't know whether he was connected--somehow he said with a State Department venture which he was doing something with regard to advising in oil matters in Yugoslavia.

Mr. JENNER. And that he had gone to Yugoslavia?

Mr. GLOVER. He had gone to Yugoslavia, he told me that. He described the living there when he was there, drinking lots of wine in Yugoslavia with women and so forth, and it wasn't very descriptive, but from what he said, I got a very distinct impression he had been there, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get an impression that he was married at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. I did. In fact, the impression I have, and I am not sure exactly where it all comes from, when I first met Mrs. De Mohrenschildt, she was alone, and her husband was never with her, and she was not very cordial at all.

You saw someone skating around and you'd just say a word and she was not particularly cordial.

And even later, I am not sure exactly the amount of time, but maybe a season of skating, he appeared.

And I assumed afterwards, I am not sure what basis I had, that this was the time that he was away in Yugoslavia, and he came back. And I think they referred to that afterwards, as if that were the case.

Mr. JENNER. In this early period was anything else said to you affirmatively that Jeanne or "Jon" De Mohrenschildt was his wife at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. When I come to think of it, I don't know of any specific instance where there was a big point made of them being married, but I assumed, since they were living together, and I just assumed that.

Mr. JENNER. How do you know they were living together?

Mr. GLOVER. At what time?

Mr. JENNER. The earlier period.

Mr. GLOVER. The earlier period, no. The later period I didn't live too far away from them. I would go to their house and have a glass of beer after the tennis match, and later I went to their house quite often.

Mr. JENNER. The tennis match was the second period?

Mr. GLOVER. The first period I don't have any proof whatsoever except it seemed to me they were giving the same name.

Mr. JENNER. They were?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe so. Now that could be checked with the Dallas Figure Skating Club where they were members. I assumed they were husband and wife.

Mr. JENNER. What did you learn as to George De Mohrenschildt's past in connection with whether he had been married more than once?

Mr. GLOVER. He said he had been married four times, including this.

Mr. JENNER. Including the marriage to Jeanne or Jon?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So he had had three marriages prior to this time?

Mr. GLOVER. That is what he said. He used to talk about that quite often, make remarks to the fact that he had been married four times.

Mr. JENNER. You have mentioned a son who died. Did he say anything about having any other children?

Mr. GLOVER. A daughter.

Mr. JENNER. A daughter?

Mr. GLOVER. Same wife.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said about whether she was alive or dead?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he talked quite a bit about her.

Mr. JENNER. As being alive or dead?

Mr. GLOVER. As being alive.

Mr. JENNER. Was there an occasion eventually in which there was a discussion in which he indicated that she had been--she had become deceased?

Mr. GLOVER. No. He never indicated anything to me that she had become deceased. He talked quite a bit about her and was still talking about custody of the daughter who was remaining with the mother, who was trying to prevent any possible change in custody. That was right up to the last I knew him.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether at any time you stated to the FBI that he had two children and they had both died?

Mr. GLOVER. I stated that he had two children?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. GLOVER. And they had both died?

Mr. JENNER. Did die, yes.

Mr. GLOVER. I did not state such.

Mr. JENNER. Had two children by the marriage to Wynne Sharples.

Mr. GLOVER. The last name Sharples is correct, and I remember the nickname "Deedee" of the woman who he said he was married to by whom he had two children.

I did not say to the FBI that he had two children who died. I have said he had two children one of which died who apparently had cystic fibrosis.

Mr. JENNER. All right, did he mention any other relative of his?

Mr. GLOVER. I was asked this question by the FBI, and I believe he mentioned--I know he mentioned a brother--a brother who taught school, and I believe it is Dartmouth, N.H., and I think he taught history.

Anyhow, he taught some subject or related subject on liberal arts, but I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. He did mention Dartmouth?

Mr. GLOVER. I couldn't be sure.

Mr. JENNER. Could have--could he have mentioned Princeton instead of Dartmouth?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't think so, because I remember it being in that area up in the upper New England States, somewhere.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion of Jeanne or "Jon's" background?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. The impression I got of her background was that she was of White Russian stock and came through China where she was married, and then came to this country. That is the impression I got.

Mr. JENNER. That she had come from Russia and gone to China?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't know whether anyone said White Russia, but whether they said that or not, I got the impression that she had come originally from Russia.

Mr. JENNER. Did you learn anything about--perhaps I'd better so pursue Mrs. De Mohrenschildt. She had come through China?

Mr. GLOVER. She lived in China and was brought up there as a young girl, married, presumably, a Chinese man, and then came to this country. That is the story I got, and apparently from what she said, he did not adjust.

Mr. JENNER. She came here with her husband?

Mr. GLOVER. That is the impression I got.

Mr. JENNER. You had the impression that he was a Chinese?

Mr. GLOVER. I had that impression.

Mr. JENNER. After they arrived here, the husband did not adjust well?

Mr. GLOVER. Right, and it led to their breakup.

Mr. JENNER. And they were then divorced?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Or at least broke up, as far as you know?

Mr. GLOVER. That is the impression I got.

Mr. JENNER. And that her marriage to George De Mohrenschildt was her second marriage?

Mr. GLOVER. That is the impression I got.

Mr. JENNER. Did you learn whether Mrs. De Mohrenschildt had any business or occupation herself?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, I did. She had worked some time during--at the time that I first met her, she worked as a designer of clothes.

Mr. JENNER. For what company?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't know what company, but she worked here in Dallas at the time. I believe at the time she joined the Figure Skating Club, someone learned that. I don't think she told me particularly, but someone, that she did this.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have a conversation on the subject with her which served to confirm the report that you had obtained from someone else? That is, that she worked as a designer here in Dallas.

Mr. GLOVER. I cannot recall at the time of the first meeting with her, but at a later time, from things that were said, I am quite sure that she referred to that time when she worked, yes, here in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Give me your general impression of her. What kind of person was and is she?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, the most obvious thing about her that I can recall was her very, very great desire to help and dominate people, to help solve their problems, is the thing that always impressed me about her.

She had one daughter, which I haven't mentioned, apparently by this previous marriage, who grew up and who I met one time when she was passing through.

Mr. JENNER. That is, passing through Dallas?

Mr. GLOVER. With her husband. That was during the later period.

Mr. JENNER. She was married and lived somewhere else in this country?

Mr. GLOVER. All I know is that daughter and husband came from a Mexican trip and were going to Alaska.

And she had this one daughter who she talked very much about, how she had brought her up and so forth, and she seemed to have a desire to sort of help people out and sort of arrange their affairs.

She tried one time to give me advice on my family situation, at which time, as one would say, I told her off, told her that I had my own ideas about what I wanted to do about the situation and was not interested in hers at all. But that is the most outstanding impression I have of her, always trying to do something for someone, arrange things in some way, sort of an overdeveloped mother tendency, to me.

Mr. JENNER. Describe the physical characteristics of her, please.

Mr. GLOVER. Physically, I am depending somewhat on some pictures she showed. According to her, when she showed pictures in the album.

Mr. JENNER. I don't mean--are you relating to the pictures to describe Mrs. De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. No; well, I will just leave that out, if you prefer.

Mr. JENNER. Describe the physical characteristics of Mrs. De Mohrenschildt as you knew her, saw her.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, she was a person who looked in fairly good physical shape.

Mr. JENNER. About how old?

Mr. GLOVER. She looked like she was about 40 years old. She was accumulating fat on her body which was very noticeable. We played tennis all the time, and she looked like someone fortyish and was beginning to get quite a lot of fat.

Mr. JENNER. What about coloration?

Mr. GLOVER. Color of hair was brown, medium brown. I don't remember people's eyes very well. It sort of seems to me like they were blue. I am not sure. Her height was medium height.

Mr. JENNER. Medium for a woman and medium for a man differ--what would you say, five two, or five three or five five?

Mr. GLOVER. I am not very conscious. I would say five five or five six, maybe.

Mr. JENNER. Miss Reporter, would you please stand and tell us how tall you are?

The REPORTER. I am five two and a half in my stocking feet and about five five with heels.

Mr. JENNER. Having observed the reporter, what is your present recollection about Mrs. De Mohrenschildt's height. Is she taller or shorter?

Mr. GLOVER. I would say her height without her heels or anything was at least as tall as she is standing now, would be five five or five six which I said, or possibly taller than that. I am not very sure.

Mr. JENNER. But she was inclined to be on the heavy side?

Mr. GLOVER. Slightly. She was getting heavy.

Mr. JENNER. What would you say she weighed, offhand?

Mr. GLOVER. She talked about that when we were playing tennis. I can't remember. I really don't know. Maybe, I would say, 110 to 120, or so.

Mr. JENNER. She was five five and she weighed 110 pounds? She would be awfully thin.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, she must have weighed more than that. I am not very conscious about that.

(Comments off the record.)

Mr. GLOVER. Maybe she would be 130 or so. Maybe she weighed a little bit more than that.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt speak to you of his background?

Mr. GLOVER. He spoke somewhat of it. I didn't get a very clear picture of the exact tracings of his background. I got a picture of him having been born in Sweden. He said he came from Sweden. And having lived in Russia for a short time, and then having left there. And the next thing I remember him saying was that he fought with the Polish National Army sometime in the Second World War, and had left the army. Now I am not quite sure when that was, when the army was disbanded, when Hitler invaded, or some other time. I am not sure. It must have been then, I guess, but that is the hazy impression I have of that part of it.

Mr. JENNER. At the time of the invasion of Poland by Hitler, which was roughly September of 1939, De Mohrenschildt then left Poland?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, he left the Polish Army at the same time. I really don't know for sure when that was. I didn't think very much about it.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say he came directly to this country at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not have any impression of him saying he came directly here, no. The next thing I remember about his telling his background was that he came here to this country.

Mr. JENNER. Here in Texas?

Mr. GLOVER. First he came to New York, according to his story. And I remember one comment he made about that. He was wined and dined and passed around to people who he knew in some way, and this was fine, but when he came to find a job, he had a lot of trouble. And the next period I remember is that he was at the University of Texas, and I assume he was going to school and got a degree in petroleum engineering.

Mr. JENNER. But you are not so sure about that? You have the impression that he was a person who had the benefit of higher education?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I assumed that he had had at least some school knowledge of the subject of petroleum engineering or petroleum in general.

Mr. JENNER. He did say that he attended the university in this State?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he said he attended the University of Texas, I am quite sure. At least I got that impression. I am not sure of his exact words. He talked about being a student, so I guess I just assumed that. I don't know whether he said specifically he attended as a full-time student.

Mr. JENNER. Describe George De Mohrenschildt.

Mr. GLOVER. He is a heavy set rather Mr. Atlas type.

Mr. JENNER. Atlas or Adonis?

Mr. GLOVER. I notice that he is still around, Mr. Atlas. Very healthy looking specimen. Tall and heavy set. Little bit clumsy in his movements.

Mr. JENNER. A big man, in other words?

Mr. GLOVER. Big man, yes.

Mr. JENNER. And handsome?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, that is a matter of what you call handsome.

Mr. JENNER. You described him in that respect.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I think he was a, he might be called handsome by somebody. I would call him a good heavy-looking physical specimen.

Mr. JENNER. Color of hair?

Mr. GLOVER. Hair was some kind of brown.

Mr. JENNER. Had a good crop of hair?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; a lot of curly, wavy hair.

Mr. JENNER. What about his personality?

Mr. GLOVER. He was a very great mixture of things.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about it.

Mr. GLOVER. He was a very cynical sort of person. He was a Bohemian sort of person.

Mr. JENNER. What do you mean by that? I think I know what you mean, but what do you mean by "Bohemian type of person"?

Mr. GLOVER. I mean he lived the kind of life where he went the way he wanted to go and he did what he wanted to do and he didn't care very much about what anyone said.

He wanted to play tennis, morning, noon and night. He wanted to dress the way he wanted to. He was not very conforming in his physical dress or in his appearance or anything else. But the main thing that impressed me most about him was his immaturity. He acted like a fellow who is in his teens, who was reacting against everything in the world and never settled down, and acted like this minor revolution which occurs in most people, of being against authority and so forth, and wanted to travel over the world and do things himself. He is sort of a revolution inside of him. It never stops. He was sort of a rebel.

Mr. JENNER. Would you say he really had somewhat adolescent tendencies and had never grown up?

Mr. GLOVER. I would say that he was very much so; yes.

Mr. JENNER. In your time and my time, we talked about "Joe College." Is that expression familiar to you?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was he that kind of a person, breezy?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; very much so. Very outspoken. His language sometimes wasn't very nice. He said anything he wanted to say.

Mr. JENNER. Was he, in his conversation, somewhat of a braggart?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he was.

Mr. JENNER. Talked about himself a great deal and what his accomplishments were and so forth?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he did. He was somewhat of a braggart. He did, like many, many people, he embroidered things. I had the feeling one could never place full stock in exactly all the things he said. He was like a lot of people, he embroidered things. Not so much a braggart exactly as just one who just talked a lot about everything. I think, yes; he was sort of a braggart in a way.

Mr. JENNER. What would you say were his attitudes and his relationships, first, with the male sex, and second with the ladies?

Mr. GLOVER. Female sex?

Mr. JENNER. Overall attitude.

Mr. GLOVER. His overall attitude, one of his preoccupations was sex, seemingly, the female sex. He used to talk about every female he saw go by. He would ride along in his car and blow the horn at any female he saw going down the street. And his attitude toward males, as far as I know, there was no particular, nothing particular to be said on that subject.

Mr. JENNER. But he showed considerable interest in ladies?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he showed a very, very great interest in them, sort of a preoccupation thing with him.

Mr. JENNER. Did he seem to ingratiate himself with ladies when he was in their presence?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he was even somewhat rougher than that. He would act very, very aggressive toward them, very aggressive toward them. I don't know whether his bite was as bad as his bark. I never saw any evidence of it, but he was very, very rough and aggressive with people.

Mr. JENNER. Would you give me your present overall impression of George De Mohrenschildt insofar as character and integrity are concerned?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, he was a man who obviously very much embroidered things he said. And also from his political opinions, which he gave out from time to time, didn't show very clearly where he stood.

Mr. JENNER. Now would you give the circumstances and your--first give me your overall impression as to his political views. And I mean political in the sense of, first, I mean political in the sense of the views he entertained with respect to governments in general, and in particular, I mean as against any political party.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, he said--the main thing there is his cynical attitude towards things. I don't think he respected any kind of authority. I think that he is sort of apolitical. He sort of resented having to conform very much. But his political views, as far as our system versus communism, for instance, it wasn't very clear how he stood. He made remarks which suggested that he didn't like the way the Communists were treated. Very pointed remarks, sometimes.

Mr. JENNER. He didn't like the way the Communists were treated?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he didn't like the treatment that some Communists were given. I can give you an example.

Mr. JENNER. You mean in this country or in the Soviet Union?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I was thinking of outside this country.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. GLOVER. So I would say that the whole question----

Mr. JENNER. What did he say in that respect which gave you that impression?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I remember that at the time of Castro and Cuba, when the incident occurred of removing the Russian missiles----

Mr. JENNER. Missile sites?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he was very much upset about this, and he was very angry at Kennedy for doing what he did.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say, as best you can give us in substance? I know you can't remember the words, but in substance, what he said.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, the substance of what he said, he didn't like what Kennedy was doing at all. And the reason he gave, as far as I can remember, was the possible involvement in a nuclear war.

Mr. JENNER. You seek to imply that De Mohrenschildt was opposed to what Kennedy was doing, not because of dislike for Castro, but rather that he feared we would be, those actions might involve us in a nuclear war?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, in this particular point, yes. He also remarked, which shows that he had sympathy with Castro--it is not possible for me to separate those exactly, but in this particular thing, I remember one time being very, very excited about the missile business in Cuba, and this business came up that that would lead us into a nuclear war. In other words, he was suggesting that he was sympathetic with Castro, at least I thought so--well, Castro is all right, he can't do any harm, he is just a little guy, and this is the general impression I got. Again, those may not be the exact expressions that he may have used.

Mr. JENNER. Would you give me an example that he was sympathetic with what Castro represented?

Mr. GLOVER. He certainly never, in my acquaintance with him, tried to make out a case for the Communist system against our system. It was just sort of his shouting off about this thing I just described. And also I remember one very distinctly, which I told the FBI. One time there was a cartoon in the newspaper which pictured Khrushchev with the face of a pig, a caricature, and George was very, very indignant about them doing that. And I said to George, well, he does look like a pig. And after all, the caricature has been around since the days of the famous Frenchman----

Mr. JENNER. Lautrec?

Mr. GLOVER. No; it isn't Lautrec. It's Daumier. I don't know, but that is what I was thinking, and he does look like one. And so he showed on this point that he resented something very much about this.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever get into any political discussions with De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. There is not very much I remember, because as I say, there was never any real discussion about such issues, that amounted to anything, but there were occasions when he seemed to agree to what I consider a reasonable view.

For instance, things in Russia at the present time. I recall one instance once before that there was a discussion--whether it came from a remark of a public figure in the press or somebody else who may have been present, but there was a discussion about the fact that under the Khrushchev regime things had loosened up somewhat in Russia. Whoever was responsible for it, I think it was a public figure at the time who was talking, said that it was very true, things had loosened up in Russia, but how does the Russian feel about this. The answer was that the Russians didn't feel that it is necessarily going to stay that way very long. I remember talking about this in the presence of George and he seemed to be quite agreeable on this idea.

Mr. JENNER. When is the last time you saw De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. I saw him sometime in the early part of May, I believe. I moved into my house at 5723 Southwestern about the 20th of April, and I had taken all his furniture which he had, looking for a place to store, and we three fellows were needing furniture, because I sent all my furniture to my former wife, all the good furniture, so he was going to let us use the furniture for as long as we wanted, to save him storage fees and help us out. We moved it over, and then he finally, on leaving to go to Haiti, before he was going, he dropped by the house sometime in the day he departed, I think it was in the last few days of May, first week or two----

Mr. JENNER. 1963?

Mr. GLOVER. 1963, right. He came by the house looking for something which had been stored in some of the boxes, and they were loaded with their trailer and cargo to load on the boat in Florida where they going to take off from. They were sending goods by boat and flying themselves.

Mr. JENNER. That's the last time you have seen him?

Mr. GLOVER. That is the last time I have seen him.

Mr. JENNER. Have you heard from him at any time?

Mr. GLOVER. Have I heard from him?

Mr. JENNER. What has been the extent of that contact, first?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, he wrote to me and his wife wrote to me telling about how things were going in Haiti, and I have replied very little to him. I have replied, I don't know how many times, maybe once when they first went down there, and I replied after January 1, when I moved. I shipped most of his furniture to a storage, keeping some back that I can still use in the new house, and I wrote to him telling him, I told him I didn't need the furniture, and I haven't corresponded with him very much.

Mr. JENNER. In that correspondence he--has he given you any information as to what they are doing in Haiti? Did you have any information before they left for Haiti as to what they were, or thought they were, going to do?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. I have the information from talking very much about his Haiti venture, and the impression I got was somewhat hazy, but the first part was that he was going to be doing a geological survey for chemicals and minerals.

Mr. JENNER. For what?

Mr. GLOVER. Minerals of economic value.

Mr. JENNER. Did he indicate the group or company for which he was to do this work, or was it independent?

Mr. GLOVER. I had the impression that he was the one who was running the show himself, but he was associated with some other businessman that was connected with it, that besides this initial venture of doing this chemical survey, they were also going to do other things and set up business ventures. That is what the other part involved, and I had the impression that this all tied together.

Mr. JENNER. This was in the nature, as near as you can recall, of a joint venture of some kind?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; except he gave me the impression that he was really running the show, and I also had the impression, which he didn't emphasize, but that someone else was providing the money if there was any money needed.

Mr. JENNER. Give us your knowledge and also your impression of the De Mohrenschildt's financial status when they resided here in Dallas?

Mr. GLOVER. I had the impression that they didn't have very much money, because he had been away, and the time he came back, the oil consulting business had gone down pretty much. This was about the time when the companies were reorganizing and they were tightening their belts, and it just wasn't such good times, and he apparently had trouble in getting any oil consultant jobs. This was the impression I got from him and he didn't do very much, except I got the impression that he might have owned some leases, and he----

Mr. JENNER. Oil leases?

Mr. GLOVER. Oil leases. And he talked about one particular one where there was litigation about it. And I got the impression that he didn't have very much money, except possibly some money coming in from the oil leases and they didn't have lots of food. They didn't have anything but very simple food, simple clothes. They hadn't bought anything new. They had clothes from time before, which were quite expensive, but they did, however, have a nice car. But they didn't spend a lot of money and didn't seem to have a lot.

Mr. JENNER. Would you say they attempted to live frugally?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I would say they attempted to live frugally.

Mr. JENNER. Speaking there about attire, in this connection, as evidence of their financial status or condition, do you recall mentioning to the FBI their tennis clothing and from time to time other clothing was quite informal, even to the extent of not being appropriate?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, Mrs. De Mohrenschildt used to wear a bathing suit all the time when she was playing tennis, one piece bathing suit, in which the lower half was sort of Bikini like. And George just wore a pair of shorts. That is accepted attire for a man tennis player. We used to go to the Dallas Athletic Country Club east of the city to play, sometimes, because Sam Ballen had a membership, and she was told it is against the rules to appear on the courts with a bathing suit.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about Sam Ballen. Who is he?

Mr. GLOVER. Sam Ballen, I met him in the way I told you, and he told me that he had been in the stock market business in New York, and came here to organize a company which deals in cataloging, and has a library for oil well logs. These are the records of the physical measurements made in the oil well, and apparently was very successful in doing this. I have known him for the past 2 years--I met him actually when I told you; at Lauriston Marshall's house sometime in 1962, I guess.

Mr. JENNER. Is Ballen a friend of Mr. De Mohrenschildt?

Mr. GLOVER. Ballen is a friend of the De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression that they were closely acquainted?

Mr. GLOVER. Fairly well, yes; closely acquainted.

Mr. JENNER. Did you play tennis together with Mr. Ballen and the De Mohrenschildts on more than one occasion? Did you continue to have this acquaintanceship subsequent to that first occasion about which you have testified?

Mr. GLOVER. Very much so; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were there occasions thereafter--social events, parties, visits in the home, and what not, that Sam Ballen participated?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; there were occasions, although the main association was that we played tennis together. We made a very good team. We have about the same degree of skill at it; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Does he reside here in Dallas?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he does.

Mr. JENNER. He still stays--lives here?

Mr. GLOVER. As far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know of a company with which he is associated?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not know the name offhand.

Mr. JENNER. And that his name is spelled B-a-l-l-e-n, and his first name is Samuel?

Mr. GLOVER. I just call him Sam. I don't know whether his name is Samuel or not.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know anything about the De Mohrenschildts' views toward religion?

Mr. GLOVER. They are very much against religion, I am quite sure. They don't think very much of organized religion at all.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any information more definite than that? Are they atheistic, are they just--don't have any feeling one way or the other?

Mr. GLOVER. Be hard for me to say. I would think probably that atheistic would be more the correct term, but I don't recall specific remarks that they made.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impression, and do you now, as to any political affiliation of the De Mohrenschildts together or separate?

Mr. GLOVER. Any kind of affiliation?

Mr. JENNER. Political or otherwise.

Mr. GLOVER. Political or otherwise. Well, business, he belongs to the Petroleum Club. He talks about being down there. And I don't know of any other organizations.

Mr. JENNER. Well----

Mr. GLOVER. Well, cystic fibrosis, they are very active in that, because of his son.

Mr. JENNER. That is a charity organization?

Mr. GLOVER. A charity organization. And they were very active in this, because the wife, although it was not her son involved, was very, very active in that and went from door to door collecting, trying to get money for this purpose. I don't know of any other organizations. I remember one time being invited to some kind of charity program over at the--I don't know how to call it any more, but there is a center for retarded children over in the Cedar Springs area, which it seems that a Mexican-American organization was sponsoring, and he invited me to go to that. I don't know if they were members or not. I think that was sort of a Mexican-American, I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have the impression they ever belonged to any political organizations?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I did not have any impression that he belonged to any.

Mr. JENNER. Did they express what their politics were? That is, say, as between being Republican or Democrat?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't recall anything very strong on that subject.

Mr. JENNER. Did you, during your time here in Dallas, become acquainted with Marina and Lee Oswald?

Mr. GLOVER. I did.

Mr. JENNER. Would you state when it was that you first became acquainted with either or both of them.

Mr. GLOVER. I am not able to give a specific time. I met Marina first at the home of George De Mohrenschildt.

Mr. JENNER. All right, give me the circumstances and when that occurred and what led up to it, and what you knew in advance before the meeting was held, about that? That is, whether this came all of a sudden without any advance notice, or whether there had been some discussion with the De Mohrenschildts prior to that time. Just tell me the whole circumstances leading up to the moment you met Marina.

Mr. GLOVER. I am not able to state a specific time, but of course it was somewhere, I am not really able to say whether it was sometime in December, or in January, or sometime in that time, or in the first part.

Mr. JENNER. What year?

Mr. GLOVER. This would be the year 1962-63.

Mr. JENNER. Now would you fix it with respect to when your wife and you separated. Was that in December of 1962, did you say?

Mr. GLOVER. No, we separated before September 1, 1962. I am not able to say when she (Marina) came to the De Mohrenschildts. Marina came to the De Mohrenschildts several times. The first time I met her and subsequent times, she was also there.

Mr. JENNER. Had there been--has there been any conversation about the Oswalds with you or in your presence prior to the time that you met Marina?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I am not sure about this, but I would think, yes; they had mentioned her.

Mr. JENNER. The De Mohrenschildts had mentioned her?

Mr. GLOVER. Had mentioned her and her husband and their situation, but I really do not know a hundred percent that they mentioned it before I came over there. I rather think they mentioned she was coming there previous to my meeting her.

Mr. JENNER. What did they say about her in advance of the meeting?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, they told about, this is as far as I remember, that they told about her coming over here with Oswald and, as far as I remember the impression I got from De Mohrenschildt--it might not have been entirely from him, it may have come later--Oswald had gone to Russia to live and had become a citizen. That is the impression I got. And that he had decided he didn't like Russia and he came back here and brought his Russian-born wife with him, and were living in Fort Worth, and they were having trouble getting along, the Oswalds were.

Mr. JENNER. Getting along with each other?

Mr. GLOVER. Getting along with each other.

Mr. JENNER. You remember that distinctly?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I remember that very distinctly, because they were trying to find a place for Marina to stay.

Mr. JENNER. You learned all this through conversations with the De Mohrenschildts?

Mr. GLOVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And either or both of them told you that the Oswalds were not getting along?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And that they were seeking what for them?

Mr. GLOVER. They were seeking a place particularly for Marina to stay. She had a baby. And seeking a place for her to stay where she could just get a living, because apparently her husband didn't get along with her, Lee Oswald didn't get along, and I am not sure whether he had lost his job or something. It was suggested it was financial difficulties, the main thing, they didn't get along, and were trying to find a place for her where she could live.

Mr. JENNER. Did either of the De Mohrenschildts speak Russian?

Mr. GLOVER. So far as I know, both of them spoke Russian.

Mr. JENNER. In your presence?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; spoke Russian, what I assumed to be Russian.

Mr. JENNER. What is your command, if any, of the Russian language?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I know "Da," but I know very little about it. I have started to study Russian in connection with scientific work, because it is very valuable to be able to speak Russian, and I have always wanted to learn to speak Russian, but somehow I never got to do this. It is very slight, actually, and they both, as far as I know, spoke Russian.

Mr. JENNER. Now tell us what the occasion was, how it came about that you met Marina on this first occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I am not sure again as to all the details, but I believe that it was this way. That they told about her and that, I came over there one night when she was there. I might have been invited to dinner when she was there, or I might have just come over when she was there, and they called me during the day and said, "Glover, come over and meet this woman."

Mr. JENNER. Your recollection is that either George or Jeanne called you and asked you to come over to their home to meet Marina?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I am quite sure that he invited me to come over there, because that is usually the way. They were always inviting me to come over.

Mr. JENNER. And your impression, this was an evening or during the daytime?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I couldn't be sure, because she would sometimes come and stay for a day. It might be in the evening or it might have been on a weekend during the daytime. My impression was, it was in the evening.

Mr. JENNER. But your impression also was that this time that she had been invited by them on occasions prior to this particular one?

Mr. GLOVER. I am not sure whether they had invited her prior or not.

Mr. JENNER. I'm just asking you what your impression was at that time.

Mr. GLOVER. At that time that I first saw her?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; as to whether she had been there to visit the De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. GLOVER. My impression was that she probably had, but I really couldn't be sure about that.

Mr. JENNER. Anything said that evening indicating how she had reached the De Mohrenschildt's home?

Mr. GLOVER. You mean just physically brought there?

Mr. JENNER. Had they, the De Mohrenschildts gone to pick her up? Had she gotten there by bus herself? Had she gotten a cab, or how did she get there?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't remember specifically how she had been brought there.

Mr. JENNER. That subject was not raised so as to give you the impression one way or the other, is that correct?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, since she didn't have any means of going herself, I am sure, whether she came by bus or whether she was brought by them, I had the impression that she was living in Fort Worth at the time, and I know she was, because at one time, either this time or another time, I volunteered, since I had a car, to take her down to the bus station with the De Mohrenschildts to take her on her way back to Fort Worth, and the bus wasn't leaving right away, and there was a long wait, so we took her over to Fort Worth. But I am not sure whether that was this time or another time.

Mr. JENNER. Had you had the impression then in that connection that there were occasions when she had come or gone back by way of bus, or that she was capable of doing so?

Mr. GLOVER. That she was capable, yes.

Mr. JENNER. And she knew enough about bus travel between Fort Worth and Dallas and the location of the De Mohrenschildt home so that she, unaccompanied by someone, could travel back and forth?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, at least go to the Fort Worth bus. I'm not sure about whether they would pick her up or what. That is the impression I got from the fact we took her to the bus station and she was supposed to leave by bus.

Mr. JENNER. Who was present? Yourself, Marina, and the two De Mohrenschildts on this occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Anybody else that you can recall?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not believe so, but I could not be a hundred percent sure. I believe that is the way it was.

Mr. JENNER. Have the De Mohrenschildts said anything to you about how they had become acquainted with the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. They had not said anything specifically, but again, I had the impression that because they were Russian speaking and knew some of the other people around the area who were Russian speaking, they learned from people they knew in Fort Worth of this Russian girl who was here in this country.

Mr. JENNER. What, if anything, did they say about their interest in her beyond, let's say, pure curiosity?

Mr. GLOVER. That is really the extent of what they ever said, that they were curious, and also trying to help her out. This was right in character with Jeanne, who was always trying to help people out in such situations.

Mr. JENNER. Was she a generous person in that respect?

Mr. GLOVER. I think you would call it generous although you have to realize this is a double-edged sword. People sometimes do things in order to control things and arrange things, and other times they do things out of the goodness of their heart, and I think it was one of the facts, she liked to help people out, and arrange things. Maybe this is my male bias coming into it.

Mr. JENNER. But in any event, they were, on the surface at least, cordial, and seeking to help her?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Did you detect that that was an active and not merely a passive effort on their part?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I felt it was an active thing.

Mr. JENNER. They were pursuing it with some vigor?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I would say so.

Mr. JENNER. Let's take George in particular. Was it characteristic of him? Was he a generous man and wanted to help others?

Mr. GLOVER. Much less so, I would say, than Mrs. De Mohrenschildt. I rather would attribute it to her. Maybe it is my male bias coming out, blaming it on Jeanne for being so interested in somebody else, but he went along with this too, and there were several other people I met there who they were trying to be good to. I think they were trying to do this to help. And shortly after my former wife left and I was by myself, I think they, in their relation to me, were trying to do something to help me out.

Mr. JENNER. You met her on this occasion. How many additional occasions were there?

Mr. GLOVER. I can't be sure of the number of occasions, because she came several times to the De Mohrenschildt house.

Mr. JENNER. Alone?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; she came several times alone, and I would say two or three times I saw her there.

Mr. JENNER. And each occasion you saw her on these two or three or even more occasions, she was always alone in the sense that she was not accompanied on any of those occasions by Lee Oswald?

Mr. GLOVER. That's correct.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct?

Mr. GLOVER. That's correct.

Mr. JENNER. What was the length of this visit that you had on the first occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. I am not really sure of the time, but the impression I had, it was in the evening, and again I am not sure which one of the times, but the impression I had, it was in the evening that I was over there, either to eat, and she left quite early in the evening. Well, we took, maybe, or she was taken by them, but one time she left around 9 o'clock or something like this, to get a bus to Fort Worth. Whether this was the first time, I really can't be sure.

Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression she and her husband were living together at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; it was my impression. I am not really sure now whether anything was said to the contrary on that or not. My impression was that she was living with her husband on this first occasion, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did any occasion arise when you were advised or had the impression that she was not then at that period of time living with her husband?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I think this is subsequent to this first time I met her. Whatever those occasions were, they had arranged for her to stay with someone here in the Dallas area.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know the name?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not remember the name of the people, but they had arranged for her to stay here, and she had stayed for, as I recall, a fairly short time, that the arrangement did not work out.

Mr. JENNER. Does the name Elena Hall trigger your recollection?

Mr. GLOVER. Elena Hall?

Mr. JENNER. H-a-l-l?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't recall ever having heard that name.

Mr. JENNER. Meller, M-e-l-l-e-r?

Mr. GLOVER. I couldn't be very sure about that. They might have mentioned a name, but I do not recall. They mentioned the names of quite a number of people to me, and I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you have of Marina on this first occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, my first impression was she was sort of an innocent person caught up in the situation. Although I have very little to go on, and I could not communicate with her, only through the De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. JENNER. Did she speak any English on that occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. She spoke practically none. No English. She understood a little bit that people said in English.

Mr. JENNER. But she did not speak it?

Mr. GLOVER. She couldn't speak English. It was very difficult for me to get any real good impression from her.

Mr. JENNER. And she was quite young?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; she was quite young.

Mr. JENNER. Let's say this is February of 1963, did you say that was, or March?

Mr. GLOVER. This was sometime in the first part of the year.

Mr. JENNER. Of 1963?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; it was probably in January. That would be my best recollection. It was during that time. It might have been later than that. I am hazy. The only thing I have to go by is, I learned later after discussion of the visit of Oswald and his wife to our house, I learned pretty much from the conversation that that meeting took place in the latter part of February.

Now I did not recall, I just talked with the other people who lived in the house, and we figured it must have been about that time. And other people present recalled this, so this is how I figured the whole business. And I know I met Marina previous to that time.

I know I was away for a week in February when I went on a business trip to Pennsylvania, and so I assume it was somewhere in January, but I really do not remember.

Again, if I had to recall those events, I might be able to. I can remember some of the events, but I am not very sure about it.

Mr. JENNER. When next did you meet Marina after this occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, again, I am not sure at all about those occasions. She would come and stay at the house, and if I came in from playing tennis with George, she might have been there. This may have happened two or three times.

Mr. JENNER. There came an occasion, did there not, in which you met Lee Oswald?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; when I met Lee Oswald the first time, was at their house.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina accompany the De Mohrenschildts on that occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. When was that and how did that arise, and what was the circumstance?

Mr. GLOVER. The only thing I can remember about this, is again to fix this with respect to the other meeting when he and his wife, Oswald and his wife, came to my house, and that was apparently in late February, so it must have been previous to that.

Mr. JENNER. Does the date February 22, 1963, refresh your recollection as to the occasion they came to your home?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I think I remember in the conversation with the FBI they mentioned a date about Washington's Birthday.

Mr. JENNER. It is not Lincoln's?

Mr. GLOVER. I think it was Washington's Birthday, but I don't remember dates, so I had no actual recollection of the specific date.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; that is Washington's Birthday. [Checking calendar.]

Mr. GLOVER. The only thing I have a hazy recollection about, that it was on a Tuesday or Wednesday of the week.

Mr. JENNER. Washington's Birthday in 1963, was on a Friday.

Mr. GLOVER. Maybe it was. My recollection isn't worth much on this.

Mr. JENNER. It was the latter part of February, in any event, of 1963?

Mr. GLOVER. The meeting at which I first met Oswald was just previous to the meeting where I met Oswald and his wife the second time.

Mr. JENNER. There were two occasions when you met Oswald and his wife?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right. The first one was at the De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, we have one meeting described which you set in the early part of the year, Marina alone. That is, she was unaccompanied by her husband, and you met her at the De Mohrenschildts?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. There might have been some additional occasions when you saw her at the De Mohrenschildts prior to your having met Lee Oswald?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Now what was the circumstance under which you had your first meeting or first occasion that you met Lee Oswald?

Mr. GLOVER. On that occasion the De Mohrenschildts invited the two Oswalds and invited quite a number of other people--I was included--to their house.

Mr. JENNER. About when was this?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, this was just previous to the time that Oswald and his wife came to my house, so I would say it was just a few days or a week before that.

Mr. JENNER. At the De Mohrenschildts, who was present on that occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. This is where I have difficulty in recollection. Several times the De Mohrenschildts had invited me to their house for dinner, when he had informal dinners, and I am not really sure at all who was present. I am sure that De Mohrenschildt and his wife, Marina Oswald and Lee Oswald, and myself, and Volkmar Schmidt.

Mr. JENNER. He was then living with you?

Mr. GLOVER. Living with me. He was there. And of the other people, I have just a poor impression as to whether----

Mr. JENNER. What about Pierce?

Mr. GLOVER. Pierce was not there, I know that.

Mr. JENNER. Wasn't there anybody by the name of Fredricksen?

Mr. GLOVER. He was not there.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know Fredricksen?

Mr. GLOVER. You are talking about the first meeting? I know Fredricksen. He had his office next to me at the laboratory. He works also at the laboratory, so I know him quite well. He was not there.

Mr. JENNER. You have exhausted your recollection now? There were additional persons present on this occasion, but you don't recall their names?

Mr. GLOVER. I can recall names of people who might have been there, and I certainly wouldn't swear to it, because I really don't remember that well.

Mr. JENNER. Was it a large party?

Mr. GLOVER. There were quite a number of people for the small apartment. There may have been five or six, seven or eight more people.

Mr. JENNER. There may have been five or six or seven or eight more people in addition to these you have named?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. Now I have an impression, and I may be completely wrong, that a man by the name of Richmond was there.

Mr. JENNER. Richmond?

Mr. GLOVER. I am not sure how you'd spell his name. I know they called him High Richmond, and he works at the, they call it SCAS, which is Southwest Center for Advanced Studies. He has taught physics at SMU. He may have been there. I do not know for sure. Sam Ballen might have been there, I don't know. I am not clear at all who might have been there.

Mr. JENNER. All right, this was a dinner party or an evening party?

Mr. GLOVER. Sort of a dinner.

Mr. JENNER. What did the Oswalds look like and what was your impression of Lee Oswald? Tell me how the Oswalds were generally attired? Did anything impress you?

Mr. GLOVER. Not well attired for clothing and shoes, those sort of things. I got the impression that they certainly were not perfectly well attired. As I remember, Oswald just wore an open shirt and a pair of pants. He wasn't dressed up at all. Some of the other people were dressed up.

Mr. JENNER. Even though this was in February 1963?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I don't know. I got the impression that he was informally attired as opposed to formally attired, and his wife was also. That is the impression I got. Maybe she was dressed up more. Again, only impression I have is the informality of it as opposed to some of the other people who would be wearing suits. I can't remember what I was wearing at that time myself. I have the impression that they were different people than a lot of other people.

Mr. JENNER. You did?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That would be true of each of them?

Mr. GLOVER. About her, I don't know. It is hard to say. I don't remember much of an impression of her, except she was a quiet little girl with a baby over on the bed sofa.

Mr. JENNER. She brought the child with her?

Mr. GLOVER. I am pretty sure; yes. Now again, I believe so, but again, I am not a hundred percent sure.

Mr. JENNER. On this previous occasion had she brought her child with her?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe she always had her child with her.

Mr. JENNER. To the best of your recollection, on that occasion, she had the child with her?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What occurred that evening in the way of discussion?

Mr. GLOVER. This evening several people talked to Oswald. I talked very little.

Mr. JENNER. English or Russian?

Mr. GLOVER. No, I don't remember whether there was any conversation in Russian or not. I really didn't talk hardly any to the Oswalds, any myself that evening. I know I remember that Volkmar Schmidt talked with him considerably, but he did not talk in Russian. Volkmar talked English.

Mr. JENNER. Does Volkmar Schmidt have command of the Russian language?

Mr. GLOVER. He has no command of Russian, although Norman Fredricksen and Pierce and Volkmar all had started to study Russian. There was a course at the school. I believe there was a course at the laboratory, a private teacher was giving classes. They all three started to take, but Volkmar and Pierce stopped, and Fredricksen was the only one who continued.

Mr. JENNER. Is the name Voshinin familiar to you?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was he the instructor or the tutor for Fredricksen and Pierce?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not believe so. I don't think that is the--I am quite sure that is not the same person at all. The facts I have about the teacher, it was a man who worked for some oil company here in Dallas who taught classes on the side. Maybe he was an interpreter, or maybe he was in the laboratory in geology for an oil company, but he was teaching on the side.

Mr. JENNER. Voshinin worked for Sun, did he not?

Mr. GLOVER. Not the Voshinin that I know. I know one Voshinin, and he is teaching in the Chemical Engineering School of SMU. And his wife does translating. Now I don't know of any other Voshinin. I don't recall the name very well of this man who was teaching, but Fredricksen ended up by taking Russian lessons from an older woman who, I think, was related to a woman who--I beg your pardon, Fredricksen took lessons later from a woman who was related to the man who worked for some oil company, who had originally given classes, and that woman's name I do not remember.

Mr. JENNER. His mother-in-law? Voshinin's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gravitis?

Mr. GLOVER. She had some kind of a name she was known by. I am quite sure--I can't remember whether it was Voshinin--it is not the Voshinin that teaches at SMU.

Mr. JENNER. It is a different one?

Mr. GLOVER. The only Voshinin I know is the man that teaches at SMU.

Mr. JENNER. Does anything stand out in your mind on this initial meeting which you met Lee Oswald? And if so, would you please state it.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, the story from the beginning that the De Mohrenschildts told, and the meeting on this first occasion, I didn't talk very much to him--was a perplexing business to me.

In the first place, when he [De Mohrenschildt] told the story, I didn't believe it was possible for any one to go to Russia and work as he did and come back to this country. I doubted it was quite possible. And I mentioned this fact to some of the people I worked with. One fellow was particularly anti-Russian in every way, and he thought this easily possible for a person to do this, that this made sense.

In other words, that I was dubious of the story from the beginning. The thing that I kept thinking all the time, and this is apparently where I made a mistake, was that, if someone in his position had done what he said and brought a Russian wife here, that certainly would be known by the authorities, the FBI particularly, and that if a person like he were running around the way he was and doing what he was doing, then he would be someone who is known very well by the FBI people. I told the FBI about this, and I also told them what De Mohrenschildt had written to me quite recently.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about that.

Mr. GLOVER. De Mohrenschildt told me in a letter that Oswald had been checked by the FBI----

Mr. JENNER. Do you have it?

Mr. GLOVER. I gave it to the FBI. They have the letter. He stated in the letter that he had asked the FBI about this man, and I don't remember the words he used in the letter, but they are in that letter, but words to the effect that they passed on him, or he was harmless, or he was something, suggesting that he was all right, he said, from their point of view.

Mr. JENNER. That is, De Mohrenschildt says in this letter that he made an inquiry of the FBI and the FBI reassured him?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is, Oswald was all right?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want you to, by your recollection of what was stated, repeat it again so that it is not in my words.

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. Well, I did get the impression from what I recall of his letter, that he had checked with the FBI, and I remember he stated specifically in the letter, either in Fort Worth or Dallas, about Oswald, and they told him that he was apparently all right, he was acceptable. They passed on him in some way. I don't remember the exact way he put it. It is in the letter.

Mr. JENNER. Had you had any discussion with De Mohrenschildt on that subject on or about the time of your meeting the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. When I got this letter, it reminded me that at one time when they were first talking about putting Marina somewhere, getting her to go somewhere, that he had made some remark to the same effect, that he had some people who were very dubious of the situation, they didn't want to have anything to do with the people, and he told them he checked with the FBI and they were all right, or words to that effect.

Mr. JENNER. You used an expression a few minutes ago that apparently you made a mistake. Do you recall that?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In this connection, what do you mean by that?

Mr. GLOVER. I referred directly to one thing, I made the mistake of assuming that a man in his situation--of assuming that, because this man had the history of having been in Russia, apparently, and had brought his Russian wife with him, and so forth, that the FBI would know all about it, and although I was very much perplexed by him, I felt that he must be not a dangerous person. I don't think the FBI thought he was as dangerous as he was, and I think I made a mistake when I assumed that they could know that he was harmless. I assumed that the FBI would know about such a person, and in having this conversation with them, they said, of course they are not able to do that.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any contact with the FBI prior to November 22, 1963, concerning the Oswalds, or either of them?

Mr. GLOVER. I did not.

Mr. JENNER. Did they--they didn't interview you, and you made no calls or had any contact with them?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of Oswald on this first occasion that you met him?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I didn't get too much of an impression. I didn't really talk to him very much.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get an impression of him being a man of education, or lack of it?

Mr. GLOVER. I certainly got the impression that he was someone who had a fairly lowly background and didn't have very much in his life.

Mr. JENNER. Very much in his life in the way of material things?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I would say so.

Mr. JENNER. Or very much in the way of an education?

Mr. GLOVER. Material, educational, and spiritual.

Mr. JENNER. Spiritual or education or material?

Mr. GLOVER. That is the impression I got, but it's hard to put that down as an impression of this first meeting exactly. My impression does not come very much from the first meeting where I did not talk to him very much. Subsequently talking with Schmidt and the subsequent meeting at my house and talking with the other people, my impression comes from that total rather than any detailed thing he said.

Mr. JENNER. Then I will ask you what, as near as you can fix it, what your impression of Oswald was? Let's say, as of November 21, 1963? I am not thinking in terms that you thought about him on that day, but I am trying to fix a cutoff period.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I came to the conclusion that he was, in the first place, obviously a fellow who was not satisfied with anything. He was not satisfied with what was in this country originally. He was not satisfied with the life in Russia. And he was not adjusting at all when he came back, so he was very maladjusted.

Mr. JENNER. Had you had the impression that, or did you have the impression that he was generally a maladjusted person?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, certainly from his whole situation I would conclude that he was maladjusted. In the course of fitting into a social and political group at all, he didn't adjust, didn't fit in.

Mr. JENNER. Had you had the impression then that he was not a person of sufficient education with background or capacity, for example, for travel or to become a part of the group strata of society in which you moved?

Mr. GLOVER. Oh, yes; I had the impression that he did not have a capacity to do that. My best word to describe him, my own personal word is that he was a ne'er-do-well. He did not adjust anywhere. He obviously didn't get along with his wife. He was very----

Mr. JENNER. Was that obvious to you in her presence when you saw him in her presence?

Mr. GLOVER. No; it was not obvious. This was only obvious from the description the De Mohrenschildts gave, but I still think this is a very important thing. I don't judge another person by the detailed things he says. I judge a person by the whole style of his life. This includes his relationship to other people, like his wife.

Mr. JENNER. I agree. The reason I pressed you again there was to bring out whether you were relying entirely on what the De Mohrenschildts said to you, or whether you were also relying on your contacts with the Oswalds and the general reputation in that community in which you lived in regard to that. They had views towards the Oswalds, and when I say community, I mean a circle of people.

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. Well, I have to admit that I have no direct evidence of the two Oswalds having trouble, but it was mentioned by the De Mohrenschildts, and I don't know whether by anyone else, that they didn't get along. And that fact also, along with this, would fit into the picture, as I learned later, he lost his job here in Dallas. And he had apparently lost his job in Fort Worth, and this added to the picture of someone who wasn't able to adjust. And such people who cannot adjust in their own work are very likely to be people who are not happy in their homelife and take it out on people in the homelife.

This is the inference I gave, and the only evidence I have is what De Mohrenschildt told me about that. I cannot say that I observed the Oswalds being antagonistic to each other.

Mr. JENNER. Now this first occasion then was an evening at the De Mohrenschildts, that he called you up without you having any prior notice, that the Oswalds were going to be there, and you went over and met them?

Mr. GLOVER. No.

Mr. JENNER. You knew in advance?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe they said when they called that these people were going to be there. I don't know how much notice they gave.

Mr. JENNER. Is there anything about which you haven't testified that struck you about the Oswalds on that occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER. Did he speak Russian during the course of the evening?

Mr. GLOVER. I'm not sure.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Or at least a language that was not English?

Mr. GLOVER. I really couldn't be sure on that point.

Mr. JENNER. Did she take part in the conversation to any extent?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, she never did take part in the conversation very much.

Mr. JENNER. When was the last occasion you saw the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. This, as I said before, was a few days to a week, I believe, after the time I saw them at the De Mohrenschildts'.

Mr. JENNER. Was that at your home?

Mr. GLOVER. That was at my home.

Mr. JENNER. Was this a visit or an assembly that you organized?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I was the prime mover in organizing it.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us what motivated you and what you went about doing, and who was there.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I didn't get a very good impression of Oswald this first time, because I didn't talk with him. But I talked with Volkmar Schmidt, and we talked with Dick Pierce, who was living with us, and we talked about it. I asked Dick if he would like to meet this fellow, like to see what he was like, because the whole thing seemed rather an unbelievable story that this could happen. It was unknown as far as my experience is concerned. And Mrs. De Mohrenschildt had been pushing the fact that Marina did not have anyone to converse with, and she also said that Lee would not make any effort to help his wife learn English.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, I would like a little more development of that. Who made the statement to you?

Mr. GLOVER. One of the De Mohrenschildts.

Mr. JENNER. One of the De Mohrenschildts? This was not merely an idle remark, a chance remark made one time, but had they mentioned it several times?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe so; yes.

Mr. JENNER. In talking to you about the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. I would say so.

Mr. JENNER. They did say collectively--I mean--they did say affirmatively that one of the problems was that Lee Oswald was adverse to his wife Marina, learning the English language, or to use the English language?

Mr. GLOVER. Certainly that he didn't make any effort to help her.

Mr. JENNER. All right, okay, go ahead about your party now.

Mr. GLOVER. It so happened at this time that Ruth Paine, who is an acquaintance of mine----

Mr. JENNER. How did you become acquainted with Ruth Paine?

Mr. GLOVER. I became acquainted with Ruth Paine either through the Unitarian Church here in Dallas, or through a singing group which had members in it, from the Unitarian Church, I am not sure which. As I remember, it may not be entirely correct, but sometime after '56, I think, '56 to '58 in there, I was more active. I had joined the Unitarian Church sometime after coming to Dallas, and I used to sing some time in the church choir, and my former wife did sing much more than I did. Sometime during that period Michael Paine came to sing with the Unitarian Church. It seems he had been trying out various choirs around the town.

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

Mr. GLOVER. I had not and I don't think his wife came there much to the church. I am not sure whether she ever came to the church. I believe she is a Quaker, and I think she came very little to the church. Maybe she did come and sing in the choir. Subsequently it was, as I remember, it was through him that I met her, and probably at a singing group which was organized, in which the majority of the members of the singing group were people who sing in the Unitarian choir.

Mr. JENNER. Was this kind of a madrigal group?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes. This was what it was called, depending on the membership at any time. They sing all kinds of things.

Mr. JENNER. Go ahead about your party.

Mr. GLOVER. Okay, so I knew at this time I had seen Ruth Paine on a few occasions in the past 6 months or a year, and I must have been talking with her or seen her somewhere previous to this time of the party, at which time she mentioned that she was going, she thought she was going to teach a course in Russian at St. Mark School; and that she was trying to brush up on the Russian, on--or maybe I am just thinking she said this latter. But she was interested, and I didn't really know--I think at that time I was aware of the fact she had majored in Russian in school, or knew Russian very well, and De Mohrenschildt's wife Jeanne, was trying to find someone who could converse with her, and I thought I would tell Ruth Paine about her, maybe she would be interested in talking with this woman. So I invited her, and she said she would be interested. That is the explanation of how she came.

Mr. JENNER. Did you tell Ruth Paine about the Oswalds, to the extent that you knew about them at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. I am sure I did.

Mr. JENNER. Did she indicate whether she had any acquaintance or knowledge of the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, it never occurred to me to question this until it was brought up by the FBI. As far as I know, this was completely new to her.

Mr. JENNER. Your reaction at that time, in any event, was, as far as Mrs. Paine is concerned, your knowledge of her, she knew nothing about the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right, completely new to her. Dick Pierce came. At the time, Dick kept company with a girl who works at the laboratory, Betty MacDonald, and she came along. I believe he invited her to come.

Mr. JENNER. Did she speak Russian?

Mr. GLOVER. No; she did not.

Mr. JENNER. All right, then you had Pierce accompanied by Betty MacDonald?

Mr. GLOVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And you had Ruth Paine. Was she accompanied by her husband?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. She was accompanied by her husband on that occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. I am pretty sure that he was there. Again I am not a hundred percent sure. I think we talked about this, the three of us, that were living together. I am sure he was there.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware that Mrs. Paine and her husband were separated?

Mr. GLOVER. I was.

Mr. JENNER. As of that time?

Mr. GLOVER. I knew about that situation; yes. I don't think I invited him particularly, although I may have mentioned him, but I invited her because of the Russian.

Norm Fredricksen was in the office next to me, and I told him about the situation and asked him if he would be interested in coming, and he said he would come and he came.

Mr. JENNER. Is he a married man?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he bring Mrs. Fredricksen?

Mr. GLOVER. He brought Mrs. Fredricksen; yes, sir. I had the impression at that time that Norm had been the most studious of the three that had taken Russian and he was continuing. He was going to graduate school and he wanted to make it a major language. At least that was the motive he presented to me. I was interested in someone who could speak Russian and could hear both these people talk, so I invited him.

I think that is all the people that were there. I know that when I talked to the FBI, I omitted Betty MacDonald's name in my statement.

Mr. JENNER. At least for the moment this exhausts your recollection as to who attended your party?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe so. I don't call it a party.

Mr. JENNER. I think you mentioned the De Mohrenschildts. Did they drop in?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; for a few minutes, and went somewhere else. They were going somewhere.

Mr. JENNER. Did the discussion take place--were there any discussions during the course of that evening with Lee Oswald which dealt with his political views?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; there were discussions.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about them.

Mr. GLOVER. Again I have to give an overall impression I got. This may be partly as a result of questioning from some of the people present, but among the things that came out was that, and again I mentioned this before in connection with the other meeting, it is an overall impression--he was apparently a Marxist.

Now I am not sure that I can say that he said exactly these words himself, or whether this was repeated to me after by Schmidt or Pierce or Mrs. Paine or someone, but as I say, I pay less attention to what a person says in detail than to the overall impression of what their style is; but I do remember specifically that he or someone else present said he was a Marxist----

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you have of the distinction, if any, between Marxism and Communism?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, with reference specifically to the so-called Communist regime, the impression I got was that he was a Marxist theoretically, but he did not like what he saw in Russia. He didn't like it and came back, but apparently this did not satisfy him.

Mr. JENNER. He had theories, but what he saw in Russia didn't measure up to those theories?

Mr. GLOVER. Apparently so.

Mr. JENNER. His so-called ideals?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, he had--what he had come back to here in America didn't measure up to what he----

Mr. GLOVER. Apparently. He said so.

Mr. JENNER. Would you put that in your own words. What did he say on this occasion?

Mr. GLOVER. Again I have to qualify this. Maybe it is one of the impressions I got from other people talking afterwards, but I feel he said that he did not think that the Russian system measured up at all to his idea of what the society should be like, and obviously he didn't think the American system measured up or he wouldn't have gone there in the first place, and I am sure he said he did not think the American system measured up to his ideals.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion about his life or their life in Russia?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; there was considerable.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, the thing I remember was that he was working in some kind of a trade. I don't remember what trade he was working at. And I don't remember really too many strong impressions.

The strong impression I got of things that he talked about were the--was the fact that his wife was not treated very well in Russia after she married him. She was apparently looked down on. This was the impression I had from listening to Oswald, either Oswald or conversation with his wife.

Mr. JENNER. That occurred at this meeting at your house?

Mr. GLOVER. I believe so, yes.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, how did you get the Oswalds there? Did you call them directly, or did you have somebody intervene for you? How was that arranged?

Mr. GLOVER. I talked with the De Mohrenschildts as to where they lived. By this time he was living in Dallas. He had gotten a job in Dallas and they were living in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't know the name of the company, but I asked them (De Mohrenschildts) about where he lived, and they gave me his telephone number at the place where he worked. I still have his telephone number and I called him and asked him if he would come over to the house to meet some people, some such words as that, and he said, he would. I believe he gave me the address. It might have been the De Mohrenschildts who gave me the address originally. I have that address and had it on a slip of paper in my purse, and when I was about to throw away the slip of paper on which I accumulated a lot of addresses, I copied it down in my address book. I just in--I just had a feeling I ought to record this.

Mr. JENNER. He lived on Elsbeth Street?

Mr. GLOVER. He lived on Elsbeth, that's right. The only thing I remember about the place at work was that I think he worked in the photographic department of some, apparently something to do with a printing plant. Then I called him and I asked him if he would come over, and he didn't have any transportation, and I offered to come over and pick him up. My wife remembers that I was down at the ice rink skating. I went down there early and picked him up on the way back home.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said during the time that you knew Oswald or had any contact with him as to whether he was able to drive an automobile and operate an automobile?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not recall anything said about that.

Mr. JENNER. I ask you to state the discussions that occurred at this party in your home, or gathering, let's put it that way. Would that be a better description? It was a gathering rather than a party?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, of course, one's immediate reaction to being associated with any dastardly act or event is of course so painful that I shrink away from him. It wasn't a party. It was a gathering for a fairly specific reason, to look at this fellow and let some other people look at him and see what they made of him, so I call it a gathering.

Mr. JENNER. I think that that is a fair statement of it, in any event. Tell us what he said his life in Russia was like, his views, if he expressed any views, and then I am going to ask you after that your impression of the man.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I don't really recall anything that he said specifically. Seems like his conversation was of the type where he did not initiate very much himself. He answered questions, and maybe it is partly hindsight, now, I don't know, and it is hard to say, one has the impression that he wasn't very candid at all. He was not the open type of person who one might have hoped for. Maybe it was too much to hope, but I believe it has happened of people who have done, say, something like he did in the direction of Russia, and have realized how wrong it was and have come back to the fold, and have been candid about their experiences, and of people who have gone in a Communist direction certainly, and who have retraced their steps and come back to realize the truth of the matter and have been very candid about it.

And he was certainly not a candid person. I do not remember specifically anything he said. It is hard really to get a very good impression of things. It seems like he was trying to go along with things. He was enjoying being asked questions by people, and he was going along with the questioning. That was the impression I got. I remember this discussion of what he was doing (for work), but I don't remember what it was. I remember his discussion of the--it might have been his wife, I am not sure of which one it was, the uneven man to woman ratio in Russia. And I don't know that that occurred that night or sometime previous on another occasion. It might have occurred on another occasion with his wife only present, but that fact was brought out about the uneven ratio, and I got the impression that might have been one of the reasons that she jumped at a chance to marry someone.

An FBI man pointed out to me that this was not very logical because of the differences in the age. She is very young, and the people were--who were killed off in World War II would be in my generation of 40 or 50 years old and there might not be much competition there. But that was the impression I got. Then there was also something mentioned about the treatment of the Cubans. It seems they lived near a place where there were Cubans.

Mr. JENNER. It seems what?

Mr. GLOVER. It seems they were living at or near a place where Cubans who had been brought from Cuba by the Communist regime were being indoctrinated.

Mr. JENNER. This is while they were in Russia?

Mr. GLOVER. This is while they were in Russia, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Then it must have been in the town, at least they knew of some Cubans being in Russia?

Mr. GLOVER. I used the words "being indoctrinated," because I assume this is what was going on. I don't think he used that word.

Mr. JENNER. Did he indicate that he had any contact with them?

Mr. GLOVER. Nothing specifically that I remember was said about having actual contact with individuals, but quite a bit was said about the treatment. Actual contact, I don't know whether he said that, but it didn't stick in my mind that he had any actual contact, but they did talk about the way they were treated, and he gave the impression they were really treated well.

Mr. JENNER. The Cubans were?

Mr. GLOVER. The Cubans were really treated well and given everything they wanted, and lots of girls for them, and the girls all fell for the Cubans, as it were, you know.

Mr. JENNER. Did Oswald express views with respect to Castro and the Cubans?

Mr. GLOVER. I could not remember any specific view about them, but I got the impression from his description of the Cubans who were there, that he might have been trying to create the impression that the Cubans were very much accepted by the Russians. Apparently, in all this conversation, I believe he was being very cagey about making statements, but he would give the impression that these people must have been pretty nice. They were being treated so by the Russians. Actually, he gave it as a matter of fact that they were being treated very well. I don't remember him having said anything specifically about his liking or not liking the Cubans or Castro.

Mr. JENNER. Anything else that occurred that evening with respect to conversation and his political views and life in Russia that you now recall?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I don't think there is anything that I recall right at the moment.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mrs. Paine take part in these discussions?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; she talked to both Oswald and she talked to his wife very much.

Mr. JENNER. When she talked to Marina, in what language did she speak?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I believe what she said, she said in Russian. I don't believe Marina was able to converse in English.

Mr. JENNER. Did she translate for Marina?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I believe she did.

Mr. JENNER. Did Oswald translate for her?

Mr. GLOVER. Marina, I cannot be sure about that. I don't remember that he did.

Mr. JENNER. This was in a house or in an apartment?

Mr. GLOVER. It was in a house.

Mr. JENNER. Did the women kind of move around and the men gather together, or would, as sometimes happens at meetings of this nature, were you all gathered generally in the same room or the same general vicinity and everybody take part in the social intercourse and interplay?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I don't remember any particular pattern. The only person who would talk very much to Marina was Ruth Paine, because she was the only woman.

Mr. JENNER. What about the De Mohrenschildts? Did they just drop in and leave right away?

Mr. GLOVER. They stayed a very brief time.

Mr. JENNER. Did the De Mohrenschildts take part? There wasn't anybody other than Mrs. Paine, or possibly Lee Oswald, to translate for Marina, is that a fair statement?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right. The De Mohrenschildts did not come in at the beginning of the evening. They came sometime, if I remember, around 9 o'clock and stayed a short while and left.

Mr. JENNER. Did your guests press Oswald as to his political views?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he had been in Russia. He didn't think very much of that. He didn't think much of the United States' system, but what it was about the system, he didn't know.

Mr. JENNER. In other words, they pressed him so they backed him in a corner, to use the vernacular, and he had no real answers?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right. I think they ascertained that pretty well.

Mr. JENNER. He just reiterated, "I am a Marxist," or "I believe in communism," or I have these ideals, but I haven't found the ideal site anywhere? So far, that is a fairly general statement?

Mr. GLOVER. I think so.

Mr. JENNER. Since I said so much about it, is there anything you want to elaborate on in that connection?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I think what you said I agree to, that he was essentially more on the defensive. They asked him, as I just stated, what is the answer, and he essentially stated he didn't know the answer.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any impression as to why, if you had an impression at all, why this man did not want his wife to learn English? And if so, what was that impression?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, the impression I had was simply one of maybe wanting to control her, but I did not think of anything beyond the usual situation which can happen with a man and his wife, where one person of the two is much, is very much the dominating person.

Mr. JENNER. Did you feel he was the dominating person in the couple?

Mr. GLOVER. I certainly did, because in the first place, the story I heard was they were trying to find a place for Marina where she could get away from him, but this later time they appeared to get along, so I assumed she was staying with him.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you have of him then and subsequently, as to whether he was a stable person?

Mr. GLOVER. I did not think of stability at all, because he was fairly well behaved at the times I saw him. It is true, I did not think he was very candid, but I felt----

Mr. JENNER. You did not think he was very candid?

Mr. GLOVER. I did not think he was very candid, no; but I felt that whatever he was doing, he was able to get along in some way. But I had the impression of his being a ne'er-do-well sort of fellow, who would go from one place to another, never making adjustments very well. I did not get the impression, as I stated before, I did not get the impression of him being violent, which later came out, and----

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impression as to whether he was a man who was well-adjusted, poorly adjusted, or otherwise?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, in the sense that if a person's whole philosophy of life, what he lives by, is very much in doubt, I would say from that point of view, he was poorly adjusted. From the point of view, possibly of his ability to get along in some fashion, he had one job and he had another job--I mean he apparently worked in Fort Worth and then he got a job in Dallas, and after he left here he went to New Orleans and got a job, and he was able to get along in some fashion, but obviously he was poorly adjusted as far as his whole living was concerned.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have an opinion of how much maturity, a person lacking in maturity, or what view, if any, do you have in that connection, or did you acquire?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, in the sense that a person is not mature until he discovers what he is living by, he certainly was very immature. He apparently never did develop any set rules by which he lived by, in spite of his purported Marxism. Apparently the dominating thing in this--in his life was that he had grown up in a poor environment, and I am getting this from what I have read in the newspapers. It is sort of hindsight.

Mr. JENNER. Try to keep that out as much as possible. I am trying to get your impression gleaned from the times you met the man.

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I would say that I didn't really have any impression of great instability. But I had the impression that he didn't know what he wanted at all.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any impression that he was not capable of knowing what he wanted? I don't mean mental operation. I mean a man whose background was so shallow, and education so limited, that he really had no capacity for determining in any reasonable capacity since, what his regions of reaching and desires were?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, I would guess, I thought at the time that a person in his situation who had done the things he did, it looked like if he had never discovered what he wanted to live by by that time, that he probably never would discover what he was going to live by--of course I didn't keep contact with him after this meeting--and, consequently, had no further chance to observe him.

Mr. JENNER. I am going to talk about that in a moment.

Mr. GLOVER. Okay.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get any impression of him as to whether he felt the world had treated him poorly and he had any grudge as to the world, his lot in life, if not directed toward any person, that he decided he would rationalize to avoid self-analysis?

Mr. GLOVER. I didn't get a very strong impression of that at all at the time. I think he was particularly well behaved when we met him, because I think he was pretty much flattered that someone else would take an interest in him, and I think he ate this up to be questioned about something by somebody who might have some status in society where he didn't have any. But I didn't get the impression that he was terribly bitter about this. I got the impression he was very unsatisfied and unadjusted, maladjusted. He didn't make any adjustment.

Mr. JENNER. During the conversation, did he make any remarks, that you recall, concerning the United States?

Mr. GLOVER. No; he did not make any remarks, except the remarks about the system not being a satisfactory one.

Mr. JENNER. Was President Kennedy mentioned?

Mr. GLOVER. I do not believe so.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything as to whether he was involved in or supporting any particular political causes?

Mr. GLOVER. No; he did not say anything about that at all.

Mr. JENNER. You got no impression that evening as to whether he might or could be or was--might be or could be or was a person given to violence?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I did not get the impression that he was given to violence, except for the fact that he had mistreated his wife, apparently, according to the De Mohrenschildts. They led me to think that he might take out his aggression, as a psychologist might say, but certainly not the violence of the type of the assassination or something like this.

Mr. JENNER. That is the last occasion that you saw the Oswalds?

Mr. GLOVER. Essentially that is the last. I hedge a little bit on this because I faintly recollect that De Mohrenschildt came by the house where I was living once, and he may have had Oswald with him, but it was nothing but a passing meeting. If it existed, I am not quite sure. It was nothing of significance that existed.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see or meet, or were you present at any time subsequent to this meeting when Marina was present?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I was present at one time. Let's see now, the sequence of events after that were, De Mohrenschildt left for Haiti sometime in early May. I am not really sure whether it is before they left. I guess it might have been before they left, or right after they left. I had a record player which they had loaned me.

Mr. JENNER. From the De Mohrenschildts?

Mr. GLOVER. The De Mohrenschildts had loaned me, and when Pierce and Schmidt moved in, they had record players, and they (De Mohrenschildts) wanted to give the record player to Marina.

Mr. JENNER. The De Mohrenschildts?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; I had the record player, so one night when Pierce and I were going to visit a friend for dinner, a fellow by the name of Bob Tabbert, who I used to work with, we brought the record player with us and left it off at Marina's place.

Now at that time I knew where they lived, because I picked them up before at Elsbeth, and this time it was in the evening and we drove up by the apartment where they lived, and just as we drove up, Marina was wheeling her baby on the side of the road, and it was obvious she was going somewhere else, and it was difficult to communicate with her, but apparently she knew about the record player, and she pointed up to a house, and we drove and waited in the street until she went to a door in the house, and we understood she lived there, and it was somewhat of a ramshackled house, and it was around the corner, I don't know the name of the street, I could find it, I'm sure, it was the first----

Mr. JENNER. Neely Street?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't remember the name. I could find the street, because it was the first street on the left going north on Elsbeth.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, this was an apartment building or home different from the one in which you picked them up in February of 1963?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right. So I gave her the record player.

Mr. JENNER. Gave it to her?

Mr. GLOVER. That's right. That is what De Mohrenschildt asked me to do.

Mr. JENNER. Lee Oswald did not appear on the scene at that time?

Mr. GLOVER. No; he was not there.

Mr. JENNER. Did you know he was not there?

Mr. GLOVER. No; I didn't know he was not there; no. Well, I am not sure about that. Seems to me, yes, that I asked if her husband was there, because the record player had been standing waiting to be taken over there for sometime when we were going, and it had fallen off and had the arm damaged, and I could not converse with her, and I tried to explain, and I asked if her husband was there, and I had the impression he wasn't there, and I am not sure about that.

Mr. JENNER. Then what we have referred to was the last contact you had with Marina?

Mr. GLOVER. That was the last time I saw her.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mrs. Paine ever talk to you about Marina at any time thereafter?

Mr. GLOVER. The Paines, either one or the other, talked to me after that time. On one occasion I got a call on the telephone, I am not sure whether it was Mr. or Mrs. Paine, in which they said the record player--I believe it was the same one I had given or taken over to her that belonged to the De Mohrenschildts, was there at their house, and that she--first of all, the events after that went like this.

The De Mohrenschildts left and they told me Oswald lost his job and had gone to New Orleans. Then I believe it was only later through the Paines that I learned, I believe it was a telephone conversation, that Marina was staying there with them, or had been staying with them, and also left to go to New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. This was in the spring of 1963?

Mr. GLOVER. This was sometime after the first of May. And I think at this time I learned through them that Marina had gone to join him in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. Was anything said about Mrs. Paine having taken Marina to New Orleans?

Mr. GLOVER. Nothing was said about her taking her to New Orleans, but I do believe I knew at that time that Marina had stayed with her. I think I learned it through conversation with them. I don't remember having heard from or seen the Paines since the time they were at my house until the time that I have learned Marina had gone to New Orleans and had previously stayed with Ruth. And until the time that Mike came over and delivered the record player. I think Mike was the one who brought the record player, and I don't remember the circumstances on that, but I believe it was he. I am not sure I was home. I am not sure about that.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, that letter that De Mohrenschildt wrote you from Haiti, does this refresh your recollection more exactly as to his remarks about what you have testified:

"It is interesting, but before we began to help Marina and the child, we asked the FBI man in Dallas or in Fort Worth about Lee, and he told us he was completely harmless?"

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; he used the word harmless, but I wasn't sure I was quoting what he said.

Mr. JENNER. Are you recounting a sequence of events with respect to Marina?

Mr. GLOVER. Yes; so I learned, at the time they brought the record player, that she had gone to New Orleans.

Then the only other connection I had with them was that later than that, and now again I am not quite sure about the date, but it seems it must have been after I was married and I was still living on Southwestern, but I got a call from one of the Paines saying they had records that the De Mohrenschildts had given Marina. These were for Russian speaking people learning English, I believe, that they had, and what to do with them?

And I said, bring them over here and I will store them. And I remember talking, and I remember Michael Paine brought the records over to me and came in the house, and I talked with him a little bit. At this time Michael Paine told me the last information I had about them. He told me that, I am not sure whether he said they were back, Marina was coming back, or Marina had already come back to Dallas, that Lee had lost his job and that Lee was coming back, and that was in the time I believe----

Mr. JENNER. Was coming back to live or was visiting?

Mr. GLOVER. Well, was coming back. Presumably he lost his job and was coming back here.

Mr. JENNER. Lost his job in New Orleans?

Mr. GLOVER. Right; and he was coming back here to live. That is the last I heard of them until the event of November 22d.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, is there anything Mr. Glover, that has occurred to you that you would like to add to the record that you think might be helpful to the Commission in its investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy and any of the people about which I have questioned you, and--or anything else that you think might help the Commission in the task of ascertaining the basic facts and truths with respect to that tragic event?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't believe there is anything else I have of any value to add.

Mr. JENNER. Now you understand the Rules of the Commission. You may, if you wish, read over your testimony, and it will be available to you next week if you wish to do so. If not, you have the privilege of waiving that right should you so desire. You also have the privilege of signing the deposition, if you prefer to do that. That is, read and sign it. And you also have the privilege of waiving that right. Do you have any reaction on either of those subjects at the moment?

Mr. GLOVER. I don't have any reaction. I consider this as, because I don't know very much about the legal aspects, I consider this to be a technicality. Maybe I should ask someone.

Mr. JENNER. Frankly, it is not anything of great moment, but if you wish to, if you prefer--that you read your deposition over it will be available to you next week, should you so desire.

Mr. GLOVER. I believe so. I think I would like to read it.

Mr. JENNER. I would think that it would be about Tuesday. If you will call here and ask for me or ask for Mr. Liebeler, your transcript will be available. And if you have any changes or corrections call them to our attention and we will make them either on the face of the deposition or ask you to be resworn and then you state the corrections or additions.

Mr. GLOVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. With this I have no further questions. I have only this to say, that I appreciate your appearing here voluntarily and inconveniencing yourself, and to the extent I had to inquire into your personal life, I hope you realize that it is part of my job and nothing personal on my part.

Mr. GLOVER. I have something to say also. I think that it is not a question of my doing anyone a favor. I consider it a duty to tell what I know about such a situation.

Mr. JENNER. All right, that is where we are at the moment.

TESTIMONY OF CARLOS BRINGUIER

The testimony of Carlos Bringuier was taken on April 7-8, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Carlos Bringuier, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.

Staff members have been authorized to take testimony of witnesses, including you, by the Commission, pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order No. 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

I understand that Mr. Rankin wrote to you last week, stating that I would contact you in connection with the taking of your testimony. I understand that he sent with his letter a copy of the Executive order and resolution to which I have just referred as well as a copy of the rules of procedure of the Commission relating to the taking of testimony of witnesses.

Did you receive Mr. Rankin's letter?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir; I received it.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you received copies of the documents that I have referred to?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. I received.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission is interested in learning from you, Mr. Bringuier, about the contact that you had with Lee Harvey Oswald while he was present in New Orleans in the summer and early fall of 1963. Before we get into the details of that testimony, however, will you state your full name for the record.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Carlos Bringuier.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address, Mr. Bringuier?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Excuse me one moment. May I explain to you? In Cuba we use a long name with a lot of middle names. Do you want the whole middle name too?

Mr. LIEBELER. No; I think that is enough.

Mr. BRINGUIER. It is enough? O.K.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I live in 501 Adele Street, Apartment F.

Mr. LIEBELER. Here in New Orleans?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Here in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I was born in Havana, June 22, 1934.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you live in Havana?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, I was living in Havana until May 4, 1960. I left Havana to Guatemala and Argentina, and I came to the States in February 8, 1961.

Mr. LIEBELER. You came then to New Orleans, is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That day I arrived to Miami, Florida, and I was in Miami for 10 days, and I came to New Orleans in February 18, 1961.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you been here in New Orleans ever since?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are a Cuban national, is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you presently employed?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you do?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, I am a salesman, retail clothing store with the name of Casa Roca, 107 Decatur Street. I am a salesman and manager of the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you been so employed?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I started to work in that store in October 1, 1962.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you been employed here in New Orleans prior to that time?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir; I was working for 1 year in Ward's Discount House, 708 Canal Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. You worked there as a salesman also?

Mr. BRINGUIER. As a salesman also.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your educational background?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, I was attorney in Cuba and assistant secretary for the criminal court in Havana. I got my degree in 1957.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your degree in what field?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Law.

Mr. LIEBELER. In law?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you then were trained as a lawyer in Cuba----

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to the time that Castro came to power? Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you actually practice law in Cuba?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Not actually, no. I didn't practice law, because I was working, as I told you, in the criminal court, and in Havana, in Cuba, when you was employee of the criminal court, you could not practice law.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you become a member of the bar in Cuba or do some act that is similar of becoming a member of the bar here in the United States?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No; I didn't do any act to become here in United States member of bar.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in Cuba?

Mr. BRINGUIER. In Cuba, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You actually were a member of the bar in Cuba?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that you have been active in the Anti-Castro Movement here in New Orleans. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that you left Cuba because of your feeling against the Castro regime and your opposition to that regime?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct. I did not believe in it, I did not agree with the Communist regime in Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. As a result, you left Cuba and came to the United States? Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has your family joined you here in the United States?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, when I went to Argentina, I went with my wife and the three kids at that moment, and after I came to the United States alone, and 2 months later they met me here in the States. I want to explain that I am not in the States as a Cuban refugee but as an immigrant, as a resident.

Mr. LIEBELER. And as an immigrant from Cuba, or from some other----

Mr. BRINGUIER. From Cuba [producing document].

Mr. LIEBELER. You have shown me an identification card from the Department of Immigration and Naturalization, indicating that you were admitted to the United States as an immigrant on February 8, 1961. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

(Document returned to witness.)

Mr. LIEBELER. I am correct in understanding, am I not, that you have been involved to one degree or another in Anti-Castro activities here in New Orleans since your arrival?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir; soon after I arrived here to New Orleans, I founded a Newsletter for the Cubans with the name of Crusada. That was my first work here in New Orleans. After that I joined, at the beginning of 1962, the New Orleans Delegation of the Cuban Revolutionary Council, and I was working as Secretary of Publicity and Propaganda here in New Orleans for the Cuban Anti-Castro. That was, I believe, June or July--June 1962. After that, I resigned, and in July 1962 I was designated New Orleans delegate of the Cuban Student Directorate, and I am in that position from that time to now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did there come a time when you met Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I beg your pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did there come a time when you met Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us when that was and the circumstances of the event.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, the first day that I saw Lee Harvey Oswald was on August 5, 1963, but before we go deeper in this matter about Oswald, I think that I would like to explain to you two things that I think will facilitate the Commission to understand my feeling at that moment.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is perfectly all right. Go ahead.

Mr. BRINGUIER. And you see, in August 24, 1962, my organization, the Cuban Student Directorate, carry on a shelling of Havana, and a few days later when person from the FBI contacted me here in New Orleans--his name was Warren C. de Brueys. Mr. de Brueys was talking to me in the Thompson Cafeteria. At that moment I was the only one from the Cuban Student Directorate here in the city, and he was asking to me about my activities here in the city, and when I told him that I was the only one, he didn't believe that, and he advised me--and I quote, "We could infiltrate your organization and find out what you are doing here." My answer to him was, "Well, you will have to infiltrate myself, because I am the only one." And I want to put this out, because after the assassination of Mr. Kennedy, when I was interviewed, I told something that some part of the press or some persons now are trying to use to tell that maybe Oswald was a man from the FBI or the CIA. I will go into that later on.

After that, after my conversation with de Brueys, I always was waiting that maybe someone will come to infiltrate my organization from the FBI, because I already was told by one of the FBI agent that they will try to infiltrate my organization.

Next thing is this: On August 2, 1963, I receive in my store--I have over there the office of the delegation too, the visit of two Cubans, who told me that they had already desert from one Anti-Castro training camp that was across Lake Pontchartrain here in New Orleans. Until that moment I did not know nothing about that Anti-Castro training camp here in the city, and they told me that that Anti-Castro training camp was a branch of the Christian Democratic Movement--that is another Anti-Castro organization--and they told me that they had the fear inside the training camp that there was a Castro agent inside that training camp.

A few days before, too, the police found here in New Orleans about 1 mile from that training camp a big lot of ammunition and weapons and all those things, and when Oswald came to me on August 5 I had inside myself the feeling, well, maybe this is from the FBI, or maybe this is a Communist, because the FBI already had told me that maybe they will infiltrate my organization, but that feeling--I only had that feeling on August 5, because 4 days later I was convinced that Oswald was not an FBI agent and that he was a Pro-Castro agent.

When I told that to the press after the assassination, I saw in some magazines that I was not sure if he was an FBI or not, and that is not the truth, because on August 9, 3 months before the assassination, I was sure that he was a Pro-Castro and not an FBI. I want to have that clear.

Mr. LIEBELER. To summarize your statement, when Oswald came to see you on August 5----

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were suspicious of him on two different counts?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. One, that he might possibly have been an infiltrator working for the FBI?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you were worried about this because of what Agent de Brueys had said to you----

Mr. BRINGUIER. A year ago.

Mr. LIEBELER. Almost a year prior to that time?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were also concerned about the possibility that Oswald might have been a Communist or a Castro agent of some sort, who was trying to infiltrate your organization on behalf of that group?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. Now that day, on August 5, I was talking in the store with one young American--the name of him is Philip Geraci--and 5 minutes later Mr. Oswald came inside the store. He start to look around, several articles, and he show interest in my conversation with Geraci. I was explaining to Geraci that our fight is a fight of Cubans and that he was too young, that if he want to distribute literature against Castro, I would give him the literature but not admit him to the fight.

At that moment also he start to agree with I, Oswald start to agree with my point of view and he show real interest in the fight against Castro. He told me that he was against Castro and that he was against communism. He told me--he asked me first for some English literature against Castro, and I gave him some copies of the Cuban report printed by the Cuban Student Directorate.

After that, Oswald told me that he had been in the Marine Corps and that he had training in guerrilla warfare and that he was willing to train Cubans to fight against Castro. Even more, he told me that he was willing to go himself to fight against Castro. That was on August 5.

I turned down his offer. I told him that I don't have nothing to do with military activities, that my only duties here in New Orleans are propaganda and information and not military activities. That was my answer to him.

He insisted, and he told me that he will bring to me next day one book as a present, as a gift to me, to train Cubans to fight against Castro.

Before he left----

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Geraci present throughout this entire conversation?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Mr. Geraci present throughout this entire conversation that you had with Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I think so, yes, sir; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there a Mr. Blalock there?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Who?

Mr. LIEBELER. Blalock, B-l-a-l-o-c-k. Do you remember him?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, there was another young boy. What was his name did you say?

Mr. LIEBELER. Blalock, B-l-a-l-o-c-k.

Mr. BRINGUIER. I could not tell you, because I don't remember the name of the other boy who was there, but I think that I saw him just one time in my life. Geraci was with another person over there, another young boy, and----

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald mention during this conversation that he could easily derail a train, for example, by securing and fastening a chain around the railroad track? Do you remember him mentioning something like that?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, you see; I do not exactly remember all the details, because we were talking for about--I believe about 1 hour, something like that, and at that moment I didn't know what was going to happen and I didn't pay too much attention to all the things that was being telling over there, but the result of the conversation were this that I am telling to you. Maybe he mentioned that. I could not tell to you that he mentioned that, because I am not--I don't remember. He could have mentioned that, because he was talking about the experience that he had in guerrilla warfare in the Marine Corps.

Before he left the store, he put his hand in the pocket and he offered me money.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald did?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How much did he offer you?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, I don't know. As soon as he put the hand in the pocket and he told me, "Well, at least let me contribute to your group with some money," at that moment I didn't have the permit from the city hall here in New Orleans to collect money in the city, and I told him that I could not accept his money, and I told him that if he want to contribute to our group, he could send the money directly to the headquarters in Miami, because they had the authorization over there in Miami, and I gave him the number of the post office box of the organization in Miami.

And after that, I left the store, because I had to go to the bank to make the deposit, and Oswald was in the store talking to my brother-in-law--that is my partner in the store--Rolando Pelaez.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that P-e-l-a-e-z?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. Oswald was talking to him for about half an hour, and later on when I came back from the bank I asked to my brother-in-law, "Well, what do you think about this guy who was here?"

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you his name was Lee Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes; he told me that his name was Lee Oswald, and he told me one address in Magazine Street, but I didn't remember at that moment the number, and when I asked to my brother-in-law that, he told me that Oswald looked like really a smart person and really interested in the fight against communism, and he gave to my brother a good impression, and I told my brother that I could not trust him, because--I didn't know what was inside of me, but I had some feeling that I could not trust him. I told that to my brother that day. Next day, on August 6, Oswald came back to the store, but I was not in the store at that moment, and he left with my brother-in-law a Guidebook for Marines for me with the name "L. H. Oswald" in the top of the first page. When I came back to the store, my brother-in-law gave to me the Guidebook for Marines. I was looking in the Guidebook for Marines. I found interest in it and I keep it, and later--I forgot about that just for 3 days more--on August 9 I was coming back to the store at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and one friend of mine with the name of Celso Hernandez came to me and told me that in Canal Street there was a young man carrying a sign telling "Viva Fidel" in Spanish, and some other thing about Cuba, but my friend don't speak nothing in English, and the only thing that he understood was the "Viva Fidel" in Spanish. He told me that he was blaming the person in Spanish, but that the person maybe didn't understood what he was telling to him and he came to me to let me know what was going on over there.

At that moment was in the store another Cuban with the name of Miguel Cruz, and we went all three with a big sign that I have in the store in color. The sign is the Statue of Liberty with a knife in the back, and the hand, knifing her in the back, has the initials of the Soviet Union, and it said, "Danger. Only 90 Miles from the United States Cuba Lies in Chains." We pick up the sign and we went to Canal Street to find the guy.

We were walking all Canal Street to Rampart Street, but we could not find him. We were asking to different people in the street, but nobody saw him, nobody told us, Yes, I saw him, or, He went to this side. I decided to get a Canal streetcar to search for him, and we went in the Canal streetcar until about the 2700 block of Canal Street, and we came back in the Canal streetcar, but we could not find him at that moment.

I went back to the store, but just 3 or 4 minutes later one of my two friends, Miguel Cruz, came back running and told me that the guy was another time in Canal Street and that Celso was watching him over there.

I went over there with the sign another time, and I was surprised when I recognized that the guy with the sign hanging on the chest, said, "Viva Fidel" and "Hands off Cuba," was Lee Harvey Oswald. Until that moment I only knew Oswald as a guy who was offering his service to train Cubans, and when I saw that he was with a sign defending Fidel Castro and praising Fidel Castro, I became angry. That was in the 700 block of Canal Street just in front of the store where I was working my first year here in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that the International Trade Mart?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No; Ward Discount House. He make another appearance in the International Trade Mart, later, and I will go into that, too.

When I saw that was Oswald and he recognized me, he was also surprised, but just for a few seconds. Immediately he smiled to me and he offered the hand to shake hands with me. I became more angry and I start to tell him that he don't have any face to do that, with what face he was doing that, because he had just came to me 4 days ago offering me his service and that he was a Castro agent, and I start to blame him in the street.

That was a Friday around 3 o'clock at this moment, and many people start to gather around us to see what was going on over there. I start to explain to the people what Oswald did to me, because I wanted to move the American people against him, not to take the fight for myself as a Cuban but to move the American people to fight him, and I told them that that was a Castro agent, that he was a pro-Communist, and that he was trying to do to them exactly what he did to us in Cuba, kill them and send their children to the execution wall. Those were my phrases at the moment.

The people in the street became angry and they started to shout to him, "Traitor! Communist! Go to Cuba! Kill him!" and some other phrases that I do not know if I could tell in the record.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean they cursed at him, they swore at him?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right, some bad phrases, bad words.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. BRINGUIER. And at that moment, one of the Americans push him by one arm. One policeman came. When policeman came to me and asked me to keep walking and to let Oswald distribute his literature that he was handing out--he was handing out yellow leaflets of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans Chapter--and I told to the policeman that I was Cuban, I explained to him what Oswald did to me, and I told him that I don't know if was against the law, but that I will not leave that place until Oswald left and that I will make some trouble.

The policeman left, I believe going to some place to call the headquarters, and at one moment my friend Celso took the literature from Oswald, the yellow sheets, and broke it and threw it on the air. There were a lot of yellow sheets flying. And I was more angry, and I went near Oswald to hit him. I took my glasses off and I went near to him to hit him, but when he sensed my intention, he put his arm down as an X, like this here (demonstrating).

Mr. LIEBELER. He crossed his arms in front of him?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right, put his face and told me, "O.K. Carlos, if you want to hit me, hit me."

At that moment, that made me to reaction that he was trying to appear as a martyr if I will hit him, and I decide not to hit him, and just a few seconds later arrive two police cars, and one of the policeman over there was Lieutenant Gaillot, G-a-i-l-l-o-t. They put Oswald and my two friends in one of the police cars, and I went with Lieutenant Gaillot in the other police car to the First District of Police here in New Orleans.

When we were in the First District of Police, we were in the same room, one small room over there, and some of the policemen start to question Oswald if he was a Communist, what he was doing that, and all those things, and Oswald at that moment--that was in front of myself--was really cold blood. He was answering the questions that he would like to answer, and he was not nervous, he was not out of control, he was confident in himself at that moment over there.

One of the questions that they asked to him was about his organization, the Fair Play for Cuba, and I saw him showing some papers that--I believe they were the credentials of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee is a national organization, and when he told that, he was so kind of proud that it was not a small group but a national group all over the United States, and they asked of him the name of the members. No. Excuse me. Before they asked him if he has any office. He told them no, that there were--they were holding the meetings in different house, different homes, different members of the organization one night in one house, another night in another house, but in front of me he didn't told nothing about any office. When they asked him about the name of the members, he answered that he could not tell the name of the members in front of myself, because he will not like to let me know who were the ones who were helping him here in the city, and at that moment the police came out of the room and that was the last time that I saw him that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the police keep you in jail too?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, yes. I had to put--they took my fingerprints and my picture, and I have to put $25 bond that night with my two friends too, and I don't know, but after the assassination I heard that Oswald didn't put the $25 bond, that somebody went to the First District and make--I believe you call that an affidavit or something like that, and he will appear in court and he will not have to put the $25. He didn't put the $25 bond. That is what I heard. I didn't saw that. I am not sure of that. Next time that I saw him----

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you appear in court later?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir; later. That was August 12.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, on Monday.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you pleaded not guilty to the offense that you were charged with?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right; that is right. And he plead guilty.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald was there in court?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you saw him in court?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that is what you were just about to tell me?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead.

Mr. BRINGUIER. In August 12, we appear in the second municipal court in New Orleans. I came first with my friends, and there were some other Cubans over there, and I saw when Oswald came inside the court. I saw him. He went directly to sit down in the middle of the seat of the colored people. See, here in the court you have two sides, one for the white people and one for the colored people, and he walked directly inside of the colored people and he sat directly among them in the middle, and that made me to be angry too, because I saw that he was trying to win the colored people for his side. When he will appear in the court, he will defend Fidel Castro, he will defend the Fair Play for Cuba, and the colored people will feel good for him, and that is a tremendous work of propaganda for his cause. That is one of the things that made me to think that he was a really smart guy and not a nut.

When the judge call us, he plead guilty, I plead not guilty, and my friends plead not guilty. I brought the Marines guidebook, the guidebook for Marines, and I explain to the judge that the incident was originated when Oswald tried to infiltrate the organization and that if he will not do that, I will not have any fight with him in the street, and I showed to him the guidebook for Marines with the name of Oswald on the top of the first page, and the judge dismisses the charges against us and fined him $10.

Mr. LIEBELER. Fined Oswald $10?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Ten dollars, that is right. In the court was at that moment one cameraman from WDSU, and he make--he did an interview to Oswald after the trial and he took some movies of ourselves, and later I receive one phone call from Bill Stuckey. I had talk to Stuckey the day of the trial in the morning. I met him in the bank and I explained to him what was going on in the second municipal court, and he was the one who send the reporter over there to the trial. I am not sure if was the same day or next day of the trial Stuckey called me asking for Oswald's address. I get the affidavit from the court dissertation, and I give to him the address in dissertation, and I asked him why he was looking for that. He told me that he was going to make an interview to Oswald. I disagreed with him at that moment, I told him that I was thinking that it was not good to let a Communist go to radio station and tell all his lies, because there are many people who understand what was happening in Cuba, but there are many people who do not know exactly what is happening in Cuba. Stuckey offered me to make another interview to me next Saturday in his program, but I didn't agree with that neither, and I asked him to arrange a radio debate, because in that way we could tell our point of view at the same moment in the same place.

On August 16 another friend of mine left to me a message in the store that Oswald was another time handing out pro-Castro propaganda for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, this time in front of the International Trade Mart here in New Orleans.

I wasn't in the store at that moment, and when I came back and I received the message, I went to the International Trade Mart, but I could not find Oswald, he had already left, and I was talking later on with my friend, and the information that I received was that he was over there with two other persons. Later I saw the picture of those two persons, and they have a Latin aspect. I do not know if they are Latin Americans or not, but at least there is one who is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did somebody show you pictures of these individuals?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who did?

Mr. BRINGUIER. The Secret Service tried to see if I know them, if I could identify them.

Mr. LIEBELER. [Exhibiting photograph to witness.] I show you a picture, which has previously been marked as "Pizzo Exhibit 453-A," and I ask you if that is one of the pictures or a picture like the one the Secret Service showed to you.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. [Exhibiting photograph to witness.] I show you another picture, which has previously been marked "Pizzo Exhibit 453-B."

Mr. BRINGUIER. [Indicating.] See this guy, see this Japanese? He is from the Kasuga Co. here in New Orleans. He had the office in International Trade Mart.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you pointed to the person standing immediately behind and to Oswald's right with his hands up behind his head?

Mr. BRINGUIER. [Demonstrating.] That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that is on Exhibit 453-A. Now do you recognize the person with the "X" over his head?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir; that was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now there is a person standing to Oswald's left wearing a white shirt and facing the same direction that Oswald was facing, and I will indicate that person with a pen mark on the picture. [Marking photograph.] I have drawn an arrow pointing to the person to which I refer, and I ask you if you recognize that person.

Mr. BRINGUIER. No; I don't recognize him. I believe that this is one of the pictures that I saw before, but I don't recognize him. For me, he looked like as a Latin American.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now in the far foreground of this picture, there is a man who has been marked with a green mark, just one mark, and we are referring at this point to Exhibit 453-A. Do you recognize that person?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that another one of the individuals to which you referred as having a Latin-type complexion, or is it not?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No, sir. I believe--no; this is not the one that I said.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have one other picture here of this scene which has not previously been marked, and I will show that picture to you and ask you if you can identify anybody in that picture with the exception of Oswald, of course. [Exhibiting photograph to witness.]

Mr. BRINGUIER. The only one that I could recognize here is Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he is the person with the "Hands Off Cuba"?

Mr. BRINGUIER. "Hands Off Cuba" leaflets in his hand, the first one in front, just in the middle of the picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. [Marking photograph.] I have marked the picture I just referred to as "Exhibit No. 1" to your deposition.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Do you want that I sign the picture?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Would you initial the picture for identification purposes?

(The witness complied.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you.

Mr. BRINGUIER. You want that I sign these too?

Mr. LIEBELER. No. We have identified those as Pizzo Exhibits 453-A and 453-B, and you have noted that they are----

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I thought you mentioned that there were two different people that appeared to you to be Latin people.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Sure. This one that I see here [indicating], this is the one looked like to me a Latin, but, if I am not wrong, somebody showed me another picture where is another guy distributing the leaflets. I believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that was a Secret Service man or an FBI agent? Do you know?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I think that was a Secret Service man. Maybe I am wrong. I saw those days a lot of pictures; but--let me tell you something else: If my opinion is not wrong, if I am not mistaken this moment, I think that the other man was maybe in some kind of Bermuda shorts or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't have any pictures in my possession showing that. The Commission has requested the actual film, the TV film itself, to be delivered to it, and they will examine it, and if such a person does appear in the films, I will send you a picture of it.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Okay.

Mr. LIEBELER. And I will also speak to the Secret Service about it and see if we can find such a picture. According to the Secret Service, one of these gentlemen has been identified as Mr. Charles Hall Steele, Jr.

Mr. BRINGUIER. He was working in the Pap's Super Market here in New Orleans. I believe so, that he was working over there. There was one Cuban who, when saw his face in the television, called me to tell me that, and I called the Secret Service and let them know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Steele will be in the office here this afternoon, so we will have an opportunity to determine if it is the same man that was marked with the arrow in Pizzo Exhibit 453-A or not.

So you went over to the International Trade Mart on this day in an attempt to find Oswald, but you were not successful? Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct. After that my friend showed to me one of the leaflets that Oswald was handing out in front of the International Trade Mart, the yellow leaflets, and I found something interesting at this point. There was a difference among the leaflets that he was handing out on August 16 in the International Trade Mart and the leaflets that he was handing out on Canal Street on August 9.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the difference?

Mr. BRINGUIER. The leaflet he was handing out on Canal Street August 9 didn't have his name of Oswald, at least the ones that I saw. They have the name A. J. Hidell, and one post office box here in New Orleans and the address, and the leaflets that he was handing out on August 16 have the name L. H. Oswald, 4907 Magazine Street. In the yellow leaflets he was offering free literature and lectures, and he was asking to the people to join the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and at the end he said, "Everyone welcome." My friend asked to me if I think that it would be good that he will go to Oswald's house posing as a pro-Castro and try to get as much information as possible from Oswald. I told him yes; and that night he went to Oswald's house with the leaflets.

Mr. LIEBELER. What day was this now? Do you remember?

Mr. BRINGUIER. August 16. I believe so. I think that. I am sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was the same day that----

Mr. BRINGUIER. That he was distributing the leaflets.

Mr. LIEBELER. The second time?

Mr. BRINGUIER. The second time. The first time was a Friday, August 9, and the second time--I think that was another Friday, August 16.

My friend went to Oswald's house and he was talking to Oswald for about 1 hour inside his house, in the porch of the house, and there was when we found that Oswald had some connection with Russia, or something like that, because the daughter came to the porch and Oswald spoke to her in Russian, and my friend heard that language and he asked Oswald if that was Russian, and Oswald told him yes, that he was attending Tulane University and that he was studying language, that that was the reason why he speak Russian. He give to my friend an application to become a member of the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

After the assassination my friend turned [over] to the Secret Service one copy of the application. I have here one, one copy [producing document]. This is a photocopy. My friend keep the original.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have another copy of this?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No; that is the only one that I have. He has the original. If you want to keep that, for me it is no trouble, because always I could take more copies.

Mr. LIEBELER. I see. Your friend still has the original?

Mr. BRINGUIER. The original; that is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, let's mark this one as "Exhibit 2" to your deposition. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that we asked Mr. Bringuier to initial a picture which we discussed before on the record, and that picture, which is a picture of a street scene in front of the International Trade Mart has been marked "Exhibit 1" to Mr. Bringuier's deposition taken here in New Orleans on April 7, 1964. We shall now mark as "Exhibit 2" to that deposition a photocopy of an application to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans, La., which Mr. Bringuier says is a copy of an application which was given to a friend of his whose name we have agreed not to indicate on the record, given by Lee Oswald on or about August 16, 1963. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have initialed Exhibit No. 2 and I ask you to do the same, if you would.

[The witness complied.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Please go ahead.

Mr. BRINGUIER. At that conversation Oswald was defending Fidel Castro, and he advised to my friend that the United States don't have the right to invade or to overthrow any other government, and that if the United States will do that to Cuba, he will fight defending Castro, because Castro was right.

I gave the copy of the transcription of the conversation with my friend to the Secret Service the days after the Kennedy assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the day that you and your friend discussed this after your friend returned from Oswald's and you made a recording of that conversation?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Not a recording, not a recording exactly; but when my friend came back from Oswald's house, he told me what happened over there and he was trying to contact some authority to let him go deeper inside the Fair Play for Cuba Committee here in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your friend was?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes; my friend was trying to contact some authorities, because he didn't want to be involved in that matter without the knowledge of the U.S. Government. We also discussed this conversation in front of Ed Butler.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Ed Butler, Edward Butler, for the Information Council of the Americas, the day or 2 days previous to the debate when my friend and myself went to Butler's office, and my friend was explaining to Butler all the conversation and the point of view of Oswald, and the matter that Oswald spoke in Russian, and at that moment my friend had found that Oswald had been in Russia and that he was married to one Russian girl. We gave all that information to Butler and he was trying to contact some person, somebody in Washington, to get more the background of Oswald before the debate.

After that, the last day that I saw Oswald was August 21, the day of the debate. I went to WDSU radio about 5:30, 30 minutes before the time of the debate. When I went to the lobby, there were already there--Bill Stuckey and Lee Harvey Oswald. I shake hands with Stuckey. Stuckey indicate to me that Oswald was there. Oswald stand up and came to me and shake hands with me. I was talking to Stuckey for a few minutes, and after that Stuckey left the lobby and went inside the WDSU radio station to check--I believe that was to check in what room we will have the debate. I was talking to Oswald that day before the debate started. I was trying to be as friendly to him as I could. I really believe that the best thing that I could do is to get one Communist out of the Communist Party and put him to work against communism, because he know what communism mean, and I told to Oswald that I don't have nothing against him in the personal way, just in the ideologic way. I told him that for me it was impossible to see one American being a Communist, because communism is trying to destroy the United States, and that if any moment when he will be at bed he will start to think that he can do something good for his country, for his family, and for himself, he could come to me, because I would receive him, because I repeat to him I didn't have nothing against him in the personal way. He smiled to me. He told me--he answered me that he was in the right side, the correct side, and that I was in the wrong side, and that he was doing his best. That were his words at that moment.

Before we went inside the room of the debate, he saw my guidebook for Marines that I was carrying with me, because I did not know what will happen in the debate and I will have to have that weapon with me to destroy him personally as a traitor if he doing something wrong in the debate. When he saw the guidebook for Marines, he smiled to me, and he told me, "Well, listen, Carlos, don't try to do an invasion with that guidebook for Marines, because that is an old one and that will be a failure." That was his joke in that moment.

After that we went to the debate, and I think that you have the whole history of the debate, you have the transcription and everything, [so] that I don't have to go inside that, because that is subjective, not objective. You have the objective, and that is the debate.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is right. We do have a transcript and we listened to it on the tape last night over at the television station too.

Mr. BRINGUIER. And there is something that I want to show you too. I told to you about the training camp that were across the Lake Pontchartrain.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. BRINGUIER. [Producing newspaper.] At the beginning of August in the Diario Las Americas from Miami for September 4----

Mr. LIEBELER. For September 4, 1963?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. [Indicating photograph.] This is the spy who was inside the training camp. The Christian Democratic Movement turned him over to the FBI, and the FBI was questioning him in Miami. The Christian Democratic Movement found a letter, according to this information, from this guy directed to Carlos Lechuga, former Cuban Ambassador to Mexico and now Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. In that letter the spy, Fernando Fernandez, was warning Lechuga that they have to be alert from that date to August 8, and the day that Oswald came trying to infiltrate my organization was on August 5. This sounds for me strange in all this matter.

[Indicating.] Here is another interview from Fernandez here 3 days later.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to a copy of the same newspaper but for the date of September 6, 1963, on the front page of which----

Mr. BRINGUIER. [Indicating.] Here. "Fernando Fernandez is in favor of coexistence with the Communist regime of Castro." That is the title in Spanish.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me see if I can understand what you are saying. You say that Fernandez wrote a letter to Lechuga?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Fernandez wrote a letter to Lechuga in Mexico.

Mr. LIEBELER. Lechuga is a member of the Castro government?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. He is now Ambassador to the United Nations?

Mr. BRINGUIER. In New York; right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Fernandez is the person who was the Castro spy who had infiltrated the training camp in Louisiana?

Mr. BRINGUIER. For the Christian Democratic Movement here in Louisiana.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now the Christian Democratic Movement is--what? Pro-Castro?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Anti-Castro.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is an anti-Castro organization?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes; they were training Cubans over here to make a commando action against Castro, but they find out that there was a Castro spy inside the training camp, and they went back to Miami with the people and with him, and they turn him over to the FBI. I think that after that the leader for the Christian Democratic Movement--or that the FBI didn't found nothing, because was not against the law to spy inside an anti-Castro organization. It was against the law to spy inside the U.S. Government but not inside the anti-Castro organization. And my feeling--and this is the question that I am asking myself--in New Orleans we are about 900 miles from Miami. In Miami is where the headquarters of all the anti-Castro groups. I could not find any reason for Oswald to come to me and offer me his service to train Cubans in guerrilla warfare at the same moment when there was a secret anti-Castro training camp in New Orleans and a Castro spy was inside that training camp. That for me is--because, if he was willing to infiltrate one active organization, he will go directly to Miami and he will offer his service over there in Miami, but not in New Orleans where it is not publicly known that there was something going on at that moment. I believe that that was the only time here in New Orleans that there was something like that, and it was a coincidence. And there is another coincidence too for me, and that is that when Oswald left the city he went to Mexico, and the letter from Fernandez that was intercepted here was to Mexico too, and Oswald visit the Cuban consulate in Mexico, and the Fernandez letter was to the Cuban Ambassador to Mexico. For me, that is a big doubt.

Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead.

Mr. BRINGUIER. You see, after the debate, the same night of the debate, I went to the radio station here in New Orleans and the local papers and the United Press International office, and I gave a press release. If you want a copy, I could give you a copy. I gave a copy to the Secret Service.

The most interesting thing is the four things that I asked to the Secret Service of New Orleans. I think that this is the second one where I said, "Write to your Congressman asking for a full investigation of Mr. Lee H. Oswald, a confessed Marxist" [producing document]. And that was 3 months before the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have another copy of this?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I have the original of that. You can have that.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have marked a copy of the press release distributed to the various communications media here in New Orleans, on August 16, 1963----

Mr. BRINGUIER. No, August 21.

Mr. LIEBELER. August 21, 1963?

Mr. BRINGUIER. August 21, the night of the debate.

Mr. LIEBELER. I mark it as "Exhibit No. 3" to your deposition, and I have initialed it. Would you initial it?

[The witness complied.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me go over some of this testimony that you have just given to see if I understand. Mr. Fernandez wrote to Mr. Lechuga a letter in which Fernandez said that we--meaning the Castro people?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Must be on guard up until August 8?

Mr. BRINGUIER. August 8, that is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of 1963?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicated that Oswald had come to your store or offices on August 5, 1963?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald came to you offering to assist in the military training of Cubans?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. At that time, there was, in fact, a training camp near New Orleans----

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. For the training of people for military action against Castro?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that was not public knowledge at that time?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you are tying this up in your mind by considering the possibility that Oswald was, in fact, a Castro agent?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did know about the existence of this training camp, because Mr. Fernandez had already himself infiltrated that training camp?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that Fernandez had told Oswald about the existence of this camp and had asked Oswald himself to try to infiltrate that camp for your organization?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Excuse me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, the only thing that I don't believe is that Fernandez had told directly to Oswald. What I believe is that Fernandez had informed some people outside the United States, and these people had informed Oswald and had gave to Oswald the order to try to infiltrate the Cuban group here in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Mr. Fernandez was, on this theory, aware of that and was aware of approximately the time Oswald would make this attempt, and, therefore, indicated to Lechuga that there would be some danger of Oswald being discovered as an attempted infiltrator?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I beg pardon? I don't understand the words.

Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand, part of the hypothesis here, the theory, relates to the fact that Fernandez said to Lechuga, "We must be careful, or we will be in danger,"--up until about August 8. Now does that statement have anything to do with Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, what I think is this: He send that letter to Lechuga, and on August 5 Oswald came to me offering his service to train Cubans, all in the same period of time. Something that never was happening here in New Orleans, that there was a secret anti-Castro training camp, and the chairman of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee trying to join the Cuban group here in New Orleans. Those are the facts. I don't want to tell something that I am not sure about. I just want to show you that tremendous coincidence or that connection.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now it doesn't seem likely, does it, that Oswald would go around handing out literature in the streets like he did if he was actually attempting to infiltrate the anti-Castro movement?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Remember that that was after I turned down his offer and after I told him that I don't have nothing to do with military activities and that here there is nothing, and that I turned down completely him. He didn't went openly to do that before the attempt to infiltrate the training camp; he went openly to do that after he was turned down.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any conceivable association between anybody in the pro-Castro movement and Oswald that could have acted as a source of information to Oswald--conducted the orders to him?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you have any way of obtaining information of that sort as a result of your anti-Castro activities and contacts? If there were such a person as this, do you think you would be likely to know about it?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Beg your pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. If there were such a person, that is to say, some agent of the Castro movement who had been working with Oswald, do you think that you would have had access to that information or you would have been likely to find out about it?

Mr. BRINGUIER. You see, that is a hard question, because here in the city you have a lot of persons. There are some who are pro-Castro, there are many who are anti-Castro. Even among the Cubans you could have some Castro agents here in the city and you could not have control of everybody.

But there is something else: The owner of the Havana Bar--the Havana Bar is located in 117 Decatur Street, just two door or three door from my store--the owner of the Havana Bar is a Cuban, and he and one of the employees over there, gave the information to me after Kennedy's assassination--not before--that Oswald went to the Havana Bar one time. He asked for some lemonade. He was with one Mexican at that moment, and when Oswald was drinking the lemonade, he start to say that, sure, the owner of that place had to be a Cuban capitalistic, and that he argue about the price of the lemonade. He was telling that that was too much for a lemonade, and he feel bad at that moment, Oswald feel bad at that moment--he had some vomits and he went out to the sidewalk to vomit outside on the sidewalk. These persons here from the Havana Bar told me that the guy, the Mexican, who was with Oswald, was the same one that one time the FBI told them that if they will see him, call them immediately because that was a pro-Communist. I remember that was between August 15 and August 30 was that period of time. I could not locate that because I start to find out all these things after the Kennedy assassination, not before, because before I did not found any connection. They did not told nothing of this before to me. Between the 15th and the 30th the brother of the owner of the Havana Bar came to my store asking me to call the FBI, because he already saw one automobile passing by the street with two Mexicans, one of them the one who had been with Oswald in the bar, and he told me that the FBI, one agent from the FBI, had been in the bar and told them that if they will see those two guy to call them. This person, the brother of the owner of the bar, he gave to me at that moment the number of the plate of the automobile, but he didn't get from what State. I called the FBI, because this person don't know to speak English. That was the reason why he came to me. I talked to the person in the FBI. I explained what was going on, but looked like this person on the telephone didn't know nothing about that matter and he took the--I believe that he took the notes of what I was telling to him, and that was all.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did this happen, before the assassination or after?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I called before the assassination, but I didn't know that that was any connection with Oswald, because they didn't told me at the Havana Bar that one of them was the one that was with Oswald in the Havana Bar, and even more they didn't told me Oswald had been in the Havana Bar. After I learn that Oswald was one day over there with one Mexican, the brother of the owner told me, "Yes. You remember those two Mexicans? One of them was the one who was with Oswald in the bar."

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, tell me approximately when you called the FBI about this.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, that was between the 15th of August and the 30th of August, because that was when the owner of the Havana Bar was on vacation. The brother was the one who was at the front of the business at that moment, and we figure that the owner of the Havana Bar went on vacation from August 15 to August 30 and that had to happen in that period of time.

Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand it, some time between August 15 and August 30 the brother of the owner of the Havana Bar told you that he had seen a man that had been formerly identified to him by the FBI, and the FBI had asked this man, the brother of the owner of the bar, to notify them if he saw this man?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he had seen this man together with another man driving in an automobile somewhere here in New Orleans? Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. But the question is this: The FBI was according to the information that the brother of the owner of the Havana Bar told me, the FBI was looking for both men, not for one.

Mr. LIEBELER. For both of them?

Mr. BRINGUIER. For both of them, but just one of them was in the Havana Bar with Oswald, not both.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the name of the brother of the owner of the Havana Bar?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Ruperto Peña, and the one who saw Oswald in the bar--that was the one who served the lemonade to him--Evaristo Rodriguez.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you report this to the FBI when you talked to them after the assassination?

Mr. BRINGUIER. After the assassination?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. BRINGUIER. I report this to the Secret Service. I believe so. [Producing document.] I have here a copy of the letter that I send to the headquarters on November 27, 1963, informing here to the headquarters the information that I gave to the Secret Service about the man who was working in the Pap's Supermarket, that he was going to Delgado Trades School, I believe with the name of Charles, and I have here that I gave to the Secret Service this information during that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. May I see that?

[Document exhibited to counsel.]

Mr. LIEBELER. It is in Spanish?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. You have given me a draft of a document entitled "Open Letter to People of New Orleans," which I have marked "Exhibit No. 4" to your deposition taken here in New Orleans on April 7, 1964, and I have initialed it in the lower right hand corner. Would you initial it, please?

Mr. BRINGUIER. [Complying.] And you agree to send me back the original?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. I will take this and have a copy made, and I will send the original back to you. I have your address on my copy here of Mr. Rankin's letter, which is 107 Decatur Street, New Orleans, La. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct. That is my store. You can send the mail to there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Correct. Now "Exhibit No. 4," as I understand it, is a draft of a letter that you proposed to distribute here in New Orleans some time after the debate that you had with Oswald on August 21, 1963. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. It, in fact, was never distributed because you----

Mr. BRINGUIER. I went to the city hall, and they informed me--I think the person that informed me--maybe I am wrong--is Mr. Diboll--I had that name here wrote on the back--and he gave to me the information that it had to be 3-1/2 by 5-1/2 and this was not possible to distribute in that size, and I decided not to distribute.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you prepared this some time during August in 1963?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right, that is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was done prior to the assassination?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. Do you have any information from Oswald going to Cuba?

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean--has it ever appeared that Oswald actually went to Cuba? Not as far as I know.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well [producing magazine], there is here in this magazine--this is Bohemia International--this is printed in Venezuela--February 2, 1964--there is an article by Dr. Herminio Portell-Vila. He is a professor of history of Cuba, Dr. Herminio Portell-Vila, and an old diplomat from Cuba. I think he is living in Washington, D.C. And he said here [exhibiting page] that in one speech from Castro on November 27, 1963, in the University of Havana, Castro said--and I quote: "The first time that Oswald was in Cuba"--and that immediately he cut the speech, he changed and he talked of something else. Maybe you have a record of that speech delivered from Castro in the University of Havana and you could check if Castro said that 5 days after the assassination or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. And what kind of magazine is this Bohemia International?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Bohemia was the biggest weekly magazine in Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to the Castro regime?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. And during the Castro regime they were defending Castro a lot of time, but in 1960 the director, the editor, went into exile, and----

Mr. LIEBELER. And he now publishes this magazine from Venezuela?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right. He was publishing that from New York about one year, I believe, sir, and then at a later date moved to Venezuela, but that is circulating here inside the United States.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have referred to an issue of that magazine of February 2, 1964, and to an article that begins on page 16. What is the title of the article?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Disfraz. That is mask, costume. That says "change of----

Mr. LIEBELER. Change of costume?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And this is an article about Lee Oswald and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the caption under the picture of Lee Oswald, as it appears on page 17, reads what in English? Would you translate that for us?

Mr. BRINGUIER. "When Castro in his speech of November 27, 1963, at the University of Havana said literally that 'the first time that Oswald was in Cuba,' he went out of his tongue, that is literally, under the influence of cognac--Peralta, that is a brand of cognac--'he told something that is really important.'"

Mr. LIEBELER. That is what it says?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is what it says here, and if you want to take the name of the person who wrote it----

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. The article was written by----

Mr. BRINGUIER. I don't know if you have a copy of----

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you want to put that on the record, that story you told me just a minute ago?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Last January I went to Miami, Fla., where I was talking to Dr. Emilio Nunez-Portuondo, former Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations, and he told me that just after the assassination of President Kennedy he received a request from one of the biggest Mexican newspapers asking him for some public declarations of opinion about the assassination. He sent that day a letter with his press release inside, addressed to one friend of him who is living in Mexico City and his friend deliver that press release to the Mexico City newspaper in Mexico. In that release, Mr. Nunez-Portuondo blamed Fidel Castro as the "intellectual murderer of President Kennedy."

Dr. Portuondo told me that the same day that that information appear in the paper, his friend suffer an attempt to be kidnaped. There went about eight men to this man house, and when they were trying to put him inside one automobile, at the same moment pass a reporter--I believe that was from the AP--and when the reporter saw what was going on, he start to ask for help. At that moment the police came and started to question the eight men, and, according to Nunez-Portuondo, they identified themselves as members of the Secret Service of the Mexican Government, and Mr. Portuondo's friend was beaten so hard that he had to go to a hospital for 4 days with a broken leg, just because he was the one who deliver Nunez-Portuondo's statement to the Mexican newspaper blaming Fidel Castro for the murder of President Kennedy.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to go back briefly to the letter from Fernandez to Lechuga which you indicated had been intercepted.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What letter is this and who intercepted it?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, I believe that that letter was intercepted here in New Orleans when Fernandez was sending the letter to Mexico. I didn't have too much contact with that deal, because that was for another organization, not my organization, and I didn't want to be involved, in that that maybe was against the law. I always try to be out of----

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean this letter was intercepted by some other Cuban organization?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes; for the same organization who had the training camp.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was intercepted while it was in the U.S. mails?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I think so. I think that he gave that letter to somebody to drop in the mail, and that somebody that was suspicious about him, they opened the letter and they found what the letter was telling. I don't know what they do with the letter. I don't know nothing else. I know about what is said in the paper. I know that they dismantle all the training camp here in New Orleans. They went back to Miami. I paid the trip for two of them to go back to Miami. Excuse me. I did not pay the trip, I collect some monies among some Cubans, and we paid the trip. I don't want to set something on the record that is not----

Mr. LIEBELER. Does it say something about the letter in these newspaper stories that you have referred me to?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. Does it refer to the letter in these newspaper stories?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right, is covering the whole history about it [producing newspaper].

Mr. LIEBELER. These newspaper stories are, as we have indicated, in the Diario Las Americas, issues of September 4, 1963, and September 6, 1963. Do you have copies of these or do you want to keep these?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I think they are the only ones we have.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. BRINGUIER. I will tell something else to you: This information--they are taking this information from the Miami Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring now----

Mr. BRINGUIER. That was the one who interview Fernando Fernandez, the Miami Herald made an interview to Fernando Fernandez. I already asked to some person in Miami to send me the Miami Herald, from September 3 to September 10 to try to get all the information directly from the Miami Herald but at this moment I only have the Spanish publication over there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where Fernandez is now?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No; I don't know where he is. He was telling in that interview that he was willing to go to Cuba, to go back to Cuba. I don't know whether he is in Cuba now or not. Excuse me. Did you check any other trip from Oswald to Mexico previously to the trip 3 weeks before the assassination? Because I think that you have to know sure that Mr. Stuckey, Bill Stuckey, made another interview to Oswald, and he had the tape of that interview. I have one tape of that interview. I think that that interview was made on August 17, 1963, and at that interview Oswald said, answering to one question, that he had been in Mexico, and in all the magazines that I am reading they are talking about Oswald was born in New Orleans, he went to New York, he came back to New Orleans, he went to the Marines, he went to Russia, he came back, he he went to Dallas, he came to New Orleans back, he went to Mexico 3 weeks before the assassination, but I don't read in any newspaper or any magazine talking about some other trip from Oswald to Mexico, and if you have that tape, in Oswald's own voice, he admitted that he had been to Mexico before August 17.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, Mr. Stuckey will be here this afternoon. We will ask him about that.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Thank you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Going back briefly to this story of Mr. Peña telling you that he had seen Oswald in the Havana Bar with this other Mexican, did the FBI ever talk to Mr. Peña about this? Do you know?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I don't know. I know that the owner of the Havana Bar, in my opinion, is a good person, but he says that always when he talk to the FBI in the bar or something like that, that he lose customers, because, you see, to those bars sometime there are people, customers, who don't like to see FBI around there, and he says that always he lose customers when the FBI start to go over there, and sometime he become angry and sometime he don't want to talk about. I am sure that the brother, Ruperto--I am sure that he will tell everything that he knows.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion as to whether the report that Ruperto made about Oswald being in the bar was an accurate report?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, the question is this: Was not only Ruperto told me that Oswald went to Havana Bar. The one who told me that was Evaristo Rodriguez, and I never saw Evaristo Rodriguez telling lies or never--Evaristo is quiet person, he is young, married, but he is quiet. He is not an extrovert, that is, not a----

Mr. LIEBELER. He wouldn't be likely to make this story up?

Mr. BRINGUIER. No; I don't believe so.

(At this point, Mr. Jenner entered the room to obtain photographs, and there ensued an off the record discussion about the photographs.)

Mr. BRINGUIER. I remember that when somebody--I believe that was the Secret Service--showed to me the other picture that I tell you, that they were--they had already identified one and they were trying to identify the other one. I am sure that there were two, and no doubt about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you didn't recognize any of the----

Mr. BRINGUIER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Individuals in the pictures that we showed you previously, Pizzo Exhibits 453-A and 453-B, and Exhibit No. 1 to your own deposition?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. The only person you recognized in those pictures was Lee Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. That is right, that is right, and the guy I showed you, the one from Kasuga, the Japanese.

Mr. LIEBELER. [Exhibiting photograph to witness.] Now I show you Exhibit No. 1 to the affidavit of Jesse Garner, and I ask you if you recognize the individual in that picture.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And who is that?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, the picture look like that is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it shows him handing out a leaflet?

Mr. BRINGUIER. "Hands Off Cuba."

Mr. LIEBELER. Reading off "Hands Off Cuba," does it not? Does that leaflet look similar to the leaflet you saw Oswald handing out?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you recognize that man obviously as Oswald, don't you?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions at this point, but if you have anything else that you want to add, why, you can go right ahead and do it. You have done most of the testifying without my help and you have done very well.

Mr. BRINGUIER. Thank you. I don't know if you had already the information that the Cuban Student Directorate Headquarters in Miami gave to the press on January 31 about Jack Ruby's second trip to Cuba in 1962.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am not familiar with it offhand. What is it?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, you could check the name and the date of the newspaper. It is the same "Diario Las Americas" from Miami, February 1, 1964, information from the Cuban Student Directorate Headquarters in Miami telling that Jack Ruby went to Cuba at the end of 1962 through Mexico, and he was in Cuba until the beginning of 1963. After that I talked to them by long-distance telephone, long-distance call, and they informed me that they already have turned over to the FBI all the proof about this trip from Ruby going to Cuba.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the name of the person that you spoke to in Miami?

Mr. BRINGUIER. The person to whom I spoke in Miami, his name is Joaquin Martinez de Pinillos.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he indicated that the information concerning Ruby's trip had already been given to the FBI?

Mr. BRINGUIER. To the FBI. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of anything else that you think we should know about at this moment?

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Back on the record. Going back briefly to the time at which you and Oswald and your other friends were arrested and taken to the police station here in New Orleans on August 9, 1963, were you interviewed at the police station by any agent of the FBI?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Well, there were two plain-clothing agents that identified (themselves) as a member of the FBI, I believe, and they were questioning us on the generalities of Oswald and all, and when I was explaining to them and all, they had some kind of confusion sometime because they didn't know if we were Communists, and I had to explain to them three or four times that we were not the Communists and that Oswald was the one that was doing that in favor of Castro.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether they interviewed Oswald?

Mr. BRINGUIER. I think. I thought that they interviewed Oswald, but not in front of me. They were talking to him in front of me, but when they were ready to interview Oswald, they moved to other place to interview him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had to point out to them several times that it was Oswald who was the Castro provocateur, so to say, and not you? Is that correct?

Mr. BRINGUIER. Yes, sir; because they were asking to us in one way as if we were Communists or pro-Castro, and I had to explain to them in three or four different times that we were Cubans but we were not pro-Castro and that we were the ones in the fight against Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no more questions at this time, Mr. Bringuier. If you can't think of anything else that you want to add now--can you think of anything else?

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

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to thank you very much for spending the time that you have with us and for cooperating with us the way you have. You have been very helpful. On behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS L. MARTELLO

The testimony of Francis L. Martello was taken on April 7-8, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Francis L. Martello, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. Staff members have been authorized to take the testimony of witnesses by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963 and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

I understand that Mr. Rankin wrote to you last week advising you that we would be in touch with you concerning the taking of your testimony, and that enclosed with the letter were copies of Executive Order No. 11130, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137, as well as a copy of the rules of procedure adopted by the Commission governing the taking of testimony of witnesses. Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. The general area of our inquiry of you, Lieutenant Martello, relates to the information received by the Commission that you interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald some time in August of 1963 after he had been arrested by the New Orleans Police Department as a result of his activities in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Before I get into the details of that testimony, however, would you please state your full name for the record?

Mr. MARTELLO. Francis L. Martello, lieutenant, New Orleans Police Department.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your residence, sir?

Mr. MARTELLO. 7921 Maple Street, New Orleans, La.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you been with the New Orleans Police Department?

Mr. MARTELLO. Fifteen years and nine months.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born?

Mr. MARTELLO. In New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have resided in New Orleans basically all of your life? Is that right?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What assignments have you had with the New Orleans Police Department generally over the period that you have been----

Mr. MARTELLO. For 6 years I was assigned to patrol, precincts, and districts. For the next 6 years I was assigned as an instructor at the New Orleans Police Academy. For the following 2 years I was the deputy commander of the Intelligence Division of the New Orleans Police Department, and since that time I have been a platoon commander in the First District Police Station.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did there come a time in August of 1963 when you heard or heard of or became acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir. He was arrested on Canal Street on a Friday, the Friday prior to my interview, and upon coming to work on Saturday morning, as a routine matter I checked the arrest records, noted the charge, observed some placards marked as evidence, saw that they were signed by the Fair Play for Cuba [Committee], and decided to interview the person who I later found out was Lee Harvey Oswald, the subject who was arrested.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you subsequently interview Oswald?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this a part of an official investigation conducted by the New Orleans Police Department?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir; it was. It was to ascertain primarily that all parties, all of us law enforcement agencies, that would be interested would be notified; also to ascertain if the various agencies within our department were notified, and also to obtain any information that would be of value to the Department concerning any future demonstrations that this person or persons affiliated with him may perform in the city, so that we would be prepared for such eventualities.

Mr. LIEBELER. At the time you interviewed Oswald, were you acting as platoon commander of the first district?

Mr. MARTELLO. At that time I was the deputy commander of the first district, which was a position whereby I was to assist the captain in all phases of police work involving the first district area.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the first district of the New Orleans Police Department was the district in which this difficulty in which Oswald was involved occurred? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have various headquarters of the New Orleans Police Department broken down by district?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have a station house for the first district and for other districts?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald confined in the stationhouse for the first district at that time?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir. He was confined in the first district, which is located at 501 North Rampart Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make any notes of your interview with Oswald at the time you interviewed him?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir; I did. I made a personal history background investigation, which is a common practice and when dealing with any person affiliated with any organization that demonstrates in the city, and also to attempt to ascertain their ideologies and find out in what area they would most likely demonstrate, on what side of the fence, so to speak, as we call it, and see whether or not they were potential agitators or troublemakers. This would assist the department in planning for future demonstrations by these persons if they so demonstrated.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now after you interviewed Oswald and made these notes, it is my understanding that while you did not prepare a memorandum on your interview at that time, you subsequently, that is, after the assassination, on the basis of the notes you did make at the time you interviewed Oswald, you prepared a memorandum setting forth the results of your interview with Oswald. Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us approximately when you did interview him?

Mr. MARTELLO. [referring to notes]. I interviewed Oswald at 10 a.m. on Saturday, August 10, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been the day following his arrest? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. August 9 would have been a Friday? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes; that is correct. The day of his arrest was on Friday, August 9, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. I also understand that you provided a copy of the memorandum that you did prepare to the FBI? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. Originally--wait--originally I was contacted by the U.S. Secret Service on the morning after the assassination of the President at approximately 3 o'clock in the morning, and I was interviewed concerning what information I had developed at the time of the interview.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember which agent of the Secret Service did talk to you?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes; I remember something like Querie. No; I believe it was Mr. Vial, V-i-a-l, who originally spoke to me, and since that time there were numerous phone calls to my home and at work with various members of the U.S. Secret Service who spoke to me concerning the interview that I had with Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you also turn over to the Secret Service or to the FBI the pamphlets and other materials that had been found in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir. I turned that information over to the Secret Service.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you subsequently prepared the memorandum to which we have already referred, and you provided a copy of that memorandum to the Secret Service or to the FBI? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. [Exhibiting document to witness.] I want to show you a copy of your memorandum, and I will ask you if you yourself have a copy of your memorandum with you.

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a copy of your memorandum and ask you to examine it and tell me whether or not that is a copy of your memorandum. I show you a copy in the form of a report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I call your attention to the fact that it is the report of Special Agent John L. Quigley, which indicates that on November 29, 1963, Agent Quigley did interview you, and he set forth in the memorandum, starting at the bottom of page 1, what purports to be the text of the memorandum which you prepared concerning your interview of Oswald. Would you examine that portion of your report and tell me whether or not that is or appears to you to be a correct copy of the memorandum that you prepared?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. At this point we will physically incorporate into the record the memorandum of Lieutenant Martello, the report to which Lieutenant Martello and I have been referring. I provide the reporter with a copy for that purpose.

(The report referred to by counsel is here made part of the record:)

"About 10 a.m. on Saturday, August 10, 1963, I observed a placard and handbills which had been placed into evidence against an accused person. This placard contained information concerning the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I determined that a subject by the name of LEE HARVEY OSWALD was arrested on Friday, August 9, 1963 when he was passing out handbills on Canal Street and was carrying this placard about his person.

"Prior to being assigned to the First District, I had worked with the Intelligence Unit for two years and since I was generally familiar with various groups and organizations that demonstrate or picket in the city, I decided I would question this individual to see if I could develop any information which would be of value and to ascertain if all interested parties had been notified.

"I requested the doorman to bring LEE HARVEY OSWALD into the interview room. I then took the material which was to be used as evidence into this room. At the same time I reviewed the arrest record on OSWALD and determined that while he was distributing Fair Play for Cuba literature on the street he became involved in a disturbance with CELSO MACARIO HERNANDEZ, CARLOS JOSE BRINGUIER and MIGUEL MARIANO CRUZ.

"When OSWALD was brought into the office, I introduced myself to him as Lieutenant FRANCIS L. MARTELLO and I was in uniform at the time.

"I asked OSWALD if he had any identification papers. At this time OSWALD produced his wallet. Upon my request, he removed the papers and I examined them. He had in his wallet a number of miscellaneous papers, cards and identification items. The only ones that I felt were of any significance were the following, which I made note of:

"1. Social Security Card bearing #433-54-3937 in the name of LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

"2. Selective Service draft card in the name of LEE HARVEY OSWALD bearing #41-114-395-32, classification--4A. (I do not know what draft board was registered with.)

"3. Card bearing name LEE HARVEY OSWALD reflecting he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; address listed as 799 Broadway, New York 3, New York; telephone #ORegon 4-8295, headquarters for Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Card was signed by V. T. LEE, Executive Secretary; card issued 5/28/63.

"4. Card for the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in name of LEE HARVEY OSWALD signed by A. J. HIDELL, Chapter President, issued June 6, 1963.

"The notes of my interview reflect that OSWALD gave his date of birth as October 18, 1938 at New Orleans, Louisiana; that he served three years in the U.S. Marine Corps and stated he was honorably discharged on July 17, 1959 from Santa Ana, California. His wife's name was MARINO PROSSA, a white female, age 21. OSWALD stated he had one daughter, JUNE LEE OSWALD, white female, 17 months of age, and he had been residing at 4907 Magazine Street with his wife and daughter for the past four months. OSWALD said that since 1959 he resided at 4709 Mercedes Street in Fort Worth, Texas and had also lived in Arlington, Texas. OSWALD said his mother's name was MARGARET OSWALD, his father, ROBERT LEE OSWALD, being deceased. He told me he had two brothers, ROBERT OSWALD, living in Fort Worth, Texas, and JOHN OSWALD, Arlington, Texas. He also stated he lived somewhere on Exchange Place in New Orleans but could not remember the address, and that he had attended Beauregard Junior High School and Warren Easton High School, both in New Orleans, and that he attended Riegeala West Elementary School in Fort Worth, Texas. OSWALD told me he had moved to New Orleans from Fort Worth about four months ago.

"When questioned about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, OSWALD stated that he had been a member for three months. I asked how he had become affiliated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and he stated he became interested in that Committee in Los Angeles, California in 1958 while in the U.S. Marine Corps. The facts as to just how he first became interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee while in the Marine Corps are vague, however I recall that he said he had obtained some Fair Play for Cuba Committee literature and had gotten into some difficulty in the Marine Corps for having this literature.

"OSWALD was asked how many members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee were in the New Orleans Chapter and he stated there were 35. I asked him to identify the members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans and he refused to give names of the members or any identifying data regarding them. OSWALD was asked why he refused and he said that this was a minority group holding unpopular views at this time and it would not be beneficial to them if he gave their names. OSWALD was asked approximately how many people attended meetings of the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and he said approximately five attended the meetings, which were held once a month. He was asked where and he said at various places in the city. He was asked specifically at what addresses or locations were the meetings held and stated that the meetings were held on Pine Street. He was asked at whose residence the meetings were held and he refused to give any further information. It should be noted at this time during prior investigation conducted, while I was a member of the Intelligence Unit, information was developed that Fair Play for Cuba Committee literature was found in the 1000 block of Pine Street, New Orleans, which was near the residence of Dr. LEONARD REISSMAN, a professor at Tulane University. This investigation was conducted by me.

"As I remember, Dr. REISSMAN was reported to be a member of the New Orleans Council of Peaceful Alternatives which is a 'ban the bomb' group recently established in the city and had conducted meetings and two or three demonstrations in the city. Knowing that Dr. REISSMAN was reportedly a member of the New Orleans Council of Peaceful Alternatives I thought there might be a tie between this organization and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

"When OSWALD stated that meetings of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had been held on Pine Street, the name of Dr. REISSMAN came to mind. I asked OSWALD if he knew Dr. REISSMAN or if he held meetings at Dr. REISSMAN's house. OSWALD did not give me a direct answer to this question, however I gathered from the expression on his face and what appeared to be an immediate nervous reaction that there was possibly a connection between Dr. REISSMAN and OSWALD; this, however, is purely an assumption on my own part and I have nothing on which to base this. I also asked OSWALD if he knew a Dr. FORREST E. LA VIOLETTE, a professor at Tulane University. I asked him this question because I remembered that LA VIOLETTE allegedly had possession of Fair Play for Cuba literature during the year 1962. I cannot remember any further details about this nor do I have any information that he is or was connected with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. OSWALD became very evasive in his answers and would not divulge any information concerning the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, where the group met, or the identities of the members.

"OSWALD was then asked what religion he practiced and he stated he was a Lutheran and also that he was presently unemployed but had worked at William B. Reily Coffee Company, New Orleans, about three months, working on heavy machinery and earned $60 per week. He worked from May to July 17, 1963 at that company. He further stated that he had worked for Jax Brewery approximately 1-1/2 months ago.

"I asked him again about the members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans and why the information was such a big secret; that if had nothing to hide, he would give me the information. OSWALD said one of the members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans was named 'John' and that this individual went to Tulane University. He refused to give any more information concerning the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans.

"Since he did not appear to be particularly receptive at this time, the interview was concluded and he was returned to the cell block. Prior to entering the cell block, OSWALD was again allowed to use the telephone.

"Several hours later after OSWALD was interviewed by a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a white female came to the station and identified herself as Mrs. MURAT, who stated she was a relative of OSWALD and lived on France Street. She stated she wanted to know the charge against OSWALD and I told her, explaining to her the procedure whereby OSWALD could be released. She became very reluctant to become involved in the release of OSWALD as she stated since he was involved with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, she did not want to get mixed up with it in any way. I spoke to her concerning OSWALD's background and she stated OSWALD had a hard time coming up insofar as his family life was concerned and she felt that this had a direct bearing on his actions and that he had gone to Russia and stayed over there for a few years; he married while in Russia and came back to the United States with his wife. She stated OSWALD did not allow anything but Russian to be spoken in his home. She was asked why he did not allow English to be spoken and she related she had spoken to OSWALD'S wife about this and she said this was his desire. She further stated she had asked OSWALD'S wife if she liked America and the wife answered 'Yes I do' but said her husband (OSWALD) did not like America. I did not question her any further.

"After Mrs. MURAT left, I decided to further question OSWALD and had him again brought out of the cell to me. I then asked if he had given me all of the needed information about his background and he said he had. I asked him if he lived in Russia and he stated that somebody had told me this. He then admitted he had lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, going there by 'slow boat to Europe.' I asked him how he got over there and he related he left Fort Worth, Texas, stayed in New Orleans a few days and then took the 'slow boat to Europe.' He took a tour of Europe and wound up in Russia. He lived in Moscow and Minsk, Russia and told me he lived there from October, 1959 to July, 1962. I asked him if his wife was Russian and he said yes. He said her true name was MARINO PROSSA and that it was an abbreviation of her name, MARINO PROSSAKAYA; he said she was an alien M-1. I then asked him if he was a communist and he said he was not. I asked him if he was a socialist and he said 'guilty.' We then spoke at length concerning the philosophies of communism, socialism and America. He said he was in full accord with the book, Das Kapital, which book was written by KARL MARX. I know that this book condemns the American way of government in entirety. I asked him if he thought that the communist way of life was better than the American way of life and he replied there was not true communism in Russia. He said that Marx was a socialist and although communism is attributed to MARX, that MARX was not a communist but a socialist. He stated this was the reason he did not consider himself to be a communist. I asked him what his opinion was of the form of communism in Russia since he had lived there for two years and he replied 'It stunk.' He said they have 'fat stinking politicians over there just like we have over here' and that they do not follow the great concepts of KARL MARX, that the leaders have everything and the people are still poor and depressed. I asked OSWALD why he would not allow members of his family to learn English as this would be required to educate his children and communicate with people. He stated the reason why he did this was because he hated America and he did not want them to become 'Americanized' and that his plans were to go back to Russia. He stated he had already applied to the State Department for a visa to go back by using the excuse that his wife was a Russian. I asked him what he thought about President JOHN F. KENNEDY and NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV. He said he thought they got along very well together. I then asked him if he had to place allegiance or make a decision between Russia or America, which he would choose and he said 'I would place my allegiance at the foot of democracy.' I then asked him if he would consider himself a 'student of the world,' explaining that I meant by this a person who attempts to find a Utopia on earth and that he said he could be classified as such an individual. I asked him if he had any religious convictions and whether he believed in God since KARL MARX did not believe in God. I was trying to find out if he was an atheist. His answer to me was that he was christened as a Lutheran but that he has not followed any religion since youth. I asked him if he was an agnostic and he said he could be classified 'as a Marxist in his beliefs.' I then spoke to him about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee again and asked him if he knew that CASTRO had admitted that he was a Marxist-Leninist and he said he did. He was then asked if he truly believed CASTRO was really interested in the welfare of the Cuban people and he replied that he was not going to discuss the merits and demerits of CASTRO but was primarily concerned with the poor people of Cuba and that if this country would have good relations with the poor people of Cuba and quit worrying about CASTRO, that was his main concern; he stated this was the reason he was interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

"OSWALD was then returned to the cell block.

"I then took my notes, along with several copies of the literature of OSWALD, and placed them in a file folder, in the file cabinet.

"The day after the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY, Mr. ADRIAN G. VIAL, U.S. Secret Service, who had spoken to me earlier at about 3 a.m. Saturday morning, November 23, 1963, wherein he had obtained information regarding my interview with OSWALD, came to the First District Station on Saturday, November 23, 1963 at about 3 p.m. and told me the Secret Service was conducting an official investigation regarding the assassination of the President of the United States. At the outset of the interview I got out the original file folder on LEE HARVEY OSWALD, opened it and gave Mr. VIAL all of the literature I had obtained from OSWALD, which consisted of some pamphlets, leaflets and booklets put out by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee headquarters. Upon going through these pamphlets I discovered a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD which appeared to be a passport photograph, and a small piece of white paper containing handwritten notes on same. This photograph and paper had inadvertently become misplaced with the literature during the interview I had with OSWALD. This piece of paper, which was folded over twice and was about 2" by 3" in size, contained some English writing and some writing which appeared to me to be in a foreign language which I could not identify. Before I gave this paper to Mr. VIAL, I made a copy of the information, which is as follows: [See Commission Exhibit No. 827.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form an opinion during the time that you interviewed Oswald as to whether or not he was telling you the truth about the matters that you questioned him about and reported in your memorandum?

Mr. MARTELLO. He did give me the impression that--in the majority of the interview--that it was the truth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now specifically--off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. In your report you indicated that Oswald told you that he had become interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Los Angeles, Calif., in 1958 while in the U.S. Marine Corps. Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have the feeling that he was telling you the truth about that particular aspect of the interview, or do you have any recollection as to that specific aspect of it?

Mr. MARTELLO. I wouldn't know exactly, to my recollection, whether or not he was being truthful in that particular area.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the next paragraph--go ahead--are you through?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the next paragraph of your report, you indicate that Oswald told you that there were about 35 members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee here in New Orleans. Did you have any reason to question that statement?

Mr. MARTELLO. I didn't believe it was a true statement because of the fact that there was very little activity, to my knowledge, of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the city of New Orleans, and since it was such a new organization, or which appeared to me to be a new organization in the city, it didn't seem likely there would be 35 members in the community.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever become aware of the existence of any other member of the group in New Orleans----

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Other than Oswald?

Mr. MARTELLO. No; other than information that had been developed that there were some possible connections. However, there was no basis in fact that any other person, to my knowledge, was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. This particular man, Oswald, was the first person that I have come in contact with that I knew for a fact stated he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Mr. LIEBELER. He is not only the first person you came in contact with who indicated he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but he is the only one that you ever saw or heard of in the city of New Orleans? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. After this affair with Oswald, as far as you know, there was no other activity by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. The only other activity that I could recall was a passing out of leaflets. Again this was by Oswald, and that was the only other time I have known of any activities by this group.

Mr. LIEBELER. You know that Oswald appeared on a radio program broadcast over WDSU and appeared briefly on a television broadcast over the same station in connection with his activities?

Mr. MARTELLO. I have read an account in the local newspaper to that effect. However, I did not hear the radio broadcast or see the TV program.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that account in the paper before or after the assassination? Do you remember?

Mr. MARTELLO. That was before the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your report refers to a professor at Tulane University by the name of Dr. Leonard Reissman. Did the department, to your knowledge, conduct any investigation of Dr. Reissman in an attempt to associate him with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or to determine whether or not he was associated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee here in New Orleans?

Mr. MARTELLO. Not to my knowledge, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any personal knowledge of the background of Dr. Reissman, other than as set forth in your memorandum?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know what he teaches at Tulane University?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Further on in your report there is a reference to another professor at Tulane by the name of La Violette, and you indicate on that you had some recollection that this professor allegedly had possession of Fair Play for Cuba literature in 1962. Do you remember any of the details of that?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there any investigation conducted of this particular professor in an attempt to determine whether he was associated with Oswald in any way?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; there was not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald indicate to you in any way that he himself knew either of these two professors or any other professor at Tulane University, or had ever had anything to do with them or with other professors?

Mr. MARTELLO. He did not indicate by name, but there was a meeting place on Pine Street, the 1000 block of Pine Street in New Orleans, where there were meetings held.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is meetings of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of meetings?

Mr. MARTELLO. Just meetings by other groups. There was no indication of any names, but I had asked him if he held his meetings on Pine Street, and he reflected--only in gesture--that there was some, or appeared to be some, connection between the two, but it is mere speculation upon my part.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't indicate one way or the other, directly or indirectly, that this was the case?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. From your memorandum it appears that Oswald told you that he had worked for the Jax Brewery about 1-1/2 months prior to the time of the interview. Did you make any check with the Jax Brewing Co. to determine whether or not this was a true statement?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are unable to state at this time whether it is true or false that Oswald worked at the Jax Brewery?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir. I am unable to state that as a fact.

Mr. LIEBELER. You also indicate that you terminated your interview with Oswald, and he was permitted to use the telephone, apparently as a result of which a Mrs. Murat--spelled M-u-r-a-t in the memorandum, but I believe it is correctly spelled M-u-r-r-e-t----

Mr. MARTELLO. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Appeared at the station. Did you personally talk to this woman who came to the station?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir; I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you set forth in your memorandum the statements made by Mrs. Murret and the position that she took with regard to this whole thing, and that is a correct summary of the events that occurred with regard to Mrs. Murret, is it not?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any impression of this woman's feelings about Oswald or her attitude toward this whole event?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir; I did. She gave me the impression that she wanted to help him and she didn't want to become involved, due to the affiliation, as he stated he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba, and she was leery on becoming involved in obtaining his release. I explained to her the release procedure whereby, if she desired to assist him in being released from jail by parole or bond and she didn't want to become involved in the release procedure--but she did give me the impression that she was interested in him, as a relative, I imagine.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not she subsequently did involve herself in Oswald's release?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I did not know if she did become involved in his release. I don't think she did, because during the second interview with Lee Harvey Oswald I allowed him to use the telephone in the captain's office where he called someone, some male, white male, or some male. I don't know who he spoke to, but obviously his attempt to get any assistance from Mrs. Murret was unsuccessful.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Murret also told you that Oswald had at one time been in the Soviet Union, did she not?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then you subsequently questioned Oswald concerning this matter, did you?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And in your memorandum you indicate that you had asked Oswald what his opinion was of the form of communism in Russia, and he replied that it stunk? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. That did in fact occur? Is that right?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald indicate to you any other attitudes that he had toward the Soviet Union, or did he particularize or go into more detail as to why he was dissatisfied with his stay in the Soviet Union?

Mr. MARTELLO. Other than what I have in the memorandum where he stated that the people were still poor and depressed and that the present form of communism was not what it should be, the ideals, as he stated, were not in fact the true conditions in Russia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now your memorandum also indicates that you asked Oswald why he would not permit members of his family to learn the English language, and the memorandum indicates that Oswald said the reason why he did not so permit them was because he hated America and he did not want his family to become Americanized since he planned to go back to Russia. Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Oswald did tell you that, did he not?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. We have down here a statement, on the one hand, that as far as Oswald is concerned the system in Russia, to use his word, "stunk," and, on the other hand, he said that he hated America and had indicated a desire to return to Russia. Do you remember how he presented these ideas, and did he seem to be equally convinced as to both these propositions, or did he display any emotion concerning either one of these propositions, or just what was his general attitude?

Mr. MARTELLO. His general attitude was, he stated that he believed in a socialistic form of government and that in choosing between America and Russia, he gave me the impression that he would choose the lesser of the two evils, in his opinion.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate which, in his opinion, was the lesser of the two evils?

Mr. MARTELLO. From the way he spoke, the impression I received, it appeared to me that he felt that Russia was the lesser of the two evils.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he express this idea with great forcefulness, or just sort of a "pox on both your houses" fashion, that really it was just too ridiculous, and that sort of thing?

Mr. MARTELLO. With a nonchalant attitude. He was a very cool speaker. I don't know too much of his formal education. I read an account in the newspaper about it, but from the way he spoke, it was quite obvious that he had done a heck of a lot of reading in his lifetime, and his approach was academic, more or less theories but with no aggressiveness or emotional outbursts in any way, shape, or form. It was just a very calm conversation we had, and there was no emotion involved whatsoever.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he show any hesitancy about expressing these ideas to you as a member of the police department?

Mr. MARTELLO. None whatsoever, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't seem to be bothered by you or afraid of you, or anything like that?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; none whatsoever. I generally try to establish a rapport with any group that would demonstrate in the city, which was one of the objectives I had with Oswald. If in the future he would demonstrate, why, I could speak to him. It is a lot easier when you know somebody than when you don't, and they may comply with a request rather than the ultimates of the law.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, your memorandum also indicates that you asked Oswald what he thought about President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev, and the memorandum also indicates that Oswald said that he thought they got along very well together. What was his attitude when he made that remark? Tell us as much as you can remember of the background of that aspect of your conversation.

Mr. MARTELLO. The reason I asked that question was again to get his feelings on where his loyalty would rest between America and Russia, and it was just another way of asking the same question. He gave me the impression that he seemed to favor President Kennedy more than he did Khrushchev in his statement. This is unusual, and I couldn't quite understand his reason for this reaction, as all of his thoughts seemed to go into the direction of the Socialist or Russian way of life, but he showed in his manner of speaking that he liked the President, the impression I got, or, if he didn't like him, of the two he disliked, he disliked the President the least. He is a very peculiar type of an individual, which is typical of quite a few of the many demonstrators that I have handled during the period of 2 years while in the Intelligence Division. They seemed to be trying to find themselves or something. I am not expert in the field or anything, not trying to go out of my bounds, but quite a few of them, after lengthy interviews you find that they have some peculiarities about their thinking that does not follow logically with their movements or their action.

Mr. LIEBELER. And this attitude that Oswald demonstrated toward the President is an example of that sort of thing? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. It didn't seem to fit in with the rest of his statements?

Mr. MARTELLO. Didn't seem to fit in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember any more specifically or in any more detail just what the conversation concerning Kennedy was?

Mr. MARTELLO. It would only be vaguely at this time, but it was in the general areas of leadership of the President in comparison to the leadership of Khrushchev, how each was leading the various countries, and again an analogy or comparison of the two forms of government, which one he thought was running it the best, but we didn't go into this at any great length.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, your recollection is quite clear that, in spite of the fact that Oswald demonstrated a general inclination to favor the Soviet Union and its institutions, he did in spite of that indicate a preference for President Kennedy as opposed to Premier Khrushchev?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that he in no way demonstrated any animosity or ill feelings toward President Kennedy?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; he did not. At no time during the interview with Oswald did he demonstrate any type of aggressiveness in any way, shape, or form, other than his demonstration on Canal Street with the picket sign.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you consider whether Oswald was prone to violence or was a violent kind of person?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I did not, for the simple reason that when he had made the friendship of the people with the anti-Castro groups in the city and offered them assistance, and when they saw him on Canal Street with pro-Castro signs they became insulting and abusive to the point of becoming violent toward him, and he never reacted to the action that was being directed toward him.

Mr. LIEBELER. These anti-Castro characters attempted to provoke Oswald into some kind of physical conflict, did they not, as a matter of fact?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he didn't respond?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you eventually learn what became of this case, how it was disposed of in court?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir; the next day, the following Monday. The following Monday I went to court, Municipal Court, and I heard the evidence in the case. He was charged--all of them were charged with creating a scene, which is a typical municipal charge used in minor disturbances. It expedites everything much nicer, and there was no--there wasn't any detailed information given other than what he was charged with. The judge found him guilty and gave him, I believe, $10 or 10 days, or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether Oswald pleaded guilty or not guilty?

Mr. MARTELLO. I do not remember, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Cubans who were involved in it were released without any fine or any punishment, were they not?

Mr. MARTELLO. I do not remember, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't have any occasion to discuss this thing with Oswald after the case had been disposed of?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir. That was all there was to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there any other reason that you didn't regard Oswald as a violent kind of person, other than the one that you mentioned concerning his failure to respond to the provocation of the Cubans?

Mr. MARTELLO. He did not impress me at the time I interviewed him as a violent person by any of the responses to questions, by observing his physical makeup. Not in any way, shape, or form did he appear to me as being violent in any way. He displayed very little emotion and was completely unconcerned and aloof. Off the record?

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. When you subsequently heard that Oswald had been arrested in connection with the assassination, were you surprised?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir; I was, I was very much surprised.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us----

Mr. MARTELLO. Because he did not give me the impression of being a violent individual. He was a very passive type of an individual.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have had experience with other pickets here in New Orleans on several questions, and have you run into people who demonstrated a passivity in the face of provocation before?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald appear to be this kind of person?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes, sir; he did, with one extension of the incident with the Cubans. Although he was passive in his demonstration, he seemed to have set them up, so to speak, to create an incident, but when the incident occurred he remained absolutely peaceful and gentle.

Mr. LIEBELER. You just didn't think at the time you heard that Oswald had been arrested in connection with the assassination that he would have been capable of performing that act? Or did you have an opinion on that question?

Mr. MARTELLO. Well, as far as being capable of an act, I guess everybody is capable of an act, but as far as ever dreaming or thinking that Oswald would do what it is alleged that he has done, I would bet my head on a chopping block that he wouldn't do it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You just wouldn't have been able to predict that this guy would have done something like that?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And such an act would appear to you to be entirely inconsistent with the attitude demonstrated to you while you knew him here in New Orleans? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. Absolutely correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicate in your memorandum that you went through your notes and the other materials that were collected at the time Oswald was arrested, and you found a photograph of Oswald and a small piece of white paper containing certain handwritten notes, which is attached to the report that we have. There is a photostatic copy of a sheet of paper with handwritten notes, and I ask you whether or not that is a photostatic copy of the paper that you found in the material you have just described?

Mr. MARTELLO. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the original of this was taken from Oswald at the time of his arrest? Is that correct?

Mr. MARTELLO. It wasn't actually taken from him. Due to the amount of material he had in his possession, and upon Oswald taking various credentials and identification cards out, it was left--it was inadvertently picked up with the literature, and I put it in a file folder and it remained there. I thought no more of it. He had already been interviewed by the intelligence division of our department. It was just by coincidence that I kept the notes. Normally I would have discarded them.

Mr. LIEBELER. You turned the original of the paper that was kept over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, did you not?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I turned the original paper over to the United States Secret Service along with the pamphlets, all of the pamphlets.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you know, the Secret Service still has that material?

Mr. MARTELLO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did you become involved in any other questioning of Oswald or investigation of Oswald, or did you become involved in anything else having anything to do with Oswald back in August of 1963 other than what we have already talked about?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I did not see him but one more time, and that was when he went to court, and that was the last time I saw him. The only times I spoke to him was the times that we had mentioned during the interview.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you present at any time when Oswald may have been interviewed by other officers or personnel of the police department?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I was not. I understand that he was interviewed at the time of his arrest by members of the intelligence division of the New Orleans Police Department.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you interview any of the Cubans that were arrested at the same time Oswald was arrested?

Mr. MARTELLO. No, sir; I did not. I believe the Cubans were paroled. That is it, they were paroled.

Mr. LIEBELER. After the assassination, did the New Orleans Police Department, to your knowledge, engage in any investigation concerning Oswald or his prior activities in New Orleans?

Mr. MARTELLO. Not to my knowledge, sir. They may have, but at that time I was in the First District, assigned to the First District, and I wouldn't know if they had conducted any further investigations.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of anything that you think the Commission ought to know about that is within your knowledge, that I haven't asked you about or we haven't covered so far? If you can I would like to have you indicate it so that we could have the benefit of it.

Mr. MARTELLO. I think you did a very good job on me. I don't think there are any questions that haven't been answered.

Mr. LIEBELER. In view of that, I have no other questions at this point. I do want to thank you, Lieutenant Martello, for the cooperation you have shown to us, and on behalf of the Commission I want to thank you very sincerely for your coming here and giving the testimony that you have given. Thank you very much.

Mr. MARTELLO. Thank you, sir.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES HALL STEELE, JR.

The testimony of Charles Hall Steele, Jr., was taken on April 7, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Charles Hall Steele, Jr., 1488 Madrid Street, New Orleans, La., after first being duly sworn, testified as follows:

Mr. JENNER. You are Charles Hall Steele, Jr., is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your address is 1488 Madrid Street here in New Orleans?

Mr. STEELE. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. And is that spelled S-T-E-E-L-E?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I am Albert E. Jenner, Jr., attorney on the legal staff on the President's Commission, investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination last November of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Did you receive a letter from Mr. Rankin, general counsel for the Commission?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And enclosed with that letter were Senate Joint Resolution 137, which authorized the creation of the Commission to investigate the assassination of the late President; is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And the Executive Order No. 11130 of President Lyndon B. Johnson, appointing that Commission and fixing its powers and duties. That was enclosed also in the letter?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And a copy of the rules and regulations under which we take testimony, both before the Commission and also by way of deposition, such as in this instance. You received that also?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you have appeared here voluntarily today, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. From those papers that you received, did you become aware of the purpose for the existence of the President's Commission, that it is enjoined by legislation to investigate the circumstances and all the facts relating to the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the 22d of November 1963, and the subsequent death and murder of Lee Harvey Oswald on the 24th of November 1963?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. We of the legal staff are questioning various people, sometimes before the Commission and sometimes in private depositions, such as this one, who in the ordinary course of their lifetime touched the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, or someone in his family, the facts of which might help the Commission in its ultimate determination of this tragedy, and we understand that you are one of those who came into contact with Lee Harvey Oswald during the time he lived in New Orleans; is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. First, are you a native born American?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Here in New Orleans?

Mr. STEELE. In New Orleans; yes.

Mr. JENNER. And your father likewise is a native born American, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In Louisiana?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your mother?

Mr. STEELE. From New Orleans, La.

Mr. JENNER. How old are you?

Mr. STEELE. Twenty.

Mr. JENNER. Are you a student?

Mr. STEELE. Well, that's hard to say. I haven't graduated or got my diploma yet from Delgado. However, I finished a course up there, and they let me out.

Mr. JENNER. Delgado--is that a trade school?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are you working part time or what?

Mr. STEELE. I was working part time and going to school. I was working after school, and then after they let me out I started to work full time. However, right now, I am waiting to go into the service.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know a young lady by the name of Charlene Stouff?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is she a friend of yours?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall an occasion when you accompanied her to the employment service office?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When was that?

Mr. STEELE. As to the date I couldn't say, but that's the date they took films of me passing out leaflets.

Mr. JENNER. On Canal Street?

Mr. STEELE. Well, not on Canal Street; it was in front of the Trade Mart Building.

Mr. JENNER. What street is the Trade Mart Building on?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I don't know the street offhand. I know where it is. I have been there many times for different things; it's down the street from Canal Street, just one block.

Mr. JENNER. You say you have been there many times?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; buying wholesale stuff for my father, and all.

Mr. JENNER. How did you become involved in that passing out literature business?

Mr. STEELE. Well, she had to take this test for the school board building.

Mr. JENNER. She did?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You are talking about Charlene Stouff?

Mr. STEELE. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. For what purpose did she have to take this test?

Mr. STEELE. Applying for a job.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of a job?

Mr. STEELE. Secretary of some sort; I don't know exactly what job that was to be.

Mr. JENNER. And you accompanied her?

Mr. STEELE. Well, she asked me if I would drive her down there, and I drove her down.

Mr. JENNER. Was this the U.S. Employment Service?

Mr. STEELE. I couldn't say. It's the one on Canal Street, approximately in the 500 block, I think.

Mr. JENNER. All right, proceed; tell me all about it, what happened, and everything.

Mr. STEELE. To tell you the truth, I never thought any more about it until Mr. Rice came to see me, but I was just sitting around there and had about an hour to kill more or less. I was there a good while waiting for her.

Mr. JENNER. You were waiting for her to take the test?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right, what happened?

Mr. STEELE. This gentleman came up and introduced himself to me.

Mr. JENNER. What did he look like?

Mr. STEELE. It was Oswald, he turned out to be. He introduced himself and asked me if I would like to make a couple of dollars.

Mr. JENNER. Did he introduce himself as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I couldn't tell you that. I presume he did, but that's only presumption on my part. I don't remember names too well; just faces, and that's about all, so then after he asked me if I would like to make some money, I asked him, "Doing what?" and he said, "Passing out these leaflets in front of the Trade Mart Building," and I said, "About how long will it take?" and he said, "About 15 or 20 minutes at the most." I figured $2 for 20 minutes, and I am going on vacation next week, that could come in handy, and so I said, "All right," that I would go over there and do it, and so in the meantime Charlene had come back. She had finished her test, and she had to go back to the school board building to see some guy that she saw before about the job, so I brought her over to that gentleman, and then I went back over to the Trade Mart Building, where he and another fellow came up, and he handed me these leaflets, so I just started passing them out.

Mr. JENNER. Did you look at them before you started passing them out?

Mr. STEELE. No; I didn't look at them. I have walked down Canal Street myself a lot of times, and somebody has handed me a leaflet like that, and I just take it, and most of the time I just throw it in the nearest trash can; I don't read them.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have a sign, or was anybody carrying a sign there?

Mr. STEELE. No; but these pictures that Mr. Rice showed me, the FBI agent, I saw myself on those, and there was a gentleman in the rear who was also passing out leaflets, and I never saw him at the time I was there, but he's in the pictures.

Mr. JENNER. What did he look like, this man who was there also passing out leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I shouldn't say this, I guess, but he was sort of Cuban looking, like that.

Mr. JENNER. Olive skinned, do you mean?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; olive skinned, but he was back in the rear, passing out leaflets, and I never did even see him.

Mr. JENNER. And this man, Oswald, who asked you to pass out the leaflets for 15 or 20 minutes, was he also passing out the leaflets at the same time?

Mr. STEELE. I never noticed.

Mr. JENNER. Did you notice whether he was there, or whether he remained there after he gave you these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. Oh, he was there. In fact, he had leaflets in his hand.

Mr. JENNER. Do you think he was passing them out?

Mr. STEELE. I guess so, but, I mean, to say that he was just standing there passing them out, I didn't pay any attention to that. I was just trying to get mine passed out and get my $2 and leave. I didn't even look at him after a few minutes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you more or less walk up and down in front of the building passing out these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. More or less. I figured the sooner I got rid of them the sooner I could leave, so that's all I was interested in doing.

Mr. JENNER. Did anybody talk to you about it, or say what the purpose of this was?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did anybody protest that you were passing out leaflets of which they disapproved?

Mr. STEELE. Nobody. As a matter of fact, I didn't have any trouble getting rid of them. The people just sort of grabbed them as they passed by. It was just something free, you know, and I guess there's always a feeling that when you get something free you might as well take it.

Mr. JENNER. What time of day did you go into the unemployment office with your girl friend?

Mr. STEELE. Before 12, possibly 11 or 11:30; I don't remember that.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember the conversation with your girl friend when you told her that you were going to pass out these leaflets in front of this building?

Mr. STEELE. No; she was just saying she had to go back to the school board building to see this guy.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any discussion with her as to whether she would accompany you?

Mr. STEELE. Accompany me where?

Mr. JENNER. Accompany you to where you were going to pass out these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you drive her somewhere before you went back to pass out these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. To the school board building.

Mr. JENNER. The Orleans parish school board?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you return there and pick her up?

Mr. STEELE. I returned there, but I didn't pick her up. I don't know what happened, but I missed her somehow.

Mr. JENNER. You say Lee Oswald told you it would take 15 or 20 minutes to pass out these leaflets. What time did you get back to pass them out after you had taken your girl friend to the school board building?

Mr. STEELE. I don't know what time it was, but I figure I was in front of the Trade Mart Building about 15 minutes--12 or 15 minutes; I think it was about 25 after 12, maybe 20 minutes after, when I got there. It only takes a few minutes to get from the school board building down to the Trade Mart. I had to be to work for 2 o'clock.

Mr. JENNER. You had to go to work that afternoon, that this happened?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; I had to be at work at 2 o'clock that afternoon. Later on that night she called me and told me that my picture was on television.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see her before she came to see you about your picture being on television?

Mr. STEELE. No; I saw her later.

Mr. JENNER. You saw her later that night?

Mr. STEELE. I don't think any more that night; I think it was the next day.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have a conversation with her about passing out these leaflets.

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say to her and what did she say to you?

Mr. STEELE. She told me that I was in trouble, that there was some kind of a deal on television about passing out these leaflets or something, and from what she had read before, it sounded like communism, or something. Now, I had taken a course in high school on that, so I knew a little bit about that, so I thought I had better tell my boss about it, which I did.

Mr. JENNER. You told your boss about it?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; after I had that talk with her, when she told me I was in trouble.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember what time it was she called you and told you about this being on television?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I know it was after 6 o'clock.

Mr. JENNER. That same day, when this occurred?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; it was that same night.

Mr. JENNER. And then you told your boss about it?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That same night?

Mr. STEELE. That same night.

Mr. JENNER. Who was your boss?

Mr. STEELE. Henry Muller.

Mr. JENNER. Henry Muller?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I think it was Alfred Muller.

Mr. JENNER. Alfred Muller?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, I think that's Henry's brother.

Mr. JENNER. What did your girl friend say when you had this discussion with her, to the effect that this literature might be communistic, or whatever it was she said? Was she alarmed?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, she was pretty excited, but we never really discussed it. I just told her I didn't know a thing about it, that I just made $2 by passing these leaflets out, but I didn't know what it was all about.

Mr. JENNER. But she did think you were in trouble?

Mr. STEELE. Well, from what she saw on television, she thought I was.

Mr. JENNER. What was your reaction?

Mr. STEELE. I got a little scared and worried, and so I called the FBI and told them about it.

Mr. JENNER. You called the FBI right away?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall some pictures being taken during that time you were passing out this literature?

Mr. STEELE. At the time, when I noticed the cameras, that's when I looked down at the leaflets to see what I was passing out.

Mr. JENNER. That's when you really took an interest in these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. Yes. That's when I looked at one of them and saw what it was.

Mr. JENNER. Did you go and call the TV station?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; I called three of them. One of them didn't know anything about it.

Mr. JENNER. Why did you call the TV stations?

Mr. STEELE. To get my picture off of the television.

Mr. JENNER. Had you told your father in the meantime?

Mr. STEELE. No; I called him, but they were out to dinner. They had gone to Camp Leroy Johnson, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any trouble during the time you were passing out these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Nobody tried to interfere with your passing them out?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Nobody was arrested?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. The police didn't come?

Mr. STEELE. No. I think you are talking about a different occasion now. I didn't know anything about that at the time, not until I was in the Federal Building, and they said something about it.

Mr. JENNER. You say somebody else was helping pass out these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Was it somebody that walked up with Oswald?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. But when you arrived on the scene, he was not there, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Do you mean Oswald?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; and this man that walked up with him.

Mr. STEELE. No; I waited for him.

Mr. JENNER. For Oswald?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; I waited for him maybe a minute, or a few seconds--I don't know how long it was, but it wasn't long.

Mr. JENNER. And then he came?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And somebody was accompanying him?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you know that man?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was he introduced to you?

Mr. STEELE. He was introduced to me, but I don't remember him.

Mr. JENNER. Did you eventually look at these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; after a few minutes. When I saw the cameras, I got suspicious then and looked at one of them.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have two supplies of these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me the circumstances. About how many had you given out at the time you quit?

Mr. STEELE. I had given out one supply and had gone back, and he had handed me some more, and at that time I seen the cameras, and that's when I looked to see what I was passing out.

Mr. JENNER. Looked at these leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; at the leaflets.

Mr. JENNER. All right, and then what happened?

Mr. STEELE. Well, it didn't sound right to me. I don't remember exactly what it said, but it said something about keeping hands off of Cuba, or something like that, and it just didn't sound right, and I knew that we were on bad terms with Cuba.

Mr. JENNER. What did you do then?

Mr. STEELE. I told Oswald that I didn't want any more to do with it, and I wasn't going to pass out any more leaflets, and he said, "Well, all right," and he gave me the $2, and I left.

Mr. JENNER. He didn't pursue it any further?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. But he went ahead and gave you the $2; is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; and then I walked off.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any leaflets left when you left the scene?

Mr. STEELE. No. I got rid of the ones I had left.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember telling the FBI that you threw the remainder of the leaflets in a trash can there at the scene?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; I threw what I had left in the trash can. I mean, when I left there, I didn't have any with me.

Mr. JENNER. You threw the remaining leaflets away that you had?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir; I threw them in the trash can around there some place, but after leaving that spot, you know. I mean, the can wasn't right there where I was passing them out.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any conversation with Oswald about whether these leaflets were or were not communistic in nature?

Mr. STEELE. I did ask him if they were communistic, and he said they were not. He said they were from an organization affiliated with Tulane University, or something to that effect, of somehow being connected with Tulane. I believe I had asked him something about the leaflets before, and he told me about them being connected with Tulane--some connection there. I don't remember exactly what he said, but I do remember him telling me about that, you know, the other time I asked him, and so then I told him I didn't want any more to do with it, and he gave me the $2.

Mr. JENNER. He did persist in your continuing to pass them out?

Mr. STEELE. No; he didn't.

Mr. JENNER. Did he deny they had any connection with communism, in so many words?

Mr. STEELE. He denied that; yes, sir. He didn't really say what it was for.

Mr. JENNER. He just said it was from an organization connected with Tulane University?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. But that didn't reassure you, did it?

Mr. STEELE. No: it didn't. It made me stop and wonder though if it was or wasn't, but then I didn't think any more about it.

Mr. JENNER. Anyhow, you didn't want any more to do with it once you saw the cameras, did you?

Mr. STEELE. No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER. And you got your $2, which was the price agreed on, and you left, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. This man that came along with Oswald, have you ever seen him since then?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever seen him before that time?

Mr. STEELE. No; I never did.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any conversation between Oswald and the man he brought along with him that you might have overheard?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of the connection between them, if any?

Mr. STEELE. The same as mine. He was getting them out of this unemployment place, just like he did me.

Mr. JENNER. When you first went into this unemployment place, did you notice Oswald in there at that time?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first notice him?

Mr. STEELE. When he came up to me and asked me if I wanted to make a couple of dollars.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me about that, when you first noticed him--when he approached you, and what he said. First, how was he dressed, if you remember?

Mr. STEELE. He had on a white shirt and tie and black pants, and he had a little briefcase with him, I think.

Mr. JENNER. Probably containing a supply of these leaflets, do you think?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But he had a little briefcase that you saw, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; he had a briefcase with him.

Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of the name Hidell--A. J. Hidell?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. You have never heard of him?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. What did the FBI say to you after you talked to them?

Mr. STEELE. That night?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STEELE. They told me they couldn't do anything about keeping my picture off of television, and that the best thing for me to do would be to call the stations and tell them about it, and ask them to keep my picture off.

Mr. JENNER. All right now; have you told me everything you know about this incident?

Mr. STEELE. As far as I remember.

Mr. JENNER. And everything as far as your participation in this is concerned?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did Oswald ever contact you again to pass out any more leaflets?

Mr. STEELE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did anyone ever contact you on his behalf and ask you to pass out leaflets at all?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. I'm going to show you some pictures that are marked Pizzo Exhibits Nos. 453-A and 453-B, and Exhibit No. 1, Deposition, Carlos Bringuier, April 7, 1964. Disregarding the various arrows and marks, because they will serve only to confuse you, do you see the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald on any of those pictures?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; in all three.

Mr. JENNER. All three?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Point to the one on your left, which is 453-A, which is Oswald?

(The witness has pointed to the figure of a man over whose head there is a green cross.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, the second picture, which is 453-B, do you see him on that one?

(The witness points to a man over whose head there is a green vertical stripe.)

Mr. JENNER. And do you see him on the third picture, which is the one identified as Exhibit No. 1? Point to him.

(Let the record show that the witness has indicated by pointing the figure of the man identified as Lee Harvey Oswald.)

Mr. JENNER. Put an "X" on his body, if you will.

(Let the record show that the witness has put a red "X" mark on the body of the man known to be Lee Harvey Oswald, and that he is the same man shown in each picture, and so identified by the witness.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, taking a look at 453-A, you see there is an arrow over the head of a man to the left of the man over whose head you put the green cross?

Mr. STEELE. What's that?

Mr. JENNER. You see that arrow over the head of the man to the left of the man with the green cross over his head?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize this man over the head of whom there is an arrow?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was he there the day that you were passing out this literature?

Mr. STEELE. Not that I could see at the time, but from previous pictures that I have seen, he apparently was though.

Mr. JENNER. Previous pictures that you have seen from whom?

Mr. STEELE. The FBI and the Secret Service.

Mr. JENNER. Are you shown on any of these pictures now?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You are?

Mr. STEELE. Oh, am I shown?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you see yourself on any of these pictures?

Mr. STEELE. No, I don't; not on these.

Mr. JENNER. Do you see anybody else on those pictures that you now recognize as having been present on the first occasion, on the occasion when you were there, other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STEELE. That I remember; no.

Mr. JENNER. No one else?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. There was no incident on the day that you passed out this literature?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. And the police didn't come?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. JENNER. When was that, August 16?

Mr. STEELE. I can't give the date on that; I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. It was in August though, wasn't it?

Mr. STEELE. It was in August all right, but I don't remember the exact date.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember that some people were taking pictures?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And you remember your girl friend calling you that evening and saying you were on television?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; she came over.

Mr. JENNER. She came over to your place?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir. I remember now; she came over.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you then?

Mr. STEELE. I was at work.

Mr. JENNER. Did you call the FBI then?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And the FBI said what?

Mr. STEELE. I had asked them about getting my picture off of television, and they said they couldn't do anything about it, that there was nothing wrong with it--that it was news.

Mr. JENNER. They couldn't interfere with the news media?

Mr. STEELE. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. That's what they told you?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you call the television stations?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What did you tell them?

Mr. STEELE. I asked them if they would take my picture off of the television screen. I told them who I was, and I told them about it, that I was the gentleman that had passed out the literature, and I told them that my father was with the sheriff's office, and it wouldn't be too good with him, and at the time didn't know what I was passing out, until I had seen the cameras, and then looked at them, and they said, "Well, all right then," and it never came on television anymore, until the President's death.

Mr. JENNER. Describe this man who came along with Oswald.

Mr. STEELE. Right now I haven't the slightest idea what he looked like. I think, as I recall, he was about Oswald's height.

Mr. JENNER. Oswald was 5 foot 9. You say he was the same height, or taller, or what?

Mr. STEELE. Well, he wasn't shorter. He was either the same height or slightly taller.

Mr. JENNER. Would it refresh your recollection if I told you that when you were interviewed by special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 24th of November, 1963, that you told them that he was aged 19 or 20 years, that he was about 6 feet tall, slender built, dark hair, and olive complexion?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the way you recall him?

Mr. STEELE. Yes; he was slender built and about my complexion.

Mr. JENNER. You have dark skin?

Mr. STEELE. Caucasian, dark.

Mr. JENNER. What would you say he weighed?

Mr. STEELE. About 170, 175, I guess.

Mr. JENNER. How tall are you?

Mr. STEELE. Six feet.

Mr. JENNER. Would this man have been about your height?

Mr. STEELE. I guess so, but it didn't seem like he was quite as tall as I am.

Mr. JENNER. Do you think he was more slender than you?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. How was he dressed?

Mr. STEELE. Sport shirt, as far as I can remember.

Mr. JENNER. White or colored, or what?

Mr. STEELE. I don't even remember the man right now, to tell you the truth. I just have a very vague recollection of what he looked like.

Mr. JENNER. But you are sure he was slender built?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you have the right, if you wish to exercise it, of reading over your deposition and signing it, or you may waive that right and let the court reporter transcribe your testimony, and it will be forwarded direct to Washington. What do you prefer to do?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I will do what you consider best.

Mr. JENNER. Well, you are willing to waive the necessity of reading your deposition and signing it then?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Is there anything else that occurred that you haven't told me about, or that I haven't asked you about, that would be of assistance to the Commission?

Mr. STEELE. No; I can't think of anything else.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Thank you for coming in voluntarily and testifying.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES HALL STEELE, SR.

The testimony of Charles Hall Steele, Sr., was taken on April 7, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Charles Hall Steele, Sr., 1488 Madrid Street, New Orleans, La., after first being duly sworn, testified as follows:

Mr. JENNER. You are Mr. Charles Hall Steele, Sr., is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And you have seen the letter received by your son from Mr. Rankin, general counsel of the President's Commission, have you not?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You have read it?

Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you also read the documents that were enclosed with that letter?

Mr. STEELE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Well, those documents, Mr. Steele, consist of Senate Joint Resolution 137, authorizing the creation of the Commission to investigate the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy; the Executive Order No. 11130 of President Lyndon B. Johnson, appointing that Commission and fixing its powers and its duties, and a copy of the rules and regulations under which we take testimony before the Commission and also by deposition, as in this case.

The Commission is directed to investigate all the facts and circumstances surrounding or bearing upon the assassination of our late President Kennedy. I am Albert E. Jenner, Jr., one of the various members of the legal staff of the Commission, and we are here today taking depositions of witnesses who may have in some way touched the lives of the Oswald family during their residence here in New Orleans.

You have told us that you have some concern about your boy in this matter, and you have also told me of your position in this community both as a family man and a public official. I think it will be proper, due to the circumstances of your situation, to put a statement from you into the record of these proceedings before the Commission, and so, with your permission, I will ask you some questions at this time.

Mr. STEELE. All right.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you are a native-born American here, and your wife is a native-born American, and all your children were born here, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. In and around this area?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You are how old now, sir?

Mr. STEELE. I am 44, but I will be 45 the 15th of August, this year--1964.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any children in addition to Charles Hall, Jr.?

Mr. STEELE. I have a daughter Jacqueline; she's a twin to Charles, and I have one boy Gerald, who is aged 13.

Mr. JENNER. Jacqueline, what is she doing?

Mr. STEELE. She is at Mercy Hospital, a student nurse. She will graduate in August.

Mr. JENNER. Now, tell me about yourself, Mr. Steele?

Mr. STEELE. I am a deputy sheriff, attached to the Civil District Court, and an officer of the court. I own a small business known as the Liberty Coffee and Household Co.

Mr. JENNER. You are a service man, are you?

Mr. STEELE. 23 years on active National Guard status, subject to 24 hours' notice.

Mr. JENNER. Were you in World War II?

Mr. STEELE. I was.

Mr. JENNER. What was the nature of that service?

Mr. STEELE. I was inducted right here in 1941, June or July; I don't remember exactly, and I went on duty with the AFRTC, at Fort Knox, Ky. That's the Air Force Replacement Training Center, at Fort Knox, and then I was transferred to the 5th Armored Division, and that division was sent to England, but I didn't go with them. I was in the cadre that was sent to the Tank Destroyer Battalion at Camp Forest, Tenn., and we pulled winter maneuvers, after which they found that our unit was not ready to go overseas, so we were disbanded and I was then sent to the 631st Tank Destroyer Battalion at Camp Shelby, where I was a sergeant, and then I was sent to the 773d Tank Destroyer Battalion, and I finally ended up after 2 years in Charleston, S.C., in charge of a G.U. ward, so I spent two lovely years living off of Uncle Sam, and I was discharged as a staff sergeant, and then I went to Fort Sill, Okla., in 1949, after being commissioned in the National Guard in 1948, and received my field commission in artillery, and I have stepped my way up to where I am now a major, general staff, assistant G-4.

Mr. JENNER. All right; now tell me about your boy. Had he ever been in trouble before this thing occurred?

Mr. STEELE. He never had a police record, or anything like that.

Mr. JENNER. Are you Catholic?

Mr. STEELE. My family is; I am not. I am Presbyterian, but the children are Catholic.

Mr. JENNER. Then I take it your boy has never been in any serious trouble?

Mr. STEELE. He had better not be.

Mr. JENNER. You heard his story, didn't you, Mr. Steele, about what happened on this occasion?

Mr. STEELE. I started that story off with him from the minute he hit that front door, and I have been right with him on down through the FBI, the Secret Service, and everybody, right on through, and this is the only time that he has ever been questioned outside of my presence.

Mr. JENNER. Well, he is your son, and I know you have his welfare in mind all the time, and there is a possibility that fathers might become prejudiced in matters of this kind, but knowing him as you do and being his father, and knowing his weaknesses and so forth, do you think now that he is telling the truth about this?

Mr. STEELE. Well, let me put it this way. In my experience, being a battery commander and handling 60 to 70 men at one time, and I have been in court, and with my experience and all that, I have honestly tried to trick him, using the same tactics that you might say the best attorneys would use, and I feel that he is honestly telling the truth. I feel he has told that story over and over again in exactly the same way, so that's the only conclusion I can come to. In my own mind, I am positive he didn't know what he was doing at the time.

Mr. JENNER. You gave him a good cross examination, in other words, is that right?

Mr. STEELE. Believe me, because I was under a nervous tension over this, I'll tell you. I was just promoted in August, to my present position, and actually I am not a State officer; I am a Federal officer, and at the same time I had been in the middle of a campaign, running for the democratic nomination for committeeman, and I am a member of the pledged electors' group, and I advocate that I as a Democrat am pledged to the choice of the Democratic Party, and I just couldn't stand by and let something like this come up and take that all away from me, so I certainly did cross-examine him, and I got to the bottom of it, and I'm satisfied that he was not at fault. He had a weak moment in which he saw a chance to make a couple of bucks, but other than that, he didn't have the slightest idea of what he was doing. I'm satisfied of that.

Mr. JENNER. Is there anything else that you would like to add to what you have said, Mr. Steele?

Mr. STEELE. No; I think that's about it.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you have the privilege, if you wish, to read and sign your deposition, or you may waive that, and the reporter will transcribe the deposition, and it will be forwarded direct to Washington. What is your preference on that?

Mr. STEELE. I will waive it.

Mr. JENNER. All right, Mr. Steele; thank you for coming in and testifying voluntarily. I wanted your background in the record, in view of the fact that your boy did have personal contact with Oswald and particularly because of your position in the community, I wanted your background in the record. Thank you very much.

Mr. STEELE. I think I can promise you that he is not going to get into any more trouble. We had that out over and over, and I don't think he will be passing out any more leaflets.

Mr. JENNER. I think we all believe that, Mr. Steele; well, thank you again for giving your statement. It will be of help to the Commission in evaluating the testimony of your son, by showing his family background, and so forth. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP GERACI III

The testimony of Philip Geraci III, accompanied by his mother, was taken on April 7-8, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

(Reporter's Note: The witness, Philip Geraci, was accompanied into the hearing room by his mother.)

Philip Geraci, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. Staff members have been authorized to take the testimony of witnesses by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

I understand that Mr. Lee Rankin wrote you a letter last week in which he told you that I would contact you, did he not?

Mr. GERACI. A letter? No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not receive a letter from Mr. Rankin?

Mrs. GERACI. Would you please give us one. We would like to have it to keep.

Mr. GERACI. Somebody said they sent one.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't receive it?

Mr. GERACI. No.

Mrs. GERACI. We did not receive it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now I think in point of fact that is right. I think that the decision to take your testimony was made subsequent to the time that the letters were sent out to other witnesses. Now you are----

Mrs. GERACI. May I make a statement before we go any further?

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record indicate that Mrs. Geraci is in the hearing room at her request to assist her son and give moral support.

Mrs. GERACI. And we want no publicity at all, please.

Mr. LIEBELER. We have already given to the reporters the names of some of the witnesses who came in, but we have already been advised that you did not want any publicity at this point, and we did not give your name to the newspaper reporter or make any statement about Philip's appearance here.

Mr. GERACI. Does that mean I can't tell anyone about it?

Mr. LIEBELER. That is something you can settle among yourselves.

Mr. GERACI. I told everybody I went to a doctor's appointment this evening.

Mr. LIEBELER. [Handing documents to witness] Now I want to give you a copy of the Joint Resolution of Congress and of the Executive order that I have just referred to, and also of the Rules of Practice adopted by the Commission concerning the taking of testimony of witnesses. Those rules provide that technically you are entitled to 3 days' notice before you appear to have your testimony taken, but you are entitled to waive that notice, and I assume that, since you are here, you would be willing to waive it with regard to the testimony. Is that right, Philip?

Mr. GERACI. I don't know.

Mrs. GERACI. Yes. Well, they did not notify us 3 days ahead of time, but that is all right. We are here. They called yesterday.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have indicated that you are willing to go ahead with the testimony instead of waiting for the 3 days' notice?

(Mrs. Geraci nodded assent.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Philip, would you state your full name for the record, please?

Mr. GERACI. Philip Geraci, the Third.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. GERACI. 2201 Green Acres Road.

Mr. LIEBELER. New Orleans?

Mr. GERACI. Metairie.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born?

Mr. GERACI. February 21, 1948.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you are now about 16 years old or 17 years old?

Mr. GERACI. Yes. Well, I am 16.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you go to school?

Mr. GERACI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where?

Mr. GERACI. East Jefferson High School.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are--what?--a junior there now, or a senior?

Mr. GERACI. No, sophomore, 10th grade.

Mr. LIEBELER. 10th grade. Do you know a man by the name of Carlos Bringuier?

Mr. GERACI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first meet him?

Mr. GERACI. Well, this was summer, last summer, some place around the beginning of it, and--you want me to tell you everything about it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. GERACI. Well, I was down there with a friend. [Addressing mother.] Do you think I should give his name?

(Mrs. Geraci nodded assent.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Please do. You were down where?

Mr. GERACI. Down there in New Orleans, I mean on Canal Street. We had to go to some radio shop. It was Bill Dwyer. That is a friend. And we were down there and we wanted to go in radio shops and everything, so I saw--going down there I saw, looking to the side, that they had a sign saying "Casa Roca," and I took Spanish in school, so I was interested, and I went in there and--well, he was a little reluctant, but we went anyway.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your friend was a little reluctant?

Mr. GERACI. Yes, a little bit. He didn't get mixed up in this or anything. And then, well, when we were in there, we looked around a little at everything, then I asked the man there--I didn't know it was Carlos Bringuier then--I asked him was he a Cuban. He said yes, he was an exile, and everything, you know. I asked him a few things, I guess--I don't know exactly what--you know, just a little conversation like. Then I ask him was there anything that I as an American could do. He said, well, he didn't know, to come back later. You know, he acted as though maybe--like--just like he just didn't want me to help or something like that, I guess, so we left and went home, and that was it.

Mr. LIEBELER. And when did you see him again, if you did? You did see him again, didn't you?

Mr. GERACI. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When?

Mr. GERACI. I don't remember when. I remember I saw him a few times, I couldn't exactly say how many, but I went back another time when I was in town, I stopped off and saw him, and I saw him another time. Then I think it was about the fourth time that I was there that I saw Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now before we get to that, did you ever raise any money for Carlos' activities?

Mr. GERACI. Not until the third time.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened?

Mr. GERACI. No; wait. Come to think of it, I think it was about the fifth time that I saw Oswald; something like that. I remember I went back--it was about the third time--after asking him--I asked him, "Do you think it is possible to raise donations?" And he said, "Well, yes; it is possible." And he showed me these little yellow slips, sort of like yellow, and they were like receipts if you paid, and he said I could get them--you know--if I wanted to, I could, you know, go, and he could give them to me, and go and get donations and give the people this receipt and bring the money back to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. So did you take some of the receipts?

Mr. GERACI. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you get some money?

Mr. GERACI. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you gave it to Carlos?

Mr. GERACI. Yes; it was about $10.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you turned that money over to him?

Mr. GERACI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, is it correct that on the day that you came into the Casa Roca to give this money to Carlos that you met Lee Oswald?

Mr. GERACI. I don't know if I turned in the money or not. No; I don't think I turned in money, but I couldn't be sure. I remember I went there, and that is the time the last guy, Vance Blalock, came along with me. It was his first time and everything. And we went in there--I might have turned it in, I am not too sure. Maybe I did; maybe I didn't. I can't remember too much, but I was in there anyway talking to him and that is when I met him.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you met Oswald?

Mr. GERACI. Yes; you want me to tell all that?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; tell me all the circumstances of how Oswald----

Mr. GERACI. Everything I know?

Mr. LIEBELER. Met you and everything you know about it, what the conversation was, who was there.

Mr. GERACI. Well, we were--Vance and me went in there, Vance and I, we went into there, I introduced Vance to Carlos, and Carlos started talking to him about, you know, freedom and all that, democracy and everything. Then later on while we were talking, Lee Oswald came in, you know, while we were talking, and he came in a little while later. He was by himself and he seemed a little nervous. I remember he was dressed just like in that picture there shows. [Indicating photograph.]

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to a picture here on the table?

Mr. GERACI. Yes, sir; well he was dressed something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which has previously been marked as Exhibit 1 to the affidavit of Jesse J. Garner. I show you that picture. [Exhibiting photograph to witness.] You say Lee was dressed something like that when you met him?

Mr. GERACI. Yes; you know, he had on a tie and a shirt, short sleeved shirt, and sort of like dress pants. I don't know the color of them, but they were sort of like dress pants, just about as much as this. [Indicating photograph.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that individual in the picture as being the man that you saw in the store that day?

Mr. GERACI. Well, tell you the truth, when I first heard about it in the papers and on the TV, I didn't recognize him. See, I forgot that I met this guy over there, you know, I forgot about it, and I thought I didn't meet him. It wasn't until the FBI man came to my house and he showed me a picture of him when he was first under arrest, and he got arrested in August, the 4th I think.

Mr. LIEBELER. He showed you a picture that had been taken of Lee when he had been under arrest here in New Orleans?

Mr. GERACI. Yes; it was one of those things with three things, showing him from the front, the side, and his face.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you then recognize the man in the picture that they showed you as being the man that you met in the store that day?

Mr. GERACI. Well, you see, I didn't exactly recognize him maybe, but anyway I was pretty sure it was him though. He said--he showed me that and said, "Do you ever remember an ex-marine--and then I remembered there was a guy who was dressed something like that who was an ex-marine who came in, and he did have a funny name, you know, like Lee. It's a little unusual, it's kind of rare, and I remembered the last name was a little hard, so it just fits that that was him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now what kind of conversations did you have with this fellow or what did you talk about?

Mr. GERACI. Well, first----

Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand it now, there were this marine, Lee Oswald, and Carlos, and Vance Blalock and yourself. Is that right?

Mr. GERACI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else there?

Mr. GERACI. Well, while we were talking, this man came up. He was in a big truck, some big truck. I never looked at it closely. He came up and stopped, and the man rushed in, and he was wearing--well, he was wearing one of these--like a cap like you see them wearing over in England. I don't know what kind it is, but anyway it is the kind that truckdrivers wear, I guess, and he looked kind of Spanish. Maybe he was a Cuban exile. He was kind of fat, and he came in and showed Carlos this broken radio that he had, so Carlos left and he started fixing the radio and left us to talk to ourselves, Lee and me and my friend. Well, he is the only other person I know that came in. I don't know if he knew what was going on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now tell us the conversation that you and Lee and Vance and Carlos had, the best you can recall it.

Mr. GERACI. Well, Carlos and me and Vance were kind of talking among ourselves, and he came in and said, "Excuse me," and, you know, he acted a little nervous and things like that. He asked, "Is this the Cuban headquarters, Cuban exile headquarters?" And, "Are you a Cuban exile?" You know, the way I acted when I first went in there. Just asked him a few questions, was he a Cuban exile, and Carlos said yes. He asked him some questions like was he connected with the Cosa Nostra, La Cosi Nostra.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who asked that?

Mr. GERACI. Oswald; he asked that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of Carlos?

Mr. GERACI. Yes; and Carlos said no, he wasn't. Oswald then asked where was his headquarters--in Miami? And Carlos said yes; and he said--let's see--and then Oswald asked, said something like, "It is kind of exciting meeting someone"--I don't know if he said exciting--but he expressed something like that. He said, you know, he expressed wonder or something like that at meeting somebody who was a real Cuban exile, you know, someone who is really trying to do something to help free Cuba and all that. He didn't really say much. In the papers they said he tried to join and all that. That must have been later, because this was----

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't do that when you were there?

Mr. GERACI. No. This was his first visit. As far as I can make out, it must have been, and he asked a few questions like that. Carlos just answered real simply and all that, he didn't go into any big speeches, you know, with them, like he did for me and Vance, just answered his questions simply. Then when the man came in with the broken radio, Carlos left, and that left Oswald, me, and Vance by ourselves.

Then, well, we asked--you know, we were a little interested in guerrilla warfare ourselves and things like that, and he said, well, he was an ex-marine, said he was in the Marines once. He said he learned a little bit about that stuff, and he said a few things about guerrilla warfare I remember, like he said the way to derail a train was to wrap chain around the ties of the track and then lock it with a padlock and the train would derail. He said the thing he liked best of all was learning how to blow up the Huey P. Long Bridge. He said you put explosive at each end on the banks and blow it up, and that leaves the one column standing. And he said how to make a homemade gun and how to make gunpowder, homemade gunpowder. He just went into those real simply. He didn't really, you know, tell us how to do it or anything, just said like if you want to make a homemade gun, you know, do something like--you know, the thing you pull back [demonstrating] and it goes forward, like on one of the pinball machines. He just said something like that. He didn't really go into detail or anything. We didn't ask him. And by this time Carlos came back from the other guy, and came back, and he was listening, and, well, that is about all.

Oh, there was one important thing. Oswald said something like that he had a military manual from when he was in the Marines, and he said he would give it to me, and I said, "That is all right. You don't have to. You can give it to Carlos." He said, "Well, OK, he will give it to Carlos next time he comes."

And after that--well, everybody left. That is as far as I can make out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember----

Mr. GERACI. And he said he was going to come back later and give Carlos this military manual from when he was in the Marines.

Mr. LIEBELER. And was he going to give this to Carlos for Carlos' benefit, or was he----

Mr. GERACI. For Carlos' benefit, I guess, Carlos' or the Cuban exiles'.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any conversation about training guerrillas to oppose Castro?

Mr. GERACI. No. He didn't say anything about being an expert rifle shooter, never said anything about going to Russia or joining or training or anything like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, was there a conversation concerning the training of anti-Castro troops or guerrillas to oppose Castro?

Mr. GERACI. No; that must have been later, maybe when he came back some other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now were you present at all times while Oswald was there?

Mr. GERACI. We got there before he did and we left at the same time he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, as far as you know, there wouldn't have been any opportunity for Oswald and Carlos to talk among themselves where you wouldn't have heard what they said?

Mr. GERACI. That is right; because we were there all the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have no recollection that Oswald told Carlos that he wanted to help train anti-Castro guerrillas to fight against Castro?

Mr. GERACI. None at all; none that I remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Now what was Oswald going to bring this marine book back for?

Mr. GERACI. Well, I guess to give to Carlos to help him out or something. First he was going to give it to me and Vance. I guess he wanted us to blow up the bridge or something. I don't know. We said no; and so he said, "OK, I will give it to Carlos," you know, because after all Carlos--I guess he could use it better than we could, you know, blow up bridges in Cuba or something, and I guess he was just going to give it to him so he could learn some stuff from it. I wouldn't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now when you left the store did you try to follow Oswald at all?

Mr. GERACI. Well, we had some thought about it. When he left, he was going to go down--he crossed Canal Street and he was--he kept on going that way, I think on St. Charles or Claiborne--way down there near the end--which one is closer to the river? St. Charles?

Mr. LIEBELER. I am not familiar with New Orleans, so I get them mixed up.

Mr. GERACI. It must have been St. Charles he went down, and Vance said, "Hey, let's follow him, see where he lives." He told us where he lived, but the way he told us the address----

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't know what it was?

Mr. GERACI. When the FBI man came by my house that day, he asked me, and I could just barely remember it. I remember it was to the left of Canal Street. It was Magazine Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Magazine Street? What number?

Mr. GERACI. Well, I remembered the number a little. I couldn't remember it altogether, but I remember----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that he had told you the number?

Mr. GERACI. Yes; and I could--I had a few--I mean I had a little recollection about what it was, like it was a big number sort of like and had two zeros in it or something. I don't even remember. It seemed that his number did have that. We decided--we thought maybe we can follow him for fun, but we decided no, we had better not, you know, because it was not good or anything, so we just went up Canal Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether Oswald said anything about having been in Florida?

Mr. GERACI. In Florida?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. GERACI. I am not too sure about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember one way or the other whether----

Mr. GERACI. The only thing I remember about Florida is when he asked was headquarters down there. He could have, but I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did you ever see Oswald after that?

Mr. GERACI. No; that was the last time; first and last.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about Carlos? Did you see him after that?

Mr. GERACI. Yes. That time when we found out that it was Oswald who killed him, well, then I went there, you know, to get things straightened out and talk with Carlos a little about him, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You went back and talked with Carlos, about this meeting with Oswald, after the assassination? Is that right?

Mr. GERACI. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether you saw Carlos between the time that you met Oswald and the assassination?

Mr. GERACI. Carlos?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. GERACI. Not that I remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us approximately when it was that you met Oswald? Was it July or August?

Mr. GERACI. Well, last time the FBI man came, I estimated around late July. I couldn't remember now, so I will just stick with late July. That seems to stick pretty good. Vance said the same thing himself when the FBI man questioned him, so I am pretty sure it was between late July--middle July to late July.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about Oswald when you met him?

Mr. GERACI. When I met him?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. What did you think of him?

Mr. GERACI. Well, when he went in there, I noticed he was a little nervous.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did he show his nervousness? Do you remember?

Mr. GERACI. Well, the way he talked, you know. Well, you know, the way he talked I guess, kind of, you know, searching around for words and all that, and I remember he leaned on the table, and I remember reading once that, you know, if you exert some physical exertion, it kind of helps you tend to calm down or something like that. Anyway, I could tell by the way he was leaning on the table that maybe he was nervous.

Mr. LIEBELER. Other than this nervousness, did you form any other opinion about it?

Mr. GERACI. Not particularly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he appear to be an intelligent person?

Mr. GERACI. Intelligent person?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. GERACI. Sort of. He didn't appear stupid or anything like that. He seemed OK, you know. He didn't seem like a Communist. Seemed like he just wanted to, you know, help out too, sort of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you subsequently learn that Oswald was arrested by the New Orleans Police Department for distributing Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets?

Mr. GERACI. I didn't know that until after he killed Kennedy and it was in the papers.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't hear it?

Mr. GERACI. On the radio?

Mr. LIEBELER. On the radio or television.

Mr. GERACI. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think you have now told us everything that you can remember about this meeting you had with Oswald and Carlos? Is there anything else that you can think of?

Mr. GERACI. No. There might be one thing. Carlos, when he talked to me and Vance and my friend, Bill Dwyer, the first time, you know, he made speeches and all that. When he met him--I don't know--seemed like maybe he didn't want him or something. I am not too sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Carlos didn't seem to open up to Oswald?

Mr. GERACI. That is right. He opened up enough, you know, but he didn't give him any speeches or anything like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you can think of anything else that occurred, we would like to have you tell us.

Mr. GERACI. OK.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you can't, I don't have any other questions.

Mr. GERACI. He did seem like--I guess he did seem like the type who was a little antisocial.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't seem to be too friendly?

Mr. GERACI. No. He seemed friendly. I mean, he seemed friendly, you know, but he--maybe like he didn't have enough experience with people, sort of. He seemed friendly though. That is one thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't have any other questions.

Mrs. GERACI. Do you have a record of me reporting Carlos to the FBI? Do you have that in the record anywhere where I found out--he told me he was going to collect money for Cuba, but I didn't know he was giving out these little tickets as he called them, and then when I found out he had collected $10 and brought it down and I saw the receipts and he had more tickets, we forbade him to go down there, and Carlos called the house to try to get him a--what is it--a license or permit to go from house to house and collect money.

Mr. GERACI. He never called me.

Mrs. GERACI. He did call me.

Mr. GERACI. He called you? Carlos?

Mrs. GERACI. I spoke with him on the phone.

Mr. GERACI. That is because I told him--when I collected, a man told me to do something like that, that I needed a license, so I went and told Carlos, "You have to get a license." He said, "Don't collect any more until I get one." Then he went to city hall and got some stuff he had to fill out.

Mr. LIEBELER. This wasn't Oswald who told you you couldn't collect?

Mr. GERACI. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald didn't have anything to do with this?

Mr. GERACI. No; this was before I knew Oswald. This is a man works some place--who works in a cleaner's, I remember. I went there and he said I had to get a license to do that, so I called Carlos on the phone and told him.

Mrs. GERACI. Then when Carlos called the house, I realized he was still involved in this.

Mr. GERACI. I told you I was.

Mrs. GERACI. I put my foot down and told him he couldn't do it any more, and I called the FBI.

Mr. GERACI. And the Better Business Bureau.

Mrs. GERACI. They told me to call the Better Business Bureau, but the man at the FBI told me he couldn't give out any information as to whether this was a Communist organization or not, and the headquarters were in Miami, and the best thing to do would be not to let him get involved in it any more. Then I called the Better Business Bureau, and they were supposed to check with Miami, but I never did get a report back from him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this before or after you met Oswald?

Mr. GERACI. This was before.

Mrs. GERACI. But he has the receipt at home with the date on it. When he gave Carlos money, Carlos gave him a receipt.

Mr. GERACI. I remember Carlos making out a check to give the money to Miami too. When I gave him the money, he put the money in his bank and made out a check to the headquarters.

Mrs. GERACI. We met Carlos just now in the hall, and he told me the best thing Philip could do would be listen to his parents and be a good student. Right now that would be the way he could help combat communism. And I told him I thought he was too young to get involved in things like this, selling tickets for Cuba and all this stuff. Last year he was only 15 and too young to be involved in all that mess. The man at the FBI told me that an organization could be all right today and next week it would be Communist-controlled and how was I to know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who you talked to at the FBI?

Mrs. GERACI. Gee, I may have his name at home with these slips of paper that I took from him.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is not really important. I just wondered if you remembered.

Mrs. GERACI. Well, I wanted his name cleared for getting mixed up with Carlos, because I didn't know from beans about Carlos. He could be a Communist. I don't know who is and who isn't. When I found out he met Oswald, I nearly died. The week this happened he was camping with the Boy Scouts and gone Friday, Saturday, and Sunday when the stuff was on TV.

Mr. GERACI. I was in school when he got shot.

Mrs. GERACI. But you were in camp, but you didn't see a lot of the funeral and all that stuff showing Oswald's picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you first become aware that Oswald was the fellow you met? Did Vance talk to you about it? Do you remember?

Mr. GERACI. The first time was when the FBI agent came to my house and asked did I see an ex-marine and showed a picture and all that. I didn't even know it before that. It was just then that I realized.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI man tell you how he----

Mr. GERACI. Got my name?

Mr. LIEBELER. What prompted him, why did he come to your house? Did he tell you?

Mr. GERACI. Well, he said he couldn't tell me that. I asked him, and he said, well, he couldn't tell me. Of course, I guess it might have been because we--my mother called, you know, about this Cuban business--they got my name on their list or something, I guess, and when they found out that he tried to join that group, that must have been where it came from. That is what I think.

Mrs. GERACI. They probably had a list of people who were collecting money for the organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. OK, I don't have any more questions. I do want to thank you very much for coming in and being as cooperative as you have, and, on behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much.

Mr. GERACI. OK.

Mrs. GERACI. You are welcome, so long as we don't have any publicity.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is something you never can guarantee.

TESTIMONY OF VANCE BLALOCK

The testimony of Vance Blalock, accompanied by his parents, was taken on April 7-8, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Vance Blalock, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. Staff members have been authorized to take the testimony of witnesses by the Commission, pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137. I understand, Vance, that Mr. Lee Rankin, who is general counsel of the Commission, wrote you a letter last week----

Mr. BLALOCK. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And told you that I would be in touch with you concerning the taking of your testimony. I understand that Mr. Rankin enclosed with that letter a copy of the Executive order and of the resolution of Congress to which I have just referred, as well as a copy of the rules of procedure adopted by the Commission governing the taking of the testimony of witnesses. Did you receive that letter and those documents?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes; I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. We want to inquire very briefly of you concerning an event which occurred some time in the summer of 1963 here in New Orleans. We understand that you were present at a meeting, a chance meeting, between Lee Harvey Oswald and Carlos Bringuier. Before we get into the details of that, however, would you state your full name for the record.

Mr. BLALOCK. Vance Douglas Blalock.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that your mother and father are here in the room with us. How old are you, Vance?

Mr. BLALOCK. I am 16.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born?

Mr. BLALOCK. Lake Charles, La.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live now?

Mr. BLALOCK. Metairie, La.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you lived there?

Mr. BLALOCK. Less than a year.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you go to school?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where?

Mr. BLALOCK. East Jefferson High School.

Mr. LIEBELER. What grade are you in at East Jefferson High School?

Mr. BLALOCK. Tenth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Carlos Bringuier?

Mr. BLALOCK. I have met him once.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did it happen that you met him?

Mr. BLALOCK. I went downtown with my friend, Philip Geraci. We went to a store to return funds that Philip had collected for the organization this man had had, and while I was there I met Carlos. That is how I met him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have anything to do with these funds that were collected by your friend Geraci?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was entirely his operation?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember where you went that day with Philip?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; we went to Decatur Street, I believe it is. I am not sure. The store is the Casa Roca.

Mr. LIEBELER. What organization was it that Bringuier was running? Do you know?

Mr. BLALOCK. I couldn't say the Spanish name. The American name of it is the Cuban Student Revolutionary Organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell me approximately when that was?

Mr. BLALOCK. Last part of the summer. I couldn't----

Mr. LIEBELER. Late July or early August would it be, or some time in August of 1963?

Mr. BLALOCK. August would be the closest I could get. I don't remember the exact date.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me the conversation that you and Philip had with Bringuier when you went into the store.

Mr. BLALOCK. Oh, we entered the store and Philip introduced me to Carlos, and I told him--I saw the funds Philip had collected for him, and I told him I was curious about what it was for, and then he explained for me how the organization worked and told me he received the funds from people in New Orleans and sent it to Florida, and that was his total business, and he explained that Communism was where the kids are supposed to tell everything on their parents, to obey the State and not their parents.

Mr. LIEBELER. Present at this conversation were just you and Philip and Carlos? Is that right?

Mr. BLALOCK. No; there was another man--must have worked at the store. He was present.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know what his name was?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now while you were there in the store, did you notice anybody else present?

Mr. BLALOCK. Well, a man from a moving company or some trucking company came in. He had a radio that needed to be fixed, a broken radio, and Lee Harvey Oswald came in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us, to the best of your recollection, the things that happened as far as Oswald was concerned.

Mr. BLALOCK. He walked up to us and leaned against the desk and listened to the conversation. Then he started asking questions about the organization, and we were talking about guerrilla warfare, just in case the country got in war how young students could help, something in that nature, and then he started--then Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald, asked Carlos Bringuier all about the organization and what part it played in the main movement in Florida.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they say anything else? Was there more to the conversation?

Mr. BLALOCK. Let's see.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this man who walked up introduce himself by name?

Mr. BLALOCK. I believe so, but I don't remember what name he gave.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you now convinced that he was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir. I know his face. I recognized his face.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't remember that he mentioned the name Lee Harvey Oswald at that time?

Mr. BLALOCK. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald say anything about having been a Marine?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; he did, and he explained that he took training in guerrilla warfare, and he told us how to blow up bridges, derail trains, make zip guns, make homemade gunpowder.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you about this in detail?

Mr. BLALOCK. He told us how to blow up the Huey P. Long Bridge.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us just what he told you about that. I know you can't remember the exact words, but you can remember the substance of the conversation. We want you to tell us about it.

Mr. BLALOCK. He told us to put powder charges at each end of the bridge from the foundation to where the foundation meets the suspension part, and to blow that part up and the center part of the bridge would collapse.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he talk about any other aspect of guerrilla warfare that you can remember?

Mr. BLALOCK. He said that if you don't have the materials you need always available, you had to do without stuff.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he give any specific example of that?

Mr. BLALOCK. Gunpowder, high explosives.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how to do without gunpowder in these activities?

Mr. BLALOCK. He told us how to derail a train without gunpowder.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he say about that?

Mr. BLALOCK. He said put a chain around the railroad track and lock it to the track with a lock.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then when the train hit the chain it would derail the train?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say that he knew how to make gunpowder?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; he told us the formula, and I--saltpeter and nitrate--some formula--I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say anything about guns?

Mr. BLALOCK. About zip guns, how to make them out of tubing and a plunger.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say something to the effect that he knew all about guns?

Mr. BLALOCK. No; he told us he had a manual that explained all about guns, a Marine manual, and that he had training in guns, trained with guns.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember anything else that he said?

Mr. BLALOCK. Not right offhand.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he talk to Bringuier about helping Bringuier in this organization, or just what was the general context of this conversation? Was this just a general discussion of guerrilla warfare, or did it relate to the activities of Bringuier's anti-Castro organization? What can you remember?

Mr. BLALOCK. He just asked him about the anti-Castro organization and asked him to explain it to him, and he said he was interested in finding out how it operated. He didn't say he wanted to join it: He just said he was interested in it. Oh, and Bringuier gave him literature, a Cuban newspaper and leaflets or booklets.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there any discussion of politics?

Mr. BLALOCK. Not to my recollection.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there any mention of President Kennedy?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir. I couldn't say for sure there was no mention of President Kennedy. I don't think there was.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you think of Oswald?

Mr. BLALOCK. He seemed like a very intelligent man to me, well spoken, looked well dressed, well groomed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you think anything else about him, or is that about it?

Mr. BLALOCK. That is the impression that I got right at the moment.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say anything about Florida?

Mr. BLALOCK. Just mentioned the Cuban anti-Castro organization there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he say about that?

Mr. BLALOCK. I don't remember exactly, but I think he said he had been there and he had looked into it. I couldn't say for sure on that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention the name of the organization?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir. No, I don't recall any name.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember being interviewed about this subject by an FBI agent?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; I do, during the Christmas holidays.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember his name?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir; I don't. All I know is a Lieutenant or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think you would remember his name if I mentioned it to you?

Mr. BLALOCK. I might, or my mother might. She was present.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your mother was present when you were interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it refresh your recollection if I told you that the report that I have of the interview that you had with the FBI agent indicates that the man's name was Kevin J. Herrigan?

Mr. BLALOCK. Herrigan? No. No; I don't remember that name.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember talking to the FBI agent about Oswald's remark concerning having been to Florida?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir; I don't remember what I told the FBI agent. I don't remember anything about Oswald saying--only that I think he said he had been there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the report that I have here says that you seemed to remember Oswald mentioning something about having recently visited something called the Casa Nostra, C-a-s-a N-o-s-t-r-a. Do you remember saying anything about that to the FBI man?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; I remember mentioning the organization, but I couldn't remember the name. That organization was mentioned in the conversation with Carlos Bringuier and Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was?

Mr. BLALOCK. I believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that it was Oswald who mentioned it?

Mr. BLALOCK. I don't remember which one mentioned it first.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it was mentioned as being a Cuban organization in Florida? Is that your recollection?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; I think that is the name they mentioned. It could be something similar. I know I got this Mafia name mixed up with a Cuban organization name.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you know that that name that I just mentioned, Casa Nostra, is very similar to the Cosa Nostra. Do you think you may have been confused at the time you talked with him?

Mr. BLALOCK. Well, I meant the Cuban organization. I may have said the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra.

Mr. LIEBELER. You may have used that name?

Mr. BLALOCK. But I meant the Cuban----

Mr. LIEBELER. You meant some Anti-Castro Cuban organization?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. So the best you can recall, Oswald didn't say that he had recently visited someone in the Cosa Nostra?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you do recall sort of vaguely that Oswald did say that he had been in Florida and he had visited an Anti-Castro Cuban organization there?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you remember anything else about this incident in the store that day when Oswald came in?

Mr. BLALOCK. Oh, he said he lived on Magazine Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he give his exact address to you? Do you remember?

Mr. BLALOCK. I don't believe he gave his exact address, but I couldn't say for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say anything about whether he was working or not, whether he had a job?

Mr. BLALOCK. I don't remember if he said anything about his job.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you anything about his background? Did he say he was from New Orleans or anything about that?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir; I don't remember anything about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of anything else that happened?

Mr. BLALOCK. Philip Geraci and I started following him home after we both left the store. Oswald, Philip and I both left the store about the same time. We started to follow Oswald to his house just out of curiosity, and I recollect that Oswald said he would give us his Marine manual if we ever came back, if we contacted him.

Mr. LIEBELER. That he would give you the Marine manual if you saw each other at the store again?

Mr. BLALOCK. At the store or just saw each other, if we would contact him and get it, we could have it. If he saw us again, he would give it to us.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you continue to follow him home? Did you just walk out and walk down the street with him, or did you sort of shadow him or----

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir. We walked out the door. We both started different directions, and Philip and I said, "Why don't we follow him and get the Marine manual now, nothing else to do." We started to go to the corner, and we didn't see him, so we went on our way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see the Marine manual?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to Mr. Bringuier again after that?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never saw Carlos again until just today----

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw him come out of this room and leave the building?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you and Philip good friends?

Mr. BLALOCK. I wouldn't say real close friends, but we are friends.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk about this incident or talk about Oswald at all after this time but prior to the assassination?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir; I don't believe we did. We talked about the Cuban Student Organization.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you aware of the fact that Oswald was subsequently arrested here in New Orleans in connection with his activity on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. BLALOCK. No; I didn't know about that until after the assassination.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't hear Oswald debate Carlos on the radio program----

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or you didn't see Oswald on television?

Mr. BLALOCK. No, sir. I might have. I just don't remember it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Philip say anything about having seen these things?

Mr. BLALOCK. Not to me he didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you never had any real discussions, as far as you remember, with Philip about Oswald until the time of the assassination? Is that correct?

Mr. BLALOCK. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You must have talked to Philip about Oswald after the assassination.

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you recall to each other and discuss with each other the meeting that you had with Oswald in the store on Decatur Street at that time?

Mr. BLALOCK. I think I was the one that recognized him. I called it to Philip's attention, and the next day at school he said, "Yes, that is the man we met at the store." I recognized Oswald late one night when I was just about going to bed. I told my Daddy, "I went uptown and met that man up there."

Mr. LIEBELER. This was shortly after the assassination?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes; during the time they didn't have any shows but the funeral and----

Mr. LIEBELER. [Exhibiting photograph to witness.] Let me show you a picture that has been marked as Exhibit 1 to the affidavit of Jesse J. Garner taken at New Orleans, April 6, 1964, and I ask you if you recognize the individual portrayed in that picture.

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; I recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you recognize him as the man you met in the store that day?

Mr. BLALOCK. Yes, sir; Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of anything else now about your contact with Oswald, or can you think of anything else that you know about him that I haven't asked you about and you think the Commission should know about?

Mr. BLALOCK. I can't think of anything else.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't have any other questions. If you can't think of anything else, we will terminate the deposition. On behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF VINCENT T. LEE

The testimony of Vincent T. Lee was taken at 1:30 p.m., on April 17, 1964, at the U.S. courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., by Messrs. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Vincent T. Lee was accompanied by his attorney, Stanley Faulkner.

Vincent T. Lee, having duly affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lee, this deposition is being taken by the Commission under the authority of Executive Order No. 11130 and joint resolution of the Congress No. 137. My name is J. Lee Rankin. I am general counsel for the Commission. Mr. Liebeler is associated with me in this work. You have a right to have a copy of your testimony if you wish to pay for it and you may ask the reporters to make such arrangements.

During the examination you have a right to have counsel, which you have here, and counsel may object to any of the questions. At the close of the examination by myself, if counsel wishes to ask you questions to clarify or make clear any particular part of your testimony or correct it, if you wish to call anything to his attention, why, he is free to do that.

Where do you live, Mr. Lee?

Mr. LEE. 37-1/2 St. Mark's Place, New York City.

Mr. RANKIN. You are entitled under the rules of the Commission to 3 days' notice, and I assume since you are here you are willing to waive that and go ahead with the deposition.

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. LEE. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee is no longer a functioning organization.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you at one time have such a connection?

Mr. LEE. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. During what period?

Mr. LEE. From the year of 1963--yes, last year.

Mr. RANKIN. When was it closed up?

Mr. LEE. Officially the office went out of existence December 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. In 1963?

Mr. LEE. December 1963. Eviction notice was served and the office was closed.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have some communications with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LEE. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you made a search of your files for all communications that you had with him?

Mr. LEE. Upon being communicated with by the Federal agents, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at their behest I made an exhausting search throughout the whole Fair Play offices for any and all communications which were there, and finding certain communications I turned them over to the Federal agents, particularly Federal Agent Kennedy, in early December 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you make that search?

Mr. LEE. Within a day or two after being contacted by the Federal agents.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us the approximate date of that contact?

Mr. LEE. I believe it was the first week of December.

Mr. RANKIN. 1963?

Mr. LEE. 1963, yes. I am not positive. I am pretty sure it was somewhere around that time.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that search made by you personally?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it a thorough and complete search?

Mr. LEE. Well, I went through every scrap of paper down to the last little scrap behind the desk and under radiators and in cabinets and in drawers and under desk blotters and every possible conceivable place any piece of paper might have been stored or fallen to and laid down or anything else.

Mr. RANKIN. So you are satisfied----

Mr. LEE. As far as I know I went through every--to the best of my knowledge I went through everything I could find and everything that I found I turned over to the agents afterwards, after having copies made.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you or anybody on behalf of your committee have any oral communications with Lee Harvey Oswald that you know of?

Mr. LEE. To my knowledge there was never any such communication. I can't ever remember ever having such communication myself. I don't know that anybody else did. Nobody that I have known has ever mentioned such a thing to me.

(Document marked Lee Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is a letter that you or your committee received from Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. LEE. This looks very much like such a letter, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you receive it near the date that it bears?

Mr. LEE. There is not a date--it is not dated. This particular letter is not dated. Evidently here on the bottom is a notation which is made. This letter requests that the organization send some literature which the organization had published and there is a notation on the bottom which says the material was sent. It says "Sent 4/19/63," which I assume was quite some time ago. I can remember when people wrote in, we had many, many communications from many parts of the country, and when they asked for something we would send it to them and we would mark the thing "Sent so and so," so we would know the communication had been answered and what had been done about it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether that notation "Sent 4/19/63" and also the circling of the "50" was done by you?

Mr. LEE. This is doubtful because at that time, let's see, at that time I was not in the New York office. I was out on a national tour, I believe I was on the west coast at that time. We have had other people coming in to volunteer to, you know, wrap packages and address envelopes and things like that, come in for an hour or two, and go on about their business, whatever it is, and evidently somebody else did this because at that time I was on the west coast.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you be able to tell whether or not the letter, Exhibit 1, was dated or sent to you, rather than dated, somewhere around the time that this "Sent" recording was made?

Mr. LEE. I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. I believe there might have been an envelope which--some of the letters had envelopes. I don't know whether this particular one did or not. I think this is one of the first communications we would have, and it goes back to the end of April 1963, and to the best of my knowledge all my experience has been that these things, just so much of this was done; it was an automatic thing that was sent or replied, a certain date, which meant within that period of time, a week or so, sometimes it was slow, sometimes it was done the same day, sometimes it was done, you know, several days later, but within a week, around that area I would imagine is when that thing was replied.

(Lee Exhibits Nos. 2 to 5 marked.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lee, in accordance with the practice on these exhibits, when these exhibits are examined, the counsel doing the examining initials them, and also the witness. Would you be kind enough to do it under my initials.

Mr. LEE. Well, I would like to know what my--I would like to understand what my signature would imply.

Mr. RANKIN. It only implies that this exhibit was presented to you at the time, so there won't be any question about it.

Mr. LEE. Yes. Where should I initial it?

Mr. RANKIN. Just under mine, so it doesn't show anything except that fact.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any independent recollection, Mr. Lee, of this Exhibit 1 coming to your own attention at any time, other than when you went to search the files and find out what you had?

Mr. LEE. No; I don't have.

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit 2 and ask you to examine that and see if you recall if your committee or you received it on or about or near the date that it bears.

Mr. LEE. This looks precisely like such a communication received.

Mr. RANKIN. You will notice that it bears the date May 26 at the top.

Mr. LEE. Yes; and I have every reason to believe that it would be an accurate----

Mr. RANKIN. And you are quite sure that you received Exhibit 1 before you received Exhibit 2?

Mr. LEE. Well, like I say, you see, this one here was, I believe--I believe this probably arrived--I have every reason to believe that this arrived particularly during the weeks that I was away from the office, before this one.

Mr. RANKIN. This one----

Mr. LEE. And in piecing the thing together to the best of my own knowledge over a period of time like this and by using this to jog my recollection, this one here would have come to my attention after this one.

Mr. RANKIN. When you say this one here----

Mr. LEE. This one dated--Exhibit No. 2, dated May 26, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Came to you after Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about the information that was in Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. LEE. Well, I cannot be sure what I did, because I have no--I never bothered to keep records on these details.

Mr. RANKIN. I see.

Mr. LEE. But I had a general policy which I pursued, when somebody addressed a communication which I received, I would write to them, trying to present them with the information they requested or the material which they requested in whatever way I thought best at the time for the particular case, whatever it was. Like I said, not having saved--not having made any copies of any of these things, I can't be sure of what I did. I really don't know what I would have said, but I always made it a policy to try and reply to these communications.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lee, I hand you Exhibit No. 3, which purports to be a photocopy of a purported reply that you have made to Lee Harvey Oswald's letter of May 26, Exhibit No. 3, purporting to be a letter of May 29. Do you recall having sent that?

Mr. LEE. Yes. It's dated May 29.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. LEE. This is a copy--this must be a copy of a letter--this looks like my signature here, and I don't actually recall this--did I miss something?--Oh, I see. I don't actually recall writing the letter, but it looks like something which I might have written at the time in response to the previous inquiry.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. LEE. But I can't say that I remember sitting down and writing it.

Mr. RANKIN. We will try to secure the original and submit it to you for your approval in substitution for this copy.

Mr. LEE. Well, I am not actually questioning it. I am saying I can't really remember. Actually, I have thought about this. I haven't a real recollection of sitting down and writing, you know, letters to that particular person. Like I said, I was answering as many communications myself as possible to many, many inquiries which came into the office, so it is hard for me to pick out such and such a person a year later, even if something had happened in between to make the name prominent, to go back then. The name wouldn't mean too much to me at that time that I had written.

Mr. RANKIN. And when you referred to his getting a post office box as a must, what did you mean by that?

Mr. LEE. Well, this is a recommendation which was made, an organizational recommendation which had been made a long time before I myself had gone into a position with the organization. Because of the nature of the organization, people would come and go. They would support it and then drop out, and sometimes they would move, and if somebody--naturally most of the thing was just a small, little local activity. People didn't maintain business offices for such an organization, and if a person would move or drop out of the organization and the activities, the communications between the national office and the local area would get all tangled up because we didn't know where the mail would be returned, where we would write, whereas if there was a post office box, if one person in the organization dropped out who was receiving mail, then the mail would still be delivered to a post office box, where the other officials of the chapter, if it still existed, would still have access to the mail and be able to reply to communications from the national organization concerning the activities of the organization. The purpose of the post office box was purely to facilitate communications between areas and maintain them on a permanent basis.

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit 3-A and see if you recall seeing the original of which that appears to be a photocopy. It is dated May 22, 1963.

Mr. LEE. It looks very much like a formal notice that I may have sent. I mean, I was accustomed to sending many such communications, and that looks very much like something I would have sent. Did I sign the other one?

Mr. RANKIN. No. I hand you Exhibit No. 4, which I don't find to be dated, either, but it does show an address in New Orleans which helps to make it possible for us to fix the general period. Do you recall having seen that before?

Mr. LEE. Yes. This was another one of the communications which were sent to me. Obviously, not through recollection of having seen the letters but piecing these things together, I conclude that this was one of the letters which were sent after I had entered into direct communications with this person, because he no longer addresses it "Dear Sirs." Evidently he has received communications from us, so he addresses us by name. I would say that evidently that was a communication sent to me which I received.

Mr. RANKIN. You will note it has four pages as a part of the letter and has a membership blank for----

Mr. LEE. Yes. My recollection on this is that in previous letters--for a moment I would like to go over this and make sure I don't get the letters confused one with the other. This--yes, yes. This evidently is a letter which was sent in reply, after I had--he had in one letter asked for information about the possibilities of doing--setting up a chapter, for which I had sent him the rules and regulations regarding the functioning of our organization and copies of our constitution and bylaws and things like that. This evidently is a letter which he wrote in which he replies that he had gone ahead and acted on his own without any authorization from the organization, and if I recall correctly this was also a letter which was received by myself in my capacity, not having any great happiness at somebody going off on their own and doing something against the rules of the organization, under the name of the organization, which is obviously what was done, because this set up himself--this thing reads, "New Orleans Chapter, Member Branch." There was no such thing, because he had just received--just previous to this he had received the regulations, and my letter would give an indication of what would be necessary to set up a chapter, which would certainly consist of more than one person operating on his own, and this, if I recall correctly, was such a letter which I received.

Naturally, anybody in an organization position such as I was in any other organization, you would always be interested in expanding and getting your ideas across and reaching more people, and when somebody writes to you and says they would like to help you, your immediate response is, "Well, wonderful. Here is a new contact in a new part of the hinterlands and, gee, I hope this works out." And then, when somebody goes off like this, violating all the rules that you send him, it comes as quite a disappointment, because you have had hopes. Obviously this man was not operating in an official capacity for the organization. As he states, he went off with his own innovations and everything else.

Mr. RANKIN. You will note that he refers in the letter to this throw sheet.

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And the fact that he has established a charter in violation of your instructions.

Mr. LEE. Yes. I certainly do.

Mr. RANKIN. And then he also refers to his membership blank.

Mr. LEE. Yes, which is another complete violation. It has no----

Mr. RANKIN. Apparently both of those were enclosed with a letter, were they?

Mr. LEE. Evidently, yes. To the best of my recollection, they would be. As I say, all of these details--I can't be positive of every little thing, because it's been such a time and so much has transpired in between.

Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit No. 5 is apparently a letter of August 1 from Lee Harvey Oswald. Do you recall that?

Mr. LEE. There was a couple of letters here. I don't know whether it was these two, Exhibits 4 and 5, but it's hard for me to determine, they came so close together. They came, you know, almost on top of each other, to the best of my recollection, that I don't know which one--only by studying the text can you halfway determine which came first. I remember vaguely receiving these communications in this order.

You see here, another case where I mentioned, and I would recommend not trying to get an office to start off with, particularly the--what was being espoused by our organization wouldn't be the most popular thing in the area of New Orleans, Louisiana, and I would automatically, myself, personally, from my own experience, would say to anybody, "You know, you better be way ahead before you start something like that," and certainly he has gone ahead against all of that recommendation from everybody else. But to the best of my recollection, these letters were very close together, about the same time, the same issue.

Mr. RANKIN. That was one of the letters, Exhibit No. 5, that you supplied the FBI at the time?

Mr. LEE. Yes.

(Document marked Lee Exhibit No. 6.)

Mr. RANKIN. Your Exhibit No. 6, which apparently is composed of a letter and an affidavit in regard to a charge against Lee Harvey Oswald, and a clipping in regard to the disposition of that charge, do you recall that correspondence and the attachments?

Mr. LEE. Yes, I have a recollection of this. I don't think the clipping--as a matter of fact, I seem to remember that this clipping was not attached to a piece of paper, though. I think this may have been attached since I submitted it. That is the only difference I can see.

Mr. RANKIN. Apparently since you furnished the letter, Exhibit 6, and the copy of the charge against Lee Harvey Oswald and the clipping, the clipping has been stapled to a piece of paper?

Mr. LEE. Yes. The reason I say that is simply because I never paper-clip things; I always rubber cement them.

(Document marked Lee Exhibit No. 7.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit 7, which consists of two pages of a letter dated August 17, and an envelope attached by a clip, and ask you if that exhibit in that form was one you received from Lee Harvey Oswald and furnished to the Bureau as you described?

Mr. LEE. I believe so; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Throughout this period of time you had no oral or personal telephone conversations with Lee Harvey Oswald, did you?

Mr. LEE. To the best of my knowledge, to the very best of my knowledge, I can't ever remember speaking to this person. The only communications I can recall or having heard of him was through these series of letters, and I have subsequently seen photographs, and as a matter of fact I was another one of the millions of TV witnesses, and I don't recall ever having seen the man or having heard his voice. The only thing I ever had at all, that I can ever remember, are purely these communications. He is a complete stranger to me outside of this, and even within the framework of this he wasn't very much more than a stranger.

(Documents marked Lee Exhibits Nos. 8A through 8C.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibits 8A, B and C, respectively, which appear to be change of address cards.

Mr. LEE. Yes, these are post office cards. I have a recollection of receiving these. Of course we always got scads of these too, but this was a very normal thing. Usually people send these in with changes of address, people who subscribe to our publications and things. Do you want me to initial those?

Mr. RANKIN. Would you initial those?

(Witness complies.)

(Document marked Lee Exhibit No. 9.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit 9 and ask you if you recall having seen that before?

Mr. LEE. It seems like there should be a letter to go with it. I believe that each of the things that I turned in, where it was available, there was an envelope with the letter. I don't recall that I turned in any isolated envelope that wasn't with a letter.

Mr. FAULKNER. This has a postmark, New Orleans, 4 Aug. 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. I might ask you, Mr. Lee, if that envelope, Exhibit 9, might be connected with the Exhibit 5.

Mr. LEE. Well, now, it's possible. The letter is dated August 1, and the thing is postmarked PM, August 4. I assume--it looks very much like it would fit in there, the envelope and paper match up, and there is no difference in the ink, the pen used, from what I can see. I do remember specifically that when I turned over the material to the Federal agents I did--I don't recall at any time having a loose envelope, it was with one of the letters.

Mr. RANKIN. It is apparently closer to any of the letters timewise.

Mr. LEE. It is very likely that it goes with this letter, and from my own experience there is a date discrepancy of a couple of days there, but I have carried a letter around in my pocket for a couple of days, too, and I can very well assume that somebody else would do the same.

Mr. RANKIN. On the back of Exhibit 7 there is a penciled number. Does that have anything to do with your organization?

Mr. LEE. I haven't the faintest idea what this thing is, sir. There is one on here too. I have never seen this before. It is certainly not my hand on these things, and I very much--in fact I am pretty positive that this material has been added to these letters since I turned these things into the Federal agents. It is probably a filing code number or something or other used by the Federal agents.

Mr. RANKIN. The FBI, yes.

Mr. LEE. It is not in my hand, and it certainly doesn't look like--in fact I remember when I made copies of these things I was looking at both sides of the papers to make sure that I had a complete copy when I made the copy of these letters for my own personal file on the issue, and these things were not on. I am sure that these things were not on them when I turned them in.

Mr. RANKIN. By "these things" you mean those pencil marks on the back?

Mr. LEE. The penciled digits on the back of the letters.

Mr. RANKIN. Such as on Exhibit 7 that I just referred you to, the mark "62-109060-1845"?

Mr. LEE. Yes, those things must have been added after I turned them in.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lee, I asked you about the circling of the figure 50 and the notation "Sent 4/19/63" on Exhibit 1. As I recall, you said you were out traveling over the country at that time, and you knew you were not in the office so as to send that literature. Do you have any idea what 50 copies were sent?

Mr. LEE. Well, this is back in April of 1963, and he asks, I quote, "I now ask for 40 or 50," and the circle is around 50, and this, the normal procedure had always been to note it. When the circle was made around the 50, I just assume, and I very much believe, that it was 50 items that were sent. Now, we have printed various leaflets, and this is what was sent, these leaflets, such as, you know, calling for the end of hostile relations, and so forth, between the Government of the United States and the Government of Cuba, which we used for distribution at various public affairs and public places.

Mr. RANKIN. We had information from the Bureau that you had said that notation was by you and that you sent the material. Is that incorrect?

Mr. LEE. Well, I can't see how it could possibly be when I wasn't in the area at the time. The 19th of April I was somewhere on the west coast, I was somewhere between Los Angeles and Seattle, Washington. I arrived on the west coast, I believe, on April the 1st or 2d of 1963, and I didn't return until the first week of May of 1963, and the last point of departure to New York was from, I believe, the City of Chicago. I was out on the west coast and the west and midwest during that period of time, and I wasn't there. Now, I assume that at some point along the line in my communications I had sent this gentleman some material, which we always had in stock. This was part of our activity, to print up leaflets and pamphlets and translations of various things and provide them to the general public.

But this particular item, assuming that all these dates are correct, I can't possibly have sent it. But the point is that I would authorize--to me it was a standard policy that if anybody asked for anything that we had, we would give it to them, and that is the best I can say. But as for myself, at that particular date, I was not in the New York area. I was very far away at that particular time. In fact I was definitely on the west coast of the United States at that time.

Mr. RANKIN. So if they recorded that you said that, there was some error?

Mr. LEE. There was an error somewhere. Maybe they got confused in the conversation over maybe something else, some other communication that I mentioned, that I had felt that I had replied to, communications, and sent him stuff like the constitution and bylaws. Maybe that might have got confused.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there any connection with you or your organization or anyone from your organization that you know of with the acts of Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with the assassination of the President?

Mr. LEE. With myself or organizationally, to the best of my knowledge, no; nor have I heard or know of any other person related to the organization in any way. Definitely there would be no connection between the act--acts of Lee Harvey Oswald. Whether or not he did anything in relation to the assassination, I don't know. As I understood, this is what is trying to be determined, and so forth, with this hearing. But whether he did or did not in relation, we had no--nothing to do with this. In fact I would feel very free to say that this particular act by anybody would be the worst possible thing that we could conceive of. Our idea was certainly not to engage in any activities of violence or illegal actions of any kind. We try very much to maintain a character of nonviolent participation in community affairs. In fact we have organizationally held, in which I directed and participated, demonstrations in which we made a very firm commitment to peaceful assembly and demonstration, and even when attacked physically did not respond to the attack but withheld and conducted ourselves peacefully and legally.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Harvey Oswald a member of your organization?

Mr. LEE. I have no record of this. You see, we never kept a membership file. We never at any time maintained a membership file. If somebody asked to join the organization, we made out a membership card for them and the card was sent to the person, but there was no duplicate and there was no special recording of it; it was just a simple formality, and we just sent them the card. And so there is no way that I can tell for sure that he was or he wasn't, because we never did maintain a file in this direction.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything about his being a member, as far as your recollection?

Mr. LEE. I am not sure on that score. I mean I don't know. It is entirely possible. It is entirely possible. But I can't say that I recall, you know, filling out a card for him. It is entirely possible. I may very well have. But as far as saying absolutely I remember, no, I don't, I can't say that, because I really don't remember, but I will say it is entirely possible. In fact I would assume from the communications--I would assume from the communications which were conducted with this gentleman that it is very likely that he asked to join, and our membership was the type of thing where it was open to anybody who asked to become a member, was given membership. We had no restrictions on membership. In fact we had one of the policy statements of the organization, its constitution and bylaws, was that it was open to all regardless of race, creed, color, religion, national origin or political opinion. It was open to anybody, anybody at all could join, and from the communications, since I was writing to him in connection with--he was asking if he could start a chapter, well, I can't conceive of my writing to a nonmember in the direction of starting a chapter. It is very--I assume that he must have at some point along the line asked to join as a member and met the simple requirements of sending in a membership fee, which was really a subscription to any of our publications, and I assume that he must have been, otherwise I can't quite conceive of my having written to him about membership, starting a chapter, replying to such a question without having--the letters--evidently there would have been some communication saying, well, "You can't do it unless you join," and from the letters you showed me, which I assume are correct, he must have already at some point in the communications decided to join the organization.

Mr. RANKIN. I call your attention to the first paragraph, Mr. Lee, of Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. LEE. Oh, yes; sure, here it is, "I am requesting formal membership in your organizations." Well, evidently at this point, at the end of May, 1963, he requested formal--I don't--let's see, is there a note in here of having sent him--well, anyhow, assuming that accompanying this letter there was----

Mr. RANKIN. Let me call your attention to Exhibit 3, and there is in the first paragraph there----

Mr. LEE. Oh, yes; evidently he did join, yes. I assumed that it was so, because I can't conceive of having written him about a chapter unless he had joined. One doesn't organizationally ask people to help the organization who are not members.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any combination, conspiracy or common action of any kind that worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with his acts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. LEE. I have no knowledge of any such thing.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any members of Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans that were working with Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with anything he did there for the committee?

Mr. LEE. No; I have no recollection of any such thing. In fact all I can recall is that the man communicated I think to me that somehow in these letters that he had nobody and that he was completely alone, and that in fact I think one of the letters mentioned how he was out somewhere all alone and that he had no--nobody at all, nobody working with him or through him or for him or around him or anything else. He gave me the impression that he was completely isolated in his community, which became obvious to me from his actions which would certainly isolate him in his community. I could see very well how he would be.

Mr. RANKIN. I call your attention to Exhibit 7 and the paragraph in which he says he was working with three people in the demonstration. He doesn't purport to say they are members.

Mr. LEE. Demonstration of three. I wonder if he was one of the three, or who it was. Somewhere in some of these letters, I don't know where--I could check back--I got the indication that he had no support and that he was completely isolated. Now, what this business of the three people is, I have no idea. He doesn't seem to mention anything more about this, and I don't even know whether he was one of the three or whether there were three besides him or what.

Mr. RANKIN. I call your attention to Exhibit 5, in which he refers to the fact that he was attacked during one of the demonstrations, and then the following page of that Exhibit 5, that robbed him of any associates.

Mr. LEE. "... the support I had, leaving me alone." Yes, I guess this is what I had in mind, "This incident robbed me of what support I had, leaving me alone." Now, what support he had, I don't know.

If I recall correctly, at this incident which he mentions here, he had sent me the things from his court, the arrest things, and the only people that are mentioned in that are Oswald and the people who he claims attacked him, and that is the only people, evidently, according to the court records and the police, you know, who the police brought charges on. There didn't seem to be anybody involved but this Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cuban exiles who he became involved in a fracas with down there. So I don't know how much validity--I really don't know how much validity there is in these other people existing, whether they did or not.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Dallas?

Mr. LEE. As I said, I never kept a membership file and I don't recall who is a member and who wouldn't be a member. I know we received many communications requesting literature of various types and things like that from all over the country, and I don't know of any state of the union which has not been sent some material at some time during the 3-1/2-year history of the organization. I would assume that somewhere, at some time, in Texas some people wrote in and received something, some communication, but as far as doing anything particularly about Dallas, no. The only thing I know about Dallas is what I read in the papers, which doesn't tell me too much.

Mr. RANKIN. And that same situation about whether there were any members of the committee in New Orleans would be true, would it?

Mr. LEE. Well, it is like I say. As for membership, this is an almost impossible situation in view of the fact that we didn't conduct a membership file or a duplicate membership card system and we just had mailing lists. In fact the mailing lists--even the mailing lists wouldn't tell very much, if anything, and that was just a case, anybody who thought somebody should receive a communication gave the name of somebody, in fact for now deceased Governor Lehman was on that list, Senators and Congressmen were placed on the mailing list, everybody and his brother who we thought should be--well, we thought some reason should receive the material which we sent out, we just sent material. It could be anybody. And like I say, stuff went to all over the country, just automatically, just did large mailings to every place we could think of, dream of or hope for in any of our activities of mailing.

But as far as particularly--there was never an active organization of the committee in these areas. We have had in the past--there was in existence in the committee a series of chapters, committee chapters, in various parts of the country, but there were never any chapters or active participation on a local level, to my knowledge, in either Texas or Louisiana at any time during the entire history of the organization.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there any information, evidence or knowledge that you haven't given us that would bear upon this assassination of President Kennedy, that might help the Commission?

Mr. LEE. No, sir; I have no information whatsoever. I have more than personal, more than just curiosity, and I hope very much to know the truth about this incident and hope very much that the truth is known, particularly for my own personal reasons, as well as any other reasons, because having been practically a victim of very serious slander in this direction, both by individuals and by elements of the press and various periodicals, I have very serious concern about developing the truth. I have been threatened. People have tried to break into my home, somehow connecting myself and my organizational activities, quite falsely, with the assassination--I would like to see the truth come up, because I am quite sure that any investigation will show that this was not true, that I didn't have any part of this. I am as much interested and probably more interested in my own way in having the facts presented than many of the average people on the street. I have a personal involvement in this.

Mr. RANKIN. That is all.

Mr. Faulkner, do you have anything?

Mr. FAULKNER. I was just going to ask Mr. Lee one question with regard to Exhibit No. 1, where the date in the lower right-hand corner appears reading, "Sent 4/19/63" in his handwriting.

Mr. LEE. Well, you see, the thing is, I don't think it is, because I don't see how I could have written that if I wasn't there. That's the whole thing. But it could be--like I said, that office was an open door. Everybody used to come and go, and people would come in and say, "I've got twenty minutes"--a kid from school, some kid would come in and say, "I've got 20 minutes between classes. Can I do something to help you?" And somebody would say, "Yes, wrap that package", and they would be off 20 minutes later. So it could be anybody in the world. Or perhaps the only possibility is when I returned, perhaps somebody mentioned that it was taken care of, and I wrote it after my return. But certainly not at that time, because I wasn't even present.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it satisfactory, Mr. Lee, if we finally obtain the originals from the Bureau and send them to you of these Exhibits 3 and 3-A, which purport to be copies or photocopies of your correspondence, and on your verification substitute those for those copies?

Mr. FAULKNER. If----

Mr. LEE. If you find it's necessary. Actually, as I say, I would assume these very much--I mean, this looks very much like what I would expect a duplicate, a duplication of the stationery which I used to look like. I mean, just, you know, like I say, I assume----

Mr. FAULKNER. We would be satisfied.

Mr. LEE. (Continuing.) I would be satisfied to make this----

Mr. FAULKNER. If you are satisfied when you see the original, compare it with this, and if you are satisfied that they correspond, there is no reason to call Mr. Lee.

Mr. LEE. No; I am quite agreeable to verification.

Mr. RANKIN. Fine. Thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD SAMUEL JOHNSON

The testimony of Arnold Samuel Johnson was taken at 9:30 a.m., on April 17, 1964, at the U.S. Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., by Messrs. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel, and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. Arnold Samuel Johnson was accompanied by his attorney, John J. Abt.

Arnold Samuel Johnson, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. RANKIN. Will you give the reporter your name and address.

Mr. JOHNSON. Arnold Samuel Johnson. My home address is 56 Seventh Avenue, New York City.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Johnson, my name is J. Lee Rankin. I am general counsel for the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

We are here to take your testimony with regard to that matter, and we have certain rules and procedures that the Commission has set up to be followed in connection with the hearings and testimony that is taken for the consideration of the Commission. Mr. Liebeler is here as my assistant, and he is one of the several counsel of the Commission.

The Commission acts in accordance with an Executive order of President Johnson, No. 11130, and a Joint Resolution of the Congress No. 137.

Under the rules you have a right to a 3-day notice of this examination. I understand you are appearing voluntarily and do not require that?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. You are also entitled to have counsel, and I understand Mr. Abt is acting as your counsel in connection with this proceeding.

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct.

Mr. RANKIN. You also have a right to have a copy of the testimony made available to you. However, it is at your own expense. We just tell the reporter that you can get it if you pay for it.

Your counsel has a right to make objections during the proceedings and also at the close of the examination on behalf of the Commission to ask you such questions as he may care to, that may clarify anything that you say that he thinks either you desire to have clarified or he thinks in his good judgment should be either clarified or elaborated upon or require further questions from him to make clear what he thinks your testimony is.

Are there any questions which you have in regard to it?

Mr. JOHNSON. Perfectly all right.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Johnson, can you identify for us the position you occupied at the time you received some communications from Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I was the director of the information and lecture bureau of the Communist Party.

Mr. RANKIN. I may ask you some questions trying to cover things which I ordinarily would, and you wait for your counsel. Is it possible for you to tell us whether you continue to occupy that position now? Is that any problem?

Mr. ABT. I think not. I think there is no problem.

Mr. JOHNSON. No problem.

Mr. RANKIN. And you do?

Mr. JOHNSON. I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything to do with the subscription list of the Worker?

Mr. JOHNSON. Immediately, I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you know, then, whether Lee Harvey Oswald was a subscriber to the Worker, of your own knowledge?

Mr. ABT. Just say of your own knowledge, whether you actually know it or don't.

Mr. JOHNSON. I mean, not of my own knowledge; no. That's the point, I would say.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the fact that he was a subscriber come to your attention at some time, through hearsay or otherwise?

Mr. JOHNSON. Through hearsay only.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that from him or someone else?

Mr. JOHNSON. From him in one of the letters.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you supply some correspondence that you had with Lee Harvey Oswald to someone in connection with the consideration of the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I supplied all of it.

Mr. RANKIN. About when was that that you did supply that information?

Mr. JOHNSON. In the first week of December.

Mr. RANKIN. What year?

Mr. JOHNSON. 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you happen to supply that information?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I supplied it in the office of John Abt to the representative of the FBI at the time, in the presence of my attorney, John Abt, and it was supplied to the FBI agent who came, and I assume was conducting the investigation on behalf of the Commission at the time.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, before you supplied that material to this FBI agent, did you make any search of files to determine what information, correspondence or records you had in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes. Very extensive. We went through every bit of the office.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that yourself or have it done under your supervision and direction?

Mr. JOHNSON. I did it myself.

Mr. RANKIN. How large a search was that? I would like to establish how complete, if I can.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will admit the files are not exactly in an organized fashion. It's--it was material in which there were a lot of other letters and things like that. So I went through these files several times.

Mr. RANKIN. Yourself?

Mr. JOHNSON. All the files, back and forth.

Mr. RANKIN. You did that yourself?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And those were all the files that you could find that might show any correspondence between----

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. The Communist Party and Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; that would be the complete file, everything, all the correspondence.

Mr. RANKIN. About when did you make this search?

Mr. JOHNSON. Frankly, I started right after the assassination was announced. As soon as that name appeared, I started to make a search.

Mr. RANKIN. Why did you do this?

Mr. JOHNSON. Somehow the name struck my memory.

Mr. RANKIN. Why did you supply the information to the FBI agent that was investigating?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, because I felt dutybound to cooperate in the full with the Government in any investigation of this assassination.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was ever a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America?

Mr. JOHNSON. To my knowledge, he was never such, and I would know.

Mr. RANKIN. You think you would know?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes; I would, I am sure.

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you an exhibit that has been marked----

Mr. LIEBELER. Exhibit No. 1 on the examination of Arnold Johnson, April 17, 1964. It has been our practice for the examining attorney and for the witness to initial the exhibit for purposes of identification so there is no confusion.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Johnson, would you be kind enough to initial the exhibit under my initials so we both certify one of the exhibits offered.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes (witness complies).

(Document marked Johnson Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine that Exhibit No. 1 on your examination and determine whether you have seen that before?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I have.

Mr. RANKIN. About when did you receive it?

Mr. JOHNSON. In late June or early July--I believe June--of 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Where did you receive it?

Mr. JOHNSON. In my office.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it in substantially the same form that it was when you received it, except for some notations by you on it?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You recognize that there are some notations by you on that Exhibit 1?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; there are.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us about those, please?

Mr. JOHNSON. The notations are "Send catalog and limited supply."

Mr. RANKIN. What does that mean?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is in reference to a request for literature, and I stated to send a limited supply, I mean, which means usually a copy of one, a single copy of several pieces at the particular time.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. And what does the catalog reference mean?

Mr. JOHNSON. The catalog is a----

Mr. RANKIN. A listing of your supplies and literature?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is a listing of literature, which is a rather old catalog, to tell the truth about it, of the International Publishers, which usually is included in--which includes many other pieces of literature that if the person was interested they could purchase.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain the other notation?

Mr. JOHNSON. The other notation is "lit sent," which means that the literature was sent.

Mr. RANKIN. That notation was made by you too?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is my writing too.

Mr. RANKIN. And the double line?

Mr. JOHNSON. This double line refers to this particular point of literature, and I made that double line. That is all.

Mr. RANKIN. Does this Exhibit 1, as you received it, consist of two handwritten pages apparently written by Lee Harvey Oswald on or before the date they bear, together with a single printed sheet about "Hands off Cuba"?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. In the letter he refers to the leaflet "like the one enclosed," and that accompanied the letter. It is also true on the leaflet he refers to the term "free literature."

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of just what literature you sent?

Mr. JOHNSON. At the time when I turned this over I included copies of what I would assume would have been the literature at the time.

Mr. RANKIN. That is when you turned it over to the FBI?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I turned over copies of the literature at the same time. That would be the normal thing for that particular period. I think I could think through carefully----

Mr. RANKIN. Would that be four or five pieces?

Mr. JOHNSON. Possibly more than that; about seven or eight.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you briefly describe about what they were for the record?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, they would be those pieces of literature which somehow state what was being distributed around that time from our offices, and I know it included a pamphlet "End The Cold War" by Gus Hall; it included a pamphlet on the McCarran Act. I think it would have included at that time another pamphlet on "Peaceful Co-existence." Then the pamphlet that we usually sent by Elizabeth Flynn, something of the history of the Communist Party, "Horizons of the Future." I am guessing now, to tell the truth about it, from here on.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the reference in this Exhibit 1 to honorary membership cards in the Fair Play For Cuba?

Mr. JOHNSON. I know the reference is there; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether or not the cards were enclosed or not?

Mr. JOHNSON. I really don't remember that.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever have any oral communications with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. None whatsoever.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever have any oral communications with anybody on his behalf?

Mr. JOHNSON. None whatsoever.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall doing anything about the honorary membership cards, giving them to Mr. Hall and Mr. Davis, or anything like that?

Mr. JOHNSON. No. That is where I don't really recall about them. If I would have done that, then I am sure that I would have remembered it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall doing anything else about the letter, Exhibit 1, and the printed sheet attached to it beyond what you have described?

Mr. JOHNSON. I replied to it.

(Document marked Johnson Exhibit No. 2.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit No. 2 on your examination and ask you if you will identify that by stating whether or not you have seen that copy and the original of that copy at some time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. This is my reply to the letter we have just been discussing.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you prepare that reply?

Mr. JOHNSON. I did.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you send it on or about the date it bears to Mr. Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you kindly initial it.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. What did you mean in Exhibit 2 by the statement that "We do not have any organizational ties with the committee"?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is in reference to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. And there are no organizational ties between the Communist Party and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; and since he was writing on that subject, I wanted to make it clear that there is no such relationship existing, so that literature that was being sent was not being sent from the viewpoint of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as such, or anything like that.

Mr. RANKIN. By "organizational ties" did you mean to distinguish between that kind of a tie and some other kind of a tie; is that what you were trying to do?

Mr. JOHNSON. In the sense--well, in this sense, that while not being responsible for what that committee may do, if there were activities being done by a committee which would have our sympathy, well, there would be that kind of relationship; but that is not any--not where we would assume responsibility for it, nor could we indicate what its policy would be, or anything like that.

Mr. RANKIN. You are trying to distinguish between some official relationship and mere sympathy?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that it? You did recognize a sympathy or desire to encourage the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, I take it, then?

Mr. JOHNSON. That and other similar committees, whatever they may be, but not exclusively that.

(Document marked Johnson Exhibit No. 3.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit No. 3 and ask you if you recall having received that from Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that one of the letters that you delivered to the FBI at the time you described?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you receive it on or about the date it bears?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think so. I mean within those days; not on the day but afterward.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall receiving the honorary membership card of esteem that he says he is sending to you?

Mr. JOHNSON. Somehow I do not; at least I never kept it, and it wasn't attached to the letter at all when I found it in the files, or anything like that. I do not recall that.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you kindly initial Exhibit 3 too, please.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. There is a reference in the second paragraph of Exhibit No. 3 to a clipping. Do you recall that at all?

Mr. JOHNSON. I recall a clipping that had something to do with either a distribution of literature or a--and I think that was it. I am not too sure whether it also had something about an arrest or some altercation that he had been in. I did not keep it. I did not regard it as of any particular significance.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall destroying it or do you know what happened to the clipping?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, things like that I would just very likely throw in the wastebasket; that's all.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether or not you responded to the Exhibit No. 3?

Mr. JOHNSON. I responded to that together with other letters.

Mr. RANKIN. At some later date?

Mr. JOHNSON. At a later date.

Mr. RANKIN. There is a request in Exhibit 3 for additional information or literature. Do you recall whether you sent any additional----

Mr. JOHNSON. I don't recall exactly, but I would rather imagine not, and for a very simple reason: If I would have, I would have made a notation on here, "Literature sent."

Mr. RANKIN. I see. I hand you what has been marked Johnson Exhibit No. 4 and ask you if you recall receiving that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. About when compared with the date it bears? Do you remember?

Mr. JOHNSON. Within just a few days after that.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you please initial that below my initials.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Is Exhibit 4 in the same condition as it was when you received it, except the notations on it that----

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it is.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it one of the papers that you supplied the FBI at the time that you referred to?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And does it consist of three pages, handwritten?

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. Three full pages; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. It is dated August 28, 1963; is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. That's right.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell us about the notations that you put on Exhibit 4? Describe first each one as you tell about it.

Mr. JOHNSON. The notations that I put on?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. This one, "Fair Play is a broader comm." I put that simply as a point to be emphasized in my reply. The two lines on page 2----

Mr. RANKIN. The top of the page?

Mr. JOHNSON. At the top of the page--as a point to consider in making my reply. Those are the only notations that I've got on it.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, there is another notation in ink, "Arnold, please reply," with the capital letter E, apparently.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who put that on?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us?

Mr. JOHNSON. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

Mr. RANKIN. Who is she?

Mr. ABT. Mr. Rankin, I have advised Mr. Johnson respectfully to decline to give any further information on this subject.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you meant by that notation, that is, "broader comm."?

Mr. JOHNSON. That the Fair Play for Cuba Committee is a committee which is inclusive of people of varied political viewpoints and backgrounds, and it is not what we term a--a more limited committee, which would have people more closely associated with us, but rather includes people who vigorously disagree with us, and in this sense is a broader committee.

Mr. RANKIN. That is, it might consist of people who were sympathetic with the Communist movement and also those who were in support of the Cuban movement but not necessarily with the Communist movement? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; and who may even be vigorously opposed to the Communist movement.

Mr. RANKIN. There is a reference to Lee Oswald trying to dissolve his United States citizenship. Had you known of that before you received this letter?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; I did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss this Exhibit 4 with anyone else at the time you prepared your answer?

Mr. JOHNSON. When Elizabeth gave it to me, just that she indicated that I should answer it. There was really no discussion of what the answer would be.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you give him an answer as to whether he should remain in the background, i.e., underground?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I did.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that in your letter?

Mr. JOHNSON. In my letter; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. There is on the last or third page, Mr. Johnson, a notation, "Arnold," with a line above and below that. Do you know whose handwriting that is?

Mr. JOHNSON. Elizabeth Flynn's.

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit 4-A and ask you if that is a reply that you prepared to Exhibit 4.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is, but it is also to a further letter (indicating).

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Johnson Exhibit No. 6, dated September 1, 1963, apparently in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald and consisting of a part of one page in handwriting. Is that the other letter that you referred to, that Exhibit 4-A is a response to?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you receive Exhibit 6 on or about the date it bears?

Mr. JOHNSON. Shortly after; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it in the same form?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is.

Mr. RANKIN. So by Exhibit 4-A you tried to answer both Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 6? Is that what you mean?

Mr. JOHNSON. And the one previous to that, too. There were three letters that come in under this.

Mr. RANKIN. By these three, you are referring to Exhibit 3----

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 3, 4, and 6.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you initial those two as I have done, Mr. Johnson.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. In Exhibit 4-A, you speak about finding some way to get in touch with Mr. Oswald in Baltimore. Can you tell us what you meant by that?

Mr. JOHNSON. In his letter of September 1, he refers that he is going to come to the Baltimore-Washington area and asked for information about how to reach somebody. It is not my practice to refer them to people until a person comes into an area, and if there is any reason to refer them to a person, then I do so under those circumstances. Thus, this is a simple form of simply--of just saying that when such a circumstance arises we can make a contact, that is, look him up wherever he is at the time.

Mr. RANKIN. After you received the letter, Exhibit 4, with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald's trying to dissolve his American citizenship while he was in the Soviet Union, did you make any inquiry to try to determine whether he had taken such action?

Mr. JOHNSON. Nothing further than was in the letter itself.

Mr. RANKIN. And you said that it is often advisable for some people to remain in the background, not underground. What did you mean by that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Very simply that as an American citizen, whatever he is doing should always be aboveground; that a person remains in the background within any organizational activities, that he does not push himself forward in whatever he is doing.

(Document marked Johnson Exhibit No. 5.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit No. 5 and ask you whether that letter dated August 31, 1963, consisting of two pages and an envelope, was one of the pieces of correspondence you turned over to the FBI at the time you described?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is.

Mr. RANKIN. Had you seen that Exhibit 5 at some time prior to the time you turned it over?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes; just within a couple of days before, I think it was.

Mr. RANKIN. It is addressed to a Mr. or M. Bert. I guess Mr. Bert.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Bert.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us who that is?

Mr. JOHNSON. He is the managing editor of the Worker.

Mr. RANKIN. How did that Exhibit 5 come to your attention?

Mr. JOHNSON. I inquired specifically of the Worker as to whether there was any other correspondence when I was assembling the material to turn over, and I insisted upon a search of files, in an easy way, "Please look through the files and see if there is anything."

Mr. RANKIN. Who did you make that inquiry of?

Mr. JOHNSON. I made that actually to Mr. Jackson.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us who Mr. Jackson is, enough so that we can know how he may be acting or he may have the authority to search the files?

Mr. JOHNSON. He is the editor of the Worker.

Mr. RANKIN. That was done shortly before you turned over the other papers and this to the FBI?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any basis for believing that when you made such a request it would be carried out?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us enough about that so we would know what reason you would have to believe that it would be carried out?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the relationship would be one, which was very normal; the editorial policy of the Worker in relationship to the assassination; and insistence upon cooperation in any fashion to determine anything related to it that would be helpful in the work of the Commission or Government agencies involved. There was no resistance, and there was immediately a willingness and desire to do so; that is all.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask that there be a complete search for anything that would show any correspondence?

Mr. JOHNSON. I did.

Mr. RANKIN. Or contact with Lee Harvey Oswald by either the Communist Party in the United States or the Worker?

Mr. JOHNSON. I did.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you satisfied that that search was full and complete?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I am.

Mr. RANKIN. And that whatever you turned over to the FBI was all that either of those organizations had in their possession?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any further conversation with Mr. Bert in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. Only in the sense of asking whether he was sure that there was no other communications, and I think that was really all. I mean I didn't ask him what his reactions were or anything like that.

Mr. RANKIN. And you did not discuss the correspondence in the sense of what it contained?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; I think I did discuss this, I asked him whether there was any reply to it, and he said, no; that he did not reply. And I asked him specifically as to whether--"Are you sure?" because I wondered if there was anything further, and he said he was very sure about that.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you initial that too, please, Mr. Johnson.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know the Mr. Weinstock that is referred to in this Exhibit 5?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us who he is or was at that time?

Mr. JOHNSON. He was at that time the managing--the business manager of the Worker.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us where he is now?

Mr. JOHNSON. Right at the moment he is out of town. He had a heart illness some time back.

Mr. RANKIN. Is he somewhat disabled?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Well, he is not working at all now, and I--he was in town a few days ago seeing doctors, and I told him about this request. I asked him specifically whether he knew anything about--anything further about this letter, and so forth. He did not recall a thing.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him whether he had any other contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald except the one that is referred to in that letter?

Mr. JOHNSON. He did not recall it. I asked him that. I also made a search of his back files and found nothing.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any inquiry as to whether he knew anything else about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. I inquired, I asked him that--this was all on the telephone--and he said, no. And he went to this thing out in the country some place, just to sort of recover from this illness.

Mr. RANKIN. And there is a Mr. Tormey that is referred to in that letter. Do you know him too?

Mr. ABT. Mr. Tormey is here, and he is prepared to testify.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what position he occupied about that time?

Mr. JOHNSON. About that time he was the executive secretary of the Hall-Davis Defense Committee.

(Document marked Johnson Exhibit No. 5A.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Johnson, I hand you Exhibit 5A, which I was informed was one of the works of Lee Harvey Oswald that you turned over to the FBI at the same time. Do you recall having seen that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not that was one of the pieces of Lee Harvey Oswald's purported works that he had sent to Mr. Weinstock?

Mr. JOHNSON. Whether he had sent it to Mr. Weinstock or whether he had sent it to Mr. Bert, I don't know. I got it at the same time as I got the letter from Mr. Bert.

Mr. RANKIN. But you do believe that it was sent to one or the other?

Mr. JOHNSON. It was sent to one or the other. It could have been either one.

Mr. RANKIN. And do you understand that it was purportedly something that Lee Harvey Oswald claimed to have made up himself?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not Mr. Weinstock wrote any letter back to Lee Harvey Oswald about that or other material that he had sent in?

Mr. JOHNSON. Not of my own knowledge, other than there is a reference to it in that letter.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; and you have already testified that you asked Mr. Weinstock about it, and he did not recall any answer; is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. I notice with Exhibit 5, the envelope shows considerable difficulty in reaching the addressee.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how it happened to get to Mr. Bert?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the address is wrong in that on the envelope it is 26 West 23d Street, and the proper address would have been 23 West 26th Street. That is the first mistake. Therefore it was apparently turned back, and then the post office made the correction.

(Witness initials Exhibit No. 5A.)

(Document marked Johnson Exhibit No. 7.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit 7, which is a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald, with the envelope. Do you recall having received that and turning that over to the FBI?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. At the time you referred to?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether you received it near the date that shows on the envelope?

Mr. JOHNSON. I know when I received it.

Mr. RANKIN. Oh, you do recall?

Mr. JOHNSON. And it was not near the date.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. When was it?

Mr. JOHNSON. The envelope has a postmark of the 1st of November. I received it on the 29th of November. That is the day after Thanksgiving.

Mr. RANKIN. You were probably surprised to receive----

Mr. JOHNSON. I was. This was after the assassination date by a week.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you answer that letter?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You did not?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You remember receiving it personally rather than someone in your office at that time?

Mr. JOHNSON. It was brought in by the mail carrier in the normal--in the afternoon, and then was delivered to me within the office, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you place your initials under mine?

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know any reason for the delay in the letter?

Mr. JOHNSON. I really do not. That's an unusual delay. I could readily see a delay occurring after the 22d, but to have a delay from the 1st to that date seems to me to be beyond all normal procedure. Even when mails are held and checked during a thing like that, they wouldn't stand so long. I cannot understand.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any examination at the time to determine whether Exhibit 7 had been opened by anyone before you received it?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; except that the envelope has the unusual line on the back which indicates that there was possibly an opening and return. But that could also be the way it was folded or something like that. But you can see the line here [indicating].

Mr. RANKIN. Will you mark that----

Mr. JOHNSON. You see that. It looks that to me, anyway, as if this was the line where it had been opened and then put back. Then if you look at the envelope itself, as an airmail envelope, normally this part would be turned down, and instead it's open like this. Now, it's true that, folded that way, it fits in only when it is this way, but then this line should not have been here. There is something odd about the whole letter as far as the delivery itself is concerned.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you make a pen line on the place on the back that you find that unusual marking, please.

Mr. JOHNSON. (Witness complies.) I will admit I was very much surprised when I received that letter. I was bound to look at it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss it with anyone at the time?

Mr. JOHNSON. I guess I just made comments all over the place about getting a letter from him at that time.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any question about whether Exhibit 7 was prepared and sent by Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. I never studied his handwriting too carefully. There are several things that looked a little bit odd about it. It's a little hard to say. For instance, you have a different kind of ink in two places here. It seems that way to me. But that's pretty hard to say with modern pens. The way he signs his name and the way--that could be a problem, because he didn't always sign it the same--or he has "Mr. A. Johnston" up here, and it starts "Mr. Johnson" up here. I don't know what all the confusing elements are, but I would just as soon leave that to someone who is more--who is a handwriting expert, and I am not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever have a conversation----

Mr. JOHNSON. It may be worthwhile to check it with a handwriting expert on that.

Mr. RANKIN. A conversation with V. T. Lee or any others in regard to the Fair Play for Cuba matter and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. At no time.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any conversation with anyone about the effect of the assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald and his connection with the Fair Play for Cuba effort in New Orleans on the Communist Party?

Mr. JOHNSON. Will you state that again?

Mr. RANKIN. Read the question, please.

(Question read.)

Mr. JOHNSON. Not in that sense, no. Not in relationship to Fair Play for Cuba et cetera.

Mr. RANKIN. In some other sense, did you?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, normally, just within our own--among our own people, I would naturally discuss it and say that somebody could try to make a false charge against us in some fashion, and that we of necessity would have to react quickly to it so as to make clear that he was never a member of the Communist Party, never associated with us in any fashion of a political or organizational character.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any inquiry to determine whether or not any members of the Communist Party of the United States were involved in any conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald about the assassination?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, I would say very definitely that they were not. There was never any such relationships at all. There was nobody that I know of who had any contact whatsoever, and I think I would have known.

Mr. RANKIN. By nobody, do you mean----

Mr. JOHNSON. No Communist of any character, at any time.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you made sufficient inquiry or have sufficient knowledge so you were satisfied that that would be true?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes. There was no relationships whatsoever. I would say definitely I would know if any Communist would have had any conversation, and I know of none, no communication or conversation.

Mr. RANKIN. By any conversation, you mean with regard to the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any contacts with the----

Mr. JOHNSON. That's so flagrantly against anything about the Communist viewpoint that it's----

Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain that, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Communists just do not believe in assassination as a method of social change, and----

Mr. RANKIN. You mean that as far as the Communist Party of the United States is concerned?

Mr. JOHNSON. Definitely.

Mr. RANKIN. Or generally?

Mr. JOHNSON. Definitely and generally. I mean that very specifically. It has nothing to do with it. We would say that anybody who harbors such a thought is not only not a Communist but an anti-Communist basically.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you extend that to cover the activities of various groups in the Soviet Union?

Mr. JOHNSON. As far as assassination is concerned, yes.

Mr. RANKIN. I thought there was information that they had people connected with the government who were engaged in trying to understand and be able to use methods of assassination.

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't think that's true?

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, no. That's not true. That's dissident groups, groups like that, not Communist groups.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't think that is a part presently of the Soviet Union----

Mr. JOHNSON. Definitely not.

Mr. RANKIN. And you don't think it is any part of the plans of the Communist Party of the United States?

Mr. JOHNSON. I know that a thousand percent. We have for years made it a point if anybody has such viewpoints they cannot ever be a member of the party. They are expelled et cetera. We specifically speak against any acts of terrorism or individual violence et cetera.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any contact with Columbia Broadcasting System in regard to news matters relating to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. JOHNSON. That's what I was referring to before, that as soon as--yes, on the--I was trying to say the date, on the 23d, the day after the assassination, I called and issued a statement to all the news media in which I made it clear that Lee Harvey Oswald was not associated with us in any way and so forth, and they carried this on the radio or on television, I think one of them did. But it was also carried on the front page of the New York Times and through other papers. That was called in to all the stations, not just to Columbia. There was a seven-sentence statement.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever say that Lee Harvey Oswald was not given citizenship in the Soviet Union because they considered him a Fascist, or words to that effect?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don't recall that. I don't recall that.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that your belief?

Mr. JOHNSON. I never got involved in the reason, as I recall, as to why he was not given citizenship there. I assumed they had good reasons.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see any writings or communications or anything to indicate that he had a Fascist philosophy?

Mr. JOHNSON. The only feature within that would be, within one of these letters, when he refers to the fact that he attended the Walker meeting down there in Dallas; another reported story of his volunteering to be on both sides as far as Cuba was concerned, and then the further point, and this is a matter of political orientation maybe as to why he was in contact with Senator Tower instead of Senator Yarborough; that is just pure speculation, it doesn't mean very much.

Mr. RANKIN. Most of his expressions in his correspondence that you produced indicated an interest and sympathy with the Communist Party rather than any Fascist group, didn't they?

Mr. JOHNSON. But the main point would be that this act is so contradictory to anything in the Communist viewpoint, and that would be the essential test, that any person who has that kind of a mentality could just as well be covering up in communications, and that would be one of the difficulties of it; but the act itself, you see, would be an act, that kind of act of terrorism based upon the climate and everything there which would have been an act from a Fascist-minded person instead of from a Communist-minded person.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any evidence or know of any evidence to indicate that this assassination was a rightist or extreme right plot of any kind, conspiracy?

Mr. JOHNSON. Not of evidence in that sense, no. If you draw conclusions from the materials that were being circulated in Dallas, that ad in the newspaper that morning, and the various communications of people, of the added hate atmosphere, the warnings that were made of that hatred, that was all of a rightist character.

Mr. RANKIN. But that wouldn't necessarily mean that there was any plot or conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, would it? Or does it to you?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would rather think not. I mean I would rather think that nobody would proceed from any of this to the point of assassination. And there it is a matter I think where a person may have an opinion and not necessarily have evidence that could substantiate the opinion.

Mr. RANKIN. Or you could speculate easily?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is speculation.

Mr. RANKIN. Whether it was a rightist plot or there was a leftist plot?

Mr. JOHNSON. If there was a plot, it was only a rightist plot.

Mr. RANKIN. And you say that because you consider the act of assassination to accomplish political ends is not within the Communist Party philosophy; is that right?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is basically true. The second basic point would be the attitude of the Communist towards President Kennedy was one of high regard and respect, even though sharply differing on many things, but it was always that.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Johnson, do you have any other papers or knowledge bearing upon the assassination of President Kennedy that you haven't related here?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have, Mr. Abt. Do you have anything?

Mr. ABT. I have nothing.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Abt, may we ask you to be so kind as to be sworn and act as a witness for a brief moment?

Mr. ABT. Surely.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. TORMEY

The testimony of James J. Tormey was taken at 11:30 a.m., on April 17, 1964, at the U.S. Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., by Messrs. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. James J. Tormey was accompanied by his attorney, John J. Abt.

James J. Tormey, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. RANKIN. Give the reporter your name and your address.

Mr. TORMEY. James J. Tormey, T-o-r-m-e-y, 215 Willoughby Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Tormey, you received some correspondence from Lee Harvey Oswald, did you?

Mr. TORMEY. I received--a letter was referred to me from him.

Mr. RANKIN. Who referred the letter to you?

Mr. TORMEY. I don't know who it was, but apparently the letter which is addressed on the upper right-hand side to 23 West 26th Street was referred, and I don't remember who referred it.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what your position was at the time you received this referral?

Mr. TORMEY. Yes; I was the executive secretary of the Hall-Davis Defense Committee.

(Objects marked Tormey Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Tormey, will you examine Exhibit No. 1 on the deposition that you are giving today, which consists of several placard-type pieces of material, together with some plastic pieces, and tell us whether or not you have seen those before?

Mr. TORMEY. I have seen them before.

Mr. RANKIN. That Exhibit 1, I did not fully describe as I asked you to examine it. It also includes a little note purportedly from Lee Harvey Oswald, addressed to "Dear Sirs," with an address, 23 West 25th Street, apparently, New York.

Mr. TORMEY. I imagine that is 26th Street. I am not sure.

Mr. RANKIN. Twenty-six; yes. And that was a part of the Exhibit 1 that included these other materials that I have described, was it, when you received it?

Mr. TORMEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. After you received Exhibit 1 with those various materials and that note on yellow paper, what did you do?

Mr. TORMEY. Well, after reading it over I answered to the person who signed the letter, stating that I would put it on file, expressing appreciation for sending them, that I would put it on file in the event that we would have any occasion to use his services.

(Document marked Tormey Exhibit No. 2.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Exhibit No. 2 and ask you if that is a carbon copy of the answer that you prepared and sent.

Mr. TORMEY. Yes; it is.

Mr. RANKIN. Under our practice, the examining attorney is asked to initial the exhibit, and the witness too, so it will be established that we both----

Mr. TORMEY. Examined it?

Mr. RANKIN. Examined it; yes. Would you kindly do that?

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. And kindly do the same for Exhibit 2.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Tormey, we have initialed Exhibit No. 1 on the back of one of the placards, which appear to be the same, reading "The Gus Hall-Benjamin Davis Defense Committee," below that the words "End McCarranism" in large letters, and there are two of those, apparently identical; and then two plastic sheets, with the same legend on each of them, one of them apparently a negative and the other a positive, and then the little note headed "Dear Sirs" and signed "Lee H. Oswald," and message on the back, instructions, and so forth; is that correct?

Mr. TORMEY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any other communications with Lee Harvey Oswald except Exhibits 1 and 2?

Mr. TORMEY. I have no recollection of any.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you made any search of your files to determine whether or not there is anything else that you have?

Mr. TORMEY. I did, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you do that?

Mr. TORMEY. Well, it was--it would be sometime in the latter part of November or the early part of December of 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you happen to make that search?

Mr. TORMEY. Well, I had been told that a letter had been received from me by him, and I decided to conduct a routine check.

Mr. RANKIN. What was the nature of that search? Will you tell us so we can know how complete it was?

Mr. TORMEY. Yes; well, first I kept copies of all communications that I had with anyone.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. TORMEY. So I would assume in advance that there was a copy, and I asked the person who was managing the office at the time that I was there to look into the files to see if it were possible that such a communication did exist. I found that copy of communication.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the person that you asked to make that search a person under your control and direction?

Mr. TORMEY. At the time I was with Hall and Davis.

Mr. RANKIN. But at the time you requested this search, this person was not under your control and direction, I take it?

Mr. TORMEY. Well, not control and direction.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. But there was a sufficient relationship so that you are satisfied that the search was made, and it was a thorough search?

Mr. TORMEY. I am perfectly satisfied.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are able to assure us that there is nothing else so far as you know in regard to any communication of any type with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. TORMEY. I give that assurance.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any effort in regard to any conspiracy or common action between any people associated with this Gus Hall-Benjamin J. Davis Defense Committee that were involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. TORMEY. I have no such knowledge.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any information that would cause you to believe that there was any such association?

Mr. TORMEY. No; I have not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever use any of the material in Exhibit 1 in connection with your work on the committee?

Mr. TORMEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any other knowledge in regard to the assassination of President Kennedy that you have not related to us?

Mr. TORMEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF FARRELL DOBBS

The testimony of Farrell Dobbs was taken at 11:45 a.m., on April 17, 1964, at the U.S. Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., by Messrs. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Farrell Dobbs was accompanied by his attorney, Rowland Watts.

Farrell Dobbs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. RANKIN. In this examination, Mr. Dobbs, we are proceeding in accordance with the procedures that the Commission has set out and by reason of the Executive order of President Johnson No. 11130 and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

The examination will be done by myself, J. Lee Rankin, general counsel for the Commission. Mr. Liebeler is associated with me in that regard.

You are entitled to a 3-day notice of this examination. I assume, since you are willing to come here, you are willing to waive that 3-day notice and proceed with the hearing at this time; is that right?

Mr. DOBBS. That's right.

Mr. RANKIN. You are also entitled to have your counsel here, as you have, and during the examination, if he has any objection to any questions or wants to have a recess so that he may talk with you, of course, he may. At the close of your testimony, if there is something that he would like to examine you about so as to clarify anything that you said or give you an opportunity to correct or to change it, that is provided for, too. Do you have any questions before we start?

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Rankin, I think that it should show on the record that this is a voluntary appearance, that Mr. Dobbs volunteered what information he had and offered to come if you chose to have him.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; we wish to have that on the record.

Did you produce the information that was requested of you?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes; I turned it over to Mr. Watts, and he forwarded it to you.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have from the Militant files the 4-month introductory subscription blank stamped September 17, 1962?

Mr. WATTS. Yes; we offer it.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you mark that as Exhibit 1.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have the 4-month renewal blank stamped May 28, 1963?

Mr. WATTS. Yes; we offer that.

Mr. RANKIN. Mark that Exhibit 2, please.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 2.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have the Addressograph plate for Lee H. Oswald?

Mr. WATTS. Yes; we offer that.

Mr. RANKIN. Mark that Exhibit 3, please.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 3.)

Mr. RANKIN. And from the Pioneer Publishers' files--I failed to ask you for the change of address notice postmarked June 12, 1963, and November 12, 1963. Do you have those?

Mr. WATTS. Yes; I offer them.

Mr. RANKIN. Mark those Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have from the Pioneer Publishers' files an order for the Teachings of Leon Trotsky and a cash memo dated May 8, 1962, indicating that 25 cents had been received?

Mr. WATTS. Yes; we have that, and with them is a carbon copy of a letter from Pioneer Publishers, dated September 28, 1963, and a canceled envelope postmarked January 2, I believe, 1963, to Pioneer Publishers from Lee Oswald, and we offer all of those.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.

Mr. WATTS. In addition, from Pioneer Publishers, we have a letter from Lee Oswald with a date January 1, the year not identified, ordering "The Coming American Revolution," "The End of the Comintern," and "The 1948 Manifesto of the Fourth Internationale," indicating that 35 cents is enclosed and requesting the English words of the song "The Internationale," and attached is a receipt or a cash memo of Pioneer Publishers, indicating that 35 cents was received.

Mr. RANKIN. Mark that No. 7.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 7.)

Mr. WATTS. We also have a carbon copy of a letter dated April 26, 1963, to Mr. Oswald, setting forth the English words of The Internationale. I believe that is all we have from Pioneer Publishers.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any document from the files of the Socialist Workers Party?

Mr. WATTS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe those, please?

Mr. WATTS. We have a letter dated August 12, 1962, signed Lee H. Oswald to the Socialist Workers Party, asking for information concerning the nature of the party and expressing an interest in finding out all he can about the program. We have a coupon dated as having been received October 31, 1962, signed Lee H. Oswald, indicating that he would like to join the Socialist Workers Party, and we have a carbon copy of a letter dated August 23, 1962, apparently in answer to the first letter, thanking Mr. Oswald for his request for information and indicating that a pamphlet concerning the Socialist Workers Party was being enclosed and inviting further inquiry if he had any more questions.

Mr. RANKIN. The last material you have described, Mr. Watts will be marked Dobbs' No. 9.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 9.)

Mr. WATTS. We have, in addition, a letter dated September 1, 1963, signed Lee H. Oswald. Attached to it is what appears to be its envelope from New Orleans, postmarked August 31, 1963. This letter requests information concerning SWP representatives in the Washington-Baltimore area and states that Mr. Oswald expects to be moving into that area in October. That is all I have.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. The last letter and envelope are marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 10.

(Marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 10.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Dobbs, do you have some occupation at the present time?

Mr. DOBBS. I am secretary of the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you been in that position for some time?

Mr. DOBBS. Since 1953.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have some correspondence with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DOBBS. We have nothing in our files other than what we have turned over to you. I might add that I feel certain that we would have responded to his--the coupon that he sent indicating a desire to join the party. It's not surprising we wouldn't have kept a file copy, because our interest in cases of this kind is an established thing. It is our policy not to take anybody into membership in the party unless we have a branch of the party in the area where they are resident. In such case we would--we would have replied to him to that effect. We would have suggested to him that he interest himself in the circulation of The Militant and Socialist literature and would have expressed a desire for continued fraternal contact with him on that basis.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall having seen Dobbs' No. 1 at some time?

Mr. DOBBS. I recall that only in the sense that I assisted in the search of the files after November 22 to find everything we could.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to the Commission what happened at that time, what you did? Did you do something to try to find out if there was any contact or communication between your organization and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes. I received a telephone call from one of the newspaper reporters asking me if Oswald had ever been a subscribed to The Militant. I told him not to my knowledge. I then, however, went and checked the files, discovered he had been, and with that I decided to check every file that I could, and find whatever information was in the files, and get it together.

Mr. RANKIN. About when did you do that?

Mr. DOBBS. This would have been done, I believe, about Monday following the assassination. I think it was on Monday morning I received the call.

Mr. RANKIN. What kind of a search was made at that time; can you describe that for the Commission, please?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes. We went through all the files that we had, and, well, I guess that is about all I can say.

Mr. RANKIN. Who do you mean by "we."

Mr. DOBBS. Myself and members of the organization who work as my voluntary office assistants, and I cooperated with the people in charge of The Militant business office, and the Pioneer Publishing business office.

Mr. RANKIN. And how complete was that search?

Mr. DOBBS. We made it as thorough as we could, to our best knowledge. We have given you everything we had in the files.

Mr. RANKIN. As a result of that search, you discovered Dobbs' No. 1, did you?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That is a subscription for the 4 months' introductory subscription of The Militant----

Mr. DOBBS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. By Lee Harvey Oswald, or Lee H. Oswald?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. It is a practice in taking these depositions, Mr. Dobbs, for the counsel that is examining to initial whatever exhibits are presented, and also for the witness, so that it can be recognized as official.

(Witness complies.)

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 2.)

Mr. RANKIN. Did you at that time also discover Dobbs' No. 2?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And what is that?

Mr. DOBBS. It is a renewal of the trial subscription, and it is stamped May 28, 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you kindly initial that too?

(Witness complies.)

(Addressograph plate marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 3.)

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you please initial that?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

(Witness complies.)

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 4.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall at that time discovering Dobbs' No. 4?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What is that?

Mr. DOBBS. It is a notification of change of address sent by Lee H. Oswald and stamped "Received" on June 17, 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you please initial that?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes (witness complies).

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 5.)

Mr. RANKIN. Then did you discover at that time Dobbs' No. 5?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That is also a change-of-address notice?

Mr. DOBBS. It is a change of address notice from Lee H. Oswald stamped "Received" November 14, 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Changing the address from New Orleans back to Dallas?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you kindly initial that?

(Witness complies.)

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 6.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall receiving Dobbs' No. 6?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What does that consist of?

Mr. DOBBS. A cash receipt for 25 cents received from Oswald.

Mr. WATTS. Correction, Mr. Rankin. It is not really a cash receipt; it is a cash office memo.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. Is that correct?

Mr. DOBBS. That is correct, yes, under date of August 31, 1962. And the second item is an order blank requesting a book, The Teachings of Leon Trotsky, signed by Lee H. Oswald, stamped "Received" August 28, 1962. A third item is a letter under date of September 29, 1962, to Lee H. Oswald from Pioneer Publishers, acknowledging receipt of the order and indicating that the book ordered is out of print and that he will be given a 25-cent credit on the money he sent in.

Mr. RANKIN. The last item is the envelope?

Mr. DOBBS. The last item is an envelope postmarked Dallas, Tex., either January 2 or January 21, it is difficult to discern, 1963, with Oswald's name in the upper left-hand corner.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you kindly initial that?

Mr. DOBBS. Each separately.

Mr. RANKIN. No, just the first one.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Did you handle any part of the transactions involved in Dobbs' No. 6 yourself?

Mr. DOBBS. No, not personally.

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 7.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine Dobbs' No. 7 and tell us what it is, please?

Mr. DOBBS. An office cash memo acknowledging 35 cents received from L. H. Oswald, dated January 11, 1963, and a letter to Pioneer Publishers from Lee H. Oswald under date of January 1, 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you initial that, please, Mr. Dobbs?

(Witness complies.)

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 8.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine Watts' No. 8 and tell us what that is.

Mr. DOBBS. It is a letter to Lee H. Oswald from Pioneer Publishers under date of April 26, 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you initial that?

(Witness complies.)

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 9.)

Mr. RANKIN. And Dobbs' No. 9, tell us what that is, please.

Mr. DOBBS. A coupon signed "Lee H. Oswald," received under date of October 31, 1962, in which he indicates, by placing a check in an appropriate place, that he would like to join the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. RANKIN. That is what you have referred to in your prior testimony when you said that you would have responded to it in the way you have described if you knew that there was no organization in that locality?

Mr. DOBBS. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there a Socialist Workers Party organization in the Dallas area at that time?

Mr. DOBBS. No, no; there was not.

Mr. RANKIN. You haven't discovered any copy of a communication to Lee Harvey Oswald along the lines that you have described, have you?

Mr. DOBBS. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you know it is a standard practice, and that is the way you would have responded?

Mr. DOBBS. That is correct.

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 11.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Dobbs, we have what has been marked as Dobbs' No. 11, which purports to be a copy, photocopy, of a carbon of your response as of November 5, 1962, to Mr. Oswald's letter. Will you examine that and see whether or not it is?

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to correct the record to show that this is a typewritten copy of the original, apparently not the carbon.

Mr. WATTS. Clarify that. You are saying that it is a typewritten copy of the original of the letter----

Mr. RANKIN. Purportedly.

Mr. WATTS. Purportedly received by Mr. Oswald?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you first respond, Mr. Dobbs, to whether or not this Dobbs' No. 11 appears to be a typewritten copy of a letter that you wrote to Lee Harvey Oswald in response to his inquiry about the Socialist Workers Party?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes, it appears to be the type of letter I would have written.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you understand that we are going to secure the original and submit it to you to see if it is in fact the letter that you did write, and if you find that it is, then it will be offered as a part of this deposition?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you initial now Dobbs' No. 9, please?

(Witness complies.)

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Rankin, in his responding he did not get past that coupon.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Will you describe the balance of Dobbs' No. 9? I understand you completed with the coupon but not the other two pieces.

Mr. DOBBS. The second item is a letter from Lee H. Oswald, addressed apparently to the Socialist Workers Party and marked "Received" under date of August 13, 1962, in which he requests information about the nature of the party and its policies. The third is a letter to Lee H. Oswald from the Socialist Workers Party under date of August 23, 1962, indicating that a pamphlet is being enclosed for him entitled "The Socialist Workers Party--What It Is, What It Stands For."

Mr. RANKIN. I asked you whether or not the Socialist Workers Party had any organization in Dallas. What is the fact in regard to Fort Worth and New Orleans at that time?

Mr. DOBBS. No, we had no organization anywhere in that area.

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 10.)

Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine Dobbs' No. 10 and tell us what that exhibit consists of.

Mr. DOBBS. A letter signed "Lee H. Oswald" to the Socialist Workers Party, dated September 1, 1963, stating that he would like to know if he could get in direct contact with SWP representatives in the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore area.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you please initial that?

Mr. DOBBS. Right on the envelope?

Mr. RANKIN. That is right.

(Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. I notice that Dobbs' No. 9 refers to a Sherry Finer signed on the letter, copy of which is dated August 23, 1962.

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Who is Sherry Finer?

Mr. DOBBS. She is one of the volunteer assistants that helps me occasionally with office work.

Mr. RANKIN. And No. 11 is a typewritten copy of the original, purportedly an answer to Lee Harvey Oswald that we have already referred to, and you have said you thought it would be the type of letter at least that you would write in answer?

Mr. DOBBS. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And we have said that we would get the original and submit it to you for your examination. If you find that the original is the original of Dobbs' No. 11 when it is submitted to you, will you then initial it and return it to us so we can make it a part of the record here?

Mr. DOBBS. I will do so.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 12.)

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Dobbs' No. 12 and ask you if you know anything about the person Bob Chester that purportedly signed the original of that letter.

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Who is that Bob Chester?

Mr. DOBBS. It is an associate of mine, works in collaboration with me, a day volunteer here in the party office.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know anything about the blowups, reversal and reproduction work that he refers to there?

Mr. DOBBS. I can only assume that he would have written about----

Mr. WATTS. Excuse me. You should answer what you know, Farrell; and if you want to express an opinion, it is all right, but make it very clear whether or not you have any knowledge.

Mr. DOBBS. Would you ask me the question again; perhaps I did not understand.

Mr. RANKIN. I am interested in your knowledge about that material that is referred to in the letter, the blowups and reproductions and the other things that are referred to in the first paragraph.

Mr. DOBBS. So far as I can perceive, it refers to a technical process. I wouldn't know anything beyond that.

Mr. RANKIN. And you don't know whether there was anything of that kind; at least you did not find it when you made the search?

Mr. DOBBS. I have no indication of such information in our search.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chester is still with your organization?

Mr. DOBBS. He is.

Mr. RANKIN. And you don't recall this Exhibit No. 12 or the original or copies or anything of that kind?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. You did not find it when you made your search?

Mr. DOBBS. That's right.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you kindly make a search to see if there is such a letter and such materials in your files?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes; we will look for that.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Rankin, you are requesting Mr. Dobbs to make a further search to see if he can find the letter and reproductions referred to; is that correct?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, both; and if he does find them, to forward them to us so they can be incorporated after they are initialed as a part of the record in this deposition.

(Document marked Dobbs' Exhibit No. 13.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Dobbs, do you recall seeing Dobbs' No. 13?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recognize the signature?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes; that would have been one of my associates that helps me in volunteer office work.

Mr. RANKIN. And you recognize the stationery, I suppose?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes; that appears to be on our letterhead.

Mr. RANKIN. When you made a search of the files, you did not find any letter like Dobbs' No. 13?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any information as to whether or not such a letter was sent?

Mr. DOBBS. No, no. I would assume, in view of the fact that it does appear to be an official party letterhead, that the letter would have been sent, but we would not have kept a file copy of it.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. And you do recognize the signature?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you kindly initial that, please.

Mr. DOBBS. (Witness complies.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of any other correspondence or communications of any kind?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I do not, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. With Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DOBBS. I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. You will note that Dobbs' No. 13 refers to a communication from Lee Harvey Oswald of March 24, presumably 1963. Do you recall ever having seen that?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I do not, and obviously it was not in our files or we would have included it in the material we turned over to you.

Mr. RANKIN. While you are making further search for this last item, would you kindly make another search to see if you do have any copy of Dobbs' No. 13 and also the letter from Lee Harvey Oswald of March 24?

Mr. DOBBS. That's referred to here?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. DOBBS. Yes. We will make a recheck.

Mr. RANKIN. We should also like that clipping that is referred to as being enclosed with Mr. Oswald's letter, if you find it.

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. I was not quite clear, Mr. Dobbs, about your response in regard to that. Is that the type of letter you would not expect to have a copy of in the files?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Because it is a general form that is followed? Is that the reason?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes. The reason--I can explain to you, however, our basic procedure in matters of this kind. We receive quite a few inquiries, and we have more or less an established policy of reply along the lines I have indicated to you, so we do not keep an accumulation of the--all the letters received and all the replies sent. As I told you, our office work is done essentially by volunteer help. We are a small organization with meager resources, and we have to adjust our proceedings accordingly.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any knowledge of any collaboration, association or combination of any of the people in the Socialist Workers Party, Pioneer Publishers, or The Militant, with Lee Harvey Oswald and his action in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. DOBBS. None whatever. So far as I know, nobody in any of the categories mentioned by you ever knew anything about him other than the written material that we have made available to you.

Mr. RANKIN. With your position in connection with these organizations, would you have such material? Would such information be available to you if it existed?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes. If anybody in the organization would know, I would know. I am the central executive officer of the party.

Mr. RANKIN. You are satisfied that no one had such an association with Lee Harvey Oswald from those organizations?

Mr. DOBBS. Absolutely so.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any other communications, either orally or in writing, between any of those organizations and Lee Harvey Oswald, other than what has been produced here?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. We have some information, Mr. Dobbs, that when Lee Harvey Oswald was about 16 years of age, he communicated with the Socialist Party of America and the Socialist Call. I would like to know whether or not those have any relationship with the organizations that I have just described that you have some connection with?

Mr. DOBBS. No, sir; it is an entirely different organization. Our organization didn't come into being until 1938.

Mr. RANKIN. And these organizations, the Socialist Call and the Socialist Party of America, were not predecessors of your organization?

Mr. DOBBS. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Or associated in any way?

Mr. DOBBS. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any knowledge of any conspiracy or association with Lee Harvey Oswald by anybody with regard to whatever he did in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. DOBBS. No; I do not, and I would add that it's a matter of historic record, long established, that our organization's philosophy is opposed to individual acts of political terrorism.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any additional information beyond what you have supplied here that might be of assistance to the Commission in regard to the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. DOBBS. No; we do not. We have sought voluntarily to provide you everything we have in the spirit of giving you whatever cooperation we could, and we have given you all the information we had.

Mr. RANKIN. And that includes anything, either oral or in writing?

Mr. DOBBS. Correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dobbs.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. ABT

The testimony of John J. Abt was taken at 9:30 a.m., on April 17, 1964, at the U.S. courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., by Messrs. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel, and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

John Abt, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. RANKIN. Will you state your name?

Mr. ABT. John J. Abt.

Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live?

Mr. ABT. 444 Central Park West, New York City.

Mr. RANKIN. You are a practicing attorney in the city of New York?

Mr. ABT. I am.

Mr. RANKIN. How long have you been practicing law?

Mr. ABT. A long time, Mr. Rankin, since 1927. You do the mathematics.

Mr. RANKIN. You have been informed, I am sure, that Lee Harvey Oswald, after his arrest, tried to reach you to request that you act as his counsel. I don't know how you were informed, but I have seen it in the newspapers. When did it first come to your attention?

Mr. ABT. May I tell you the story, Mr. Rankin? Perhaps that is the simplest way.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. ABT. On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.

I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?

Mr. ABT. No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a good man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.

Mr. RANKIN. You have told us all that you know about it?

Mr. ABT. Yes. I may say that I have had no prior contact with Oswald, knew nothing about him, did not know the name, and this request came as something entirely new and surprising to me when it came.

Mr. RANKIN. None of your clients had ever communicated to you about him prior to that time you heard about it over the radio?

Mr. ABT. No; I had no recollection of even having heard the name, his name, before that time.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.

Mr. ABT. Right.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. HELEN P. CUNNINGHAM

The testimony of Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham was taken at 5:20 p.m., on April 1, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Robert T. Davis, assistant attorney general of Texas, was present.

Mr. JENNER. Would you state your full name?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Helen P. Cunningham.

Mr. JENNER. And would you rise and be sworn. Mrs. Cunningham, in your testimony that you are about to give, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I do.

Mr. JENNER. I am Albert E. Jenner, Jr. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission. The President's Commission was created by U.S. Senate Joint Resolution 137. That Commission under that legislation is appointed to investigate the assassination of our late President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The President of the United States, Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, did act pursuant to that legislation and under Executive Order 11130, he appointed the Commission and brought it into legal existence. Its duties, as I have indicated, are to investigate the assassination of the late President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and in the course of that work, which has now been going on for some time, we find many people, especially people here in Dallas, who had some kind of contact in the normal and usual and regular course of business, most of them, whether State agents or otherwise, with Lee Harvey Oswald and some of them with his wife, Marina. We understand from others of your fellow employees of the Commission that you had some contact with Lee Harvey Oswald and I would like to ask you some questions about that.

Am I right in my assumption that you did have some contact with him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And it was in your capacity, in the due course of your work with the Texas Employment Commission, that office being located here in Dallas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where do you reside, Mrs. Cunningham?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. 1046 North Winnetka.

Mr. JENNER. In Dallas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are you a native of Dallas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. What is your definition of "native"--born here, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Well, say--born or lived most of your life in Dallas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; my speech indicates that I was not.

Mr. JENNER. I detected that.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I was born in St. Louis, Mo., and resided in Missouri in various portions of it.

If my voice is low, young lady, if it doesn't come to you, well please call my attention to it.

We came to Dallas in 1951 and we have resided here since then.

Mr. JENNER. How long have you been employed by or associated with the Texas Employment Commission?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Since August of 1957, if I am remembering my dates properly.

Mr. JENNER. And your duties with the Commission, say, the last 3 years have been what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. As an employment counselor.

Mr. JENNER. Explain what that is, please?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. We are a small group of workers that are set into our operation, who are given more time to deal with applicants, who for one reason or another had difficulty in finding jobs or in holding jobs, and we used the best techniques that are available to us to be helpful, primarily to the applicant, but also preparing him for what he finds in the labor market, and what working conditions are, and what employers' requirements are.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me, in general, how does the Texas Employment Commission function?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. As a quasi-Federal-State operation under the U.S. Department of Labor and you undoubtedly know that there is a Bureau of Employment Security office here.

Mr. JENNER. That's the Federal Bureau?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Or agency?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; which represents the U.S. Department of Labor and serves a region in which we are. I am by my paycheck an employee of the State of Texas, however. It works, in general, however, as all the public employment offices do, in the 50 different States. Now, do you want more detail than that, or was that helpful.

Mr. JENNER. Well, probably, that is sufficient, with a little supplementation. Let me put to you a couple of hypotheticals. Someone comes into this State who has had no connection with any employment in the State of Texas and that hypothetical person comes to the Texas Employment Commission and said he is seeking employment--does the Texas Employment Commission do anything, or would it do anything about seeking employment for him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Certainly. We have, you know, what is commonly known as a clearance procedure, which is an interchange of orders and applicants among the States and it is an interlocked operation among States.

Mr. JENNER. And that particular person, I take it from what you say, you would inquire of him as to his past employment?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In the other States, and would seek the information from the other States by way of confirmation, or would you go that far?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; we generally accept the applicant's statement as to what his previous employment is, and in general, the employer checks references if he is considering hiring that individual.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the second hypothetical I would like to put to you--I anticipate the answer is obvious--he is employed by someone in Texas, let's say, in this county, that employment terminates, he then comes to the Texas Employment Commission, I take it you would undertake upon review of his record and make it a necessary recording of that record; to also seek to obtain him employment if he sought it?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. We are a public agency and our doors are open to the public.

Mr. JENNER. Is it coordinated in anyway with unemployment compensation?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us how that operates?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Well, you know the legislation better than I do, because I am assuming that your profession is a lawyer?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I am a lawyer, but don't presume I know anything.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I would hate to be talking to the table [laughing].

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Cunningham, the person who reads the record may not be a lawyer.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I see.

Mr. JENNER. And may not understand this and my purpose is to record how the Commission functions.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The original legislation established the employment service and the unemployment compensation program under one law, and until about 1 year ago in Dallas, applicants for unemployment compensation applied at usually the same office for recording their availability for work and making a claim for unemployment compensation, as where the employment services were housed in the last year in this particular area, and it is not true throughout all the public employment service offices--not even in this district. We have split out the employment services from the unemployment services, but there is a coordination between the offices and in the procedures on unemployment compensation, I know the general law and the necessity for being able and available for work, while being a claimant, and I make no pretense of knowing the up-to-date details of that.

Mr. JENNER. No; I wasn't seeking that. I just wanted the general picture of how they are coordinated.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. And you see, one of the necessities for a person filing a claim for unemployment compensation is that he be registered in a public employment office.

Mr. JENNER. And be available?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Be available and be able to work. Those are basic requirements and I think those are the same throughout the States.

Mr. JENNER. Now, in the performance of your duties, your particular function with the Texas Employment Commission, did you have occasion to counsel, talk with, or examine a man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that please, ma'am. If you need any of these records to refresh your recollection, please use them, and as you refer to them, would you hesitate so I can identify the exhibit to which you make reference? You may use those documents to refresh your recollection. You did have a direct contact with Lee Harvey Oswald and I would like to have you give me the time, when it commenced, and relate it to us.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. As Mr. Statman has probably told you, a photostat of the counseling record is not here. The record I am now looking at is the application form.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, it is the form that I described in the record, the top line of which reads, "Describe your longest and most important jobs, including Military Service. Begin with your most recent job." It is also the application form called E-13.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it is E-13.

Mr. JENNER. We will mark it Cunningham Exhibit No. 1. Now, I take it you were at the Texas Employment Commission and Mr. Oswald came in; is that correct? [The original of Cunningham Exhibit No. 1 is in evidence as Cunningham Exhibit No. 1-A.]

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. I'm on the record. I got a call from an acquaintance of mine, as I recall it, it was from Mr. Teofil Meller, M-e-l-l-e-r (spelling).

Mr. JENNER. That is T-e-o-f-i-l M-e-l-l-e-r (spelling)?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. You can be right--I was recalling it with an "H" in it, but I believe that's the way he does spell it--asking me if I would see Lee Harvey Oswald or Lee Oswald, as it was known, as they were giving assistance to his wife and infant child, and they were saying, "If you can help him, it will help the family and relieve us of this burden."

Mr. JENNER. You understood, then, from Mr. Meller, that the wife, at least, was residing with him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. At or had previously resided there for a brief time. I can't be certain of that.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, that the Mellers were under obligation to assist or they had volunteered to assist?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Volunteered to assist.

Mr. JENNER. They had volunteered to assist the Oswalds or at least Mrs. Oswald?

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Meller say anything to you at this time as to who Mrs. Oswald was and who Mr. Oswald was?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. As I recall, he said that Oswald was a Fort Worth boy who had lived in Russia and had married a Russian girl, and it was she who was in their residence and it was their offspring.

Mr. JENNER. That is, they had a child and the child was the offspring of this marriage?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Go ahead.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I cannot be certain whether I gave an appointment at that time or not, or simply said, "Well, ask him to come in and see me"; that would be normal procedure, or usually we look up any records that we may already have, you see, sir, and if you will excuse me, I will see what I have on some little scratch notes here when Mr. Odum of the FBI called me from the district office.

Mr. JENNER. You use anything you wish to refresh your recollection.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. All right, sir. I am uncertain whether the 10-9-62 dating on this application form is my handwriting or not. I know that the 10-10-62 is.

Mr. JENNER. That's October 10, 1962?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir--that is my dating of the application card and I would suspect that that was the first day on which I saw him, but I could have seen him on the 9th.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Part of the application appears to be in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting or printing.

Mr. JENNER. Was this application filled out in your presence?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That, I cannot recall, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was it filled out as part of your interview that you then conducted?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That would depend whether I saw him on the 9th and the 10th, also, and I cannot be sure of that at this time.

Mr. JENNER. Does it indicate that the form at least was commenced to be filled out on the 9th, and that in any event, most of the information thereon was recorded on the 9th and the 10th of October 1962?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Or thereabout, because our practice is--if we have a current date that we did not redate every day--the individual is in--on the application form, you see.

Mr. JENNER. Would it indicate at least reasonable certainty in your own mind that he was in your own office on the 10th day of October 1962?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; and that I talked with him.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The greater part of the information concerning his reputation and training is in my handwriting.

Mr. JENNER. And that would indicate that you obtained that from him when you interviewed him on the 10th of October 1962?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; it also indicates that I used one of our counseling tools, an interest checklist.

Mr. JENNER. Explain what that is.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. It is a form which asks for quick decisions about a person's interests, like or dislike or question about sample jobs or work and it is the relationship of the individual's interest to groups of jobs. It would further indicate that on the 10th of October in 1962, I learned from him that he had taken our general aptitude test battery in the Fort Worth office.

Mr. JENNER. Now, your general aptitude test battery is something distinct from the short form of test you just a moment ago mentioned, is it?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; it is a correlated tool--the interest check list delves into interest. The general aptitude tests battery is a measure of aptitude.

Mr. JENNER. Now, would you tell me what the results of the inquiries as to the interests tests were?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is no indication on this form, and I would not have detailed recollection of it, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any kind of recollection, detailed or otherwise?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. To tell you the truth, unless I saw it--I saw I.C.L. here--I would have been uncertain whether I used this counseling tool.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Cunningham, this is Mr. Robert Davis of the attorney general's office of the State of Texas.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you so much for coming today, Mrs. Cunningham.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection of the subject of his interest tests?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I recall that there was some in the writing area.

Mr. JENNER. This was an aptitude, a particular aptitude?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Interest, sir; I am speaking of.

Mr. JENNER. He had an interest in doing some writing?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall your inquiries of him on that subject, how did you probe him in that connection? He had an interest, but the fact that somebody says he has an interest in doing something, that isn't sufficient for you, is it?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; but usually I use the aptitude test results along with the interests check list, and I could well have said something--"Yes, you have the capabilities for writing, but this is in a job area where you are not likely to get a job quickly," and I did not probe, as you are saying, as to what he wrote about or anything of that kind, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you did not undertake a probing to determine whether it was merely an interest to go on to determine whether there was an aptitude coupled with it?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The aptitude test indicates that there is some because the verbal score is high and the clerical score is high, but my concern was primarily to meet this family's need.

Mr. JENNER. The immediate need?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The immediate need for income, and the young man's apparent need for employment, and in the counseling service, I attempt to do two things. First of all, to help young people to find a vocational choice which may not be an immediate thing that they can get into, but then, secondly, basically--applicants come to us for a job and I use the interest check list and the general aptitude test battery in working toward both purposes, and if the job can be in line with their vocational choice--fine and good--but if it is an immediate need for employment, then the emphasis is toward what can you get with immediacy? What is available? Where are your qualifications as of today likely to be used in the present labor market?

And, basically, that is what I did with Oswald, because as he was presented to me, that was the immediate thing--was at least to get this young man into work where he could support a family and himself, and I didn't even--I would at--I would say--attempt a vocational choice with him nor give that much time to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Also, the test results can be used in exploring what are the most likely possibilities and can be helpful to our placement staff in knowing at least where this individual has the potential for serving an employer well, and that's what some of these indications at the lower part concerning the test data indicates.

Mr. JENNER. Now, would you please interpret that for me? What the tests indicate?

Now, you are interpreting here the tests made by the Fort Worth District office, are you?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you obtained those results by communicating with the Fort Worth office?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Either on or prior to October 10, 1962?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Subsequent to 10-10-62.

Mr. JENNER. And when you got those results, what did you find in interpreting them?

You see, the reader of this transcript will look at these forms and see nothing but figures.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What do they mean?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Have you identified this form?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; the form you now hold in your left hand, which I have marked as Cunningham Exhibit No. 2, we have identified as "Individual Aptitude Profile" and we have read into the record the figures sequentially occurring at the bottom, beginning with figure 109 and ending with 126. [The original of Cunningham Exhibit No. 2 is in evidence as Cunningham Exhibit No. 2-A.]

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Have you used this data here at all?

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Statman said you would be better able to interpret than he, and he suggested that when you testified that I ask you to do that.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Very well, sir. To the right of the form we were just speaking of----

Mr. JENNER. In the vertical column?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under the headings "OAP".

Mr. JENNER. Meaning?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Occupational Aptitude Pattern--the numbers of the patterns which are circled are the ones in which the applicant has made the minimum scores or above, and are indicative of strength for various patterns of occupations.

Mr. JENNER. Now, various patterns--aptitudes for various occupations?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. You will see that if I copied correctly, the entries on the face of the application card are those which are circled on the test record, and are the ones that he had potential in those patterns--"Jobs for occupational patterns."

Mr. JENNER. And in which did he have potential and which were indicated as deficiencies or weaknesses, if any?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Of the 23 patterns, then being used by the employment service, there were only three in which he did not meet the minimum requirements.

Mr. JENNER. And those three?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Or 4, 1, 3, 5, and 20.

Mr. JENNER. You have just called off numbers that are encircled on the exhibit "Individual Aptitude Profile"?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; they are struck off.

Mr. JENNER. And they are stricken off for what reason?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Because the applicant's scores did not meet the minimum standards to qualify for those occupational aptitude patterns.

Mr. JENNER. What occupational aptitude patterns are indicated by the numbers you have read which in turn were stricken off on that exhibit?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I'm sorry, sir; I cannot at this point answer that because we are using a new manual with new occupational patterns and there are a number of the detailed jobs in these patterns, and I could not even expect to carry the whole matter in my head.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. If you like--I shall talk a little about this.

Mr. JENNER. Now, before you go to the bottom line, there are numbered aptitude patterns that are encircled. That means that the applicant had the minimum aptitude for each of those that are encircled?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Since you were not able to tell me what the aptitudes were in which there was an indicated deficiency by the striking of the number, I assume you are not able to tell me what the aptitudes were that are encircled, in which he did score in them.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Not in detail.

Mr. JENNER. Are you able to do some interpreting?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you do so?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Perhaps I should talk about the next two columns to the right here.

Mr. JENNER. You are still talking about the same exhibit?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes--note that the date on this is 10-11-62.

Mr. JENNER. That's October 11, 1962.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. And these are three specific tests which are set into the testing program in the Dallas clerical and sales office. Comparing the standards of those specific tests with the report as given from the Fort Worth office, I chose three of them--the B-400, which is a general clerical--a general office clerk is the designation of it; by BX-1002, and a B-493.

If my recollection serves me properly at the time of this interview, the B-493 was aptitude for entering drafting. The BX-1002 is an experimental test for claims examiners in the insurance industry. On each of these three specifics, he scored high.

Mr. JENNER. What led you to select those, as to this man?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Basically, it's usually done in relation to his interests, and because of jobs available in this labor market or possibly available. For instance, the Clerk General office cuts across all industry, and strength in it can be used in a number of industries, and in a number of work situations.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. We have a lot of insurance and insurance firms here. The claims examiner is not usually a beginning job, but it is some indication that a young person can start in the clerical field and perhaps move in this direction in the insurance industry.

I would assume that there was a relationship to some discussion of this experience and training in the Military Corps in the electronics and radar that suggests the drafting or because I knew of some possibilities in that area.

I see nothing in what I have recorded about the high school training which would so indicate that.

Mr. JENNER. All of these records that have been placed before you, being three in number, do you interpret them indicating anything other than--I do not mean to be deprecatory here, that this man had about a high school education.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Sir, I accepted his statement that at some time and some place, usually when the young man is in the armed services, he had taken the high school equivalency test and had passed it. There is nothing from the aptitude scores that would lead me to believe otherwise. In fact, there are some things in it that would tend to say that he could do college work.

Mr. JENNER. Indicate that, please--what leads you to say that?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Well, the "G" score, which is a general ability and not an IQ score, is above 100. We have certain standards that we carry in the back of our head that that says--yes.

Mr. JENNER. It says--yes--what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. College capabilities.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Other factors being equal, of course. The verbal is quite high--this is one of the learning tools, exact knowledge of words and word meanings.

Mr. JENNER. And his score in that connection was?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. 127.

Mr. JENNER. You say this is quite high--what is an average?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. We are told that about 50 percent of the people who take this test score 100 and below, and the other 50 percent of necessity 100 and above--the break point is. We are warned against, however, looking at any one of these items and considering it alone, except as we were talking of possibility for college training altogether.

Mr. JENNER. His score in the first category you have mentioned was what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. 109.

Mr. JENNER. That is close to the minimum?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Explain that.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. You said "the minimum"?

Mr. JENNER. The minimum necessary--is there a minimum standard?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. A necessary for what, of course, is the immediate question.

Mr. JENNER. Well, for you to decide, for example, "Well, this man does have capability for college study."

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I have not reviewed these figures that are in our manuals recently, but if I recall correctly, 100 is thought sufficient to do a junior college or possibly in some--a 4-year course; that about 125 is required on the "G" score for professional schools, and 110 is quite good for finishing a 4-year college. As you see, this score is close to that, and we consider the test only about 15 percent of the total in making decisions about vocation and it is not the biggest factor.

Mr. JENNER. Off the record a minute.

(Discussion between Counsel Jenner and the witness, Mrs. Cunningham, off the record.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, I think we had better be on the record on this.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. None of our tests are personality tests.

Mr. JENNER. You see, I want you to tell me what these are, and if I misinterpret them, I want you to correct me. It is important that we know what testing was done and that we don't misinterpret it ourselves.

Now, is any of this a personality test?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; none whatsoever. It is aptitude--it is an interest checklist and I am an employment counselor only, and that is why you got part of the answers from me a while ago, was that I was limiting it to that segment of counseling which presumably is my specialty, and for which I am paid by the Texas Employment Commission.

In general, I would say that the tests indicate potential for quite a broad number of jobs--certainly in the semiskilled and skilled occupations.

Mr. JENNER. Would these be a potential with training?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Certainly I have indicated the areas in the clerical field by the tests that I selected and most of the drafting jobs, of course, are semiprofessional. I did not apparently think that these others were important at the time or I would have given other classifications.

Mr. JENNER. Other classification tests?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I'm sorry--I am throwing you on terminology. This indicates where the application is held.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us what you mean by "this"?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The words "Routine Clerical Work--1-X4.9" is a classification of the application in the area where the application will be held by the placement interviewers for referral on jobs.

Mr. JENNER. This represents an entry based on your judgment in interviewing?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that is your personal entry and your handwriting?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And what does that job classification mean and what degree of aptitude, if any, does it indicate?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. On the entry level.

Mr. JENNER. Just the entry level?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Into routine clerical work--it covers a lot of jobs and a lot of work circumstances.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I ask you this--there is a surface inconsistency between that particular classification you gave him and your testimony with respect to his capabilities to do college work. I say there is a surface inconsistency, would you explain that?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. To enter professional jobs, usually the employers require more training or experience in the area of the profession. The availability in this labor market of clerical jobs to a newcomer into the labor market area is very much greater and, therefore, the job opportunities for this young man in a clerical entry job would be much brighter than in an entry for a professional job.

Mr. JENNER. So, I take it, then, in that classification as dictated by your knowledge of the available labor market, this was an area which at the time seemed to afford greater opportunity for placement of this young man immediately.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Having in mind the information related to you by Mr. Meller, that there was dire need for financial assistance here.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the other aptitudes you recorded on his ability you thought to do college work--those are not inconsistent with the classification you gave when you considered the whole problem that was facing you at the immediate time.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Then I was talking about the potential only for the future, he had not even started college--a college training, by the record as I was giving it, sir, and because there is nothing as presented in the work history when I first worked with him which would indicate that he had ever worked at a professional or semiprofessional level that would give strength to a professional classification, and remembering, too, that the aptitude test is really only about 15 percent of the decision as to where this individual shall seek as of this time in this place----

Mr. JENNER. The other factors being for one instance--one, the ready labor market, and two, the immediate need, if there is an absolute immediate need, and what other factors?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Previous work experience--a good work record within the present labor market can be a big factor. Any employer, as you well know, would much prefer to pick up the phone and call for a reference than to write to Podunk and maybe get a communication and maybe not, and they don't know really what that firm is or with whom he is communicating, and I would say in general, and this is a personal judgment, that the incoming person to a labor market has to take the lower pay, the less desirable job, until he gets a work record in the community, unless he is highly qualified and in one of the shortage occupations.

Mr. JENNER. And from your visit with this young man, he had not much of a work record, do I fairly state that?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The work record when he came to me was limited in length of time as indicated on the application. It was mixed, as far as occupation was concerned in the semiskilled, in the sales, in the clerical.

Mr. JENNER. That is, he had a semimixed work record involving one or more of the three major groups you have now mentioned.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your answer was "Yes"--when you nod your head, we can't get it on the record.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I thought I had said it was broken and limited, so, "Yes" is the answer.

Mr. JENNER. All right, you go right ahead, you are doing fine.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Please note that in the work record there is an entry subsequent to when he was counseled, and that is in the semiprofessional or professional, if anyone would look at it.

Mr. JENNER. You say "subsequent," does that mean a later time or subsequently during the course of the interview you had with him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; at a later time.

Mr. JENNER. When?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. As indicated on the record it is 4 months to July of 1963 in photography.

Mr. JENNER. And he had the experience for that length of time somewhere?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. It indicates that it was in New Orleans with William B. Reily Co.

Mr. JENNER. And he reported that as having been experienced in what connection?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Looking at the subsequent dating of the application card, it would appear that this was recorded in October 1963.

Mr. JENNER. Now, that is important and I am interested in that. In October 1963, which was a year subsequent to your interview, which had commenced at least on October 10, 1962, does it appear from those forms that he again returned to the Dallas office to make a work application?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And did you again counsel with or see him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir. I did not know until after the President's assassination that he had recontacted the office after these October 1962 interviews of which we have been talking.

Mr. JENNER. Is there a record on any one of those exhibits of the number of applications that he made and when those applications were made in the sense of his personal appearance for the application? You have mentioned one, that is your own, that was generated by Mr. Meller? Do your initials appear there, or do you just happen to recall that? Is there something on the form in the way of your initials or signature that indicates to you that you did that?

There appears on the reverse side of the form, E-13, (Cunningham Exhibit No. 1) in the handwriting, the word "Cunningham." Is that in your handwriting?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. There appears above it, and also is a signature--are you familiar with that signature?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Whose is it?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. It is of a counselor, at least presently a counselor, in the industrial office.

Mr. JENNER. Of the Texas Employment Commission?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Of the Texas Employment Commission in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Is there any significance in the fact that his name appears above yours or yours below his?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right, tell us about it.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. This brings to mind that in seeking the records for this applicant, because--I guess the Mellers must have said "He has already been down to the Texas Employment Commission office and has not gotten a job," then, I started trying to find the records, so I did not duplicate, and I am uncertain whether this is the record that Mr. Brooks transmitted to our office or not.

Mr. JENNER. Who is Mr. Brooks?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The counselor in the industrial office.

Mr. JENNER. Here in Dallas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Here in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. And you are in what office here in Dallas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Clerical and sales.

Mr. JENNER. So that your counseling and your examination is directed primarily to clerical and sales?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Sir, I would not agree fully with that. We take the public as it comes to our door and it is entirely possible for me to have an applicant arrive where I could decide that he was better served in another office and would transmit records and suggest that the applicant call at that office. In the Dallas organization we have our offices organized around occupations basically, and in our particular building, as you may have been told, we have a professional office and the clerical and sales office. We also have an industrial office.

Mr. JENNER. In the same building?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; at 1206 Ross Street, and this original application card could have come from there to our files.

Mr. JENNER. And is the fact that your signature appears under Mr. Brooks' signature indicative of that likelihood?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; by location it would be. These comments that are above Mr. Brooks' are in my writing.

Mr. JENNER. They are?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And those comments are under the classification headed or entitled, "Applicant's characteristics--well groomed and spoken. Business suit. Alert replies. Expresses self extremely well." That's in your handwriting?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you made that record after you had interviewed Mr. Oswald?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Perhaps after at least the second interview when I had had the tests results. Usually, I try to hold it until I more or less synchronize the information that I get.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, that records your reaction of him at that time? After you had the interview or interviews with him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, above that, under the heading, "Conditions affecting employment," there appears--would you read each line, and as you read it, is that in your handwriting?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; "bus transportation."

Mr. JENNER. Bus transportation meant what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That he did not have a car and driver's license, and so consequently, he would have to use public transportation in seeking a job.

Mr. JENNER. You interest me; you say he did not have an automobile or driver's license. Did you make inquiry on that subject--did he have a driver's license?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The front of the card--there are entries above the word "car--no" the license that we usually use here is a driver's license; then the word "none" is in front of it. Now, I didn't know who made these entries. They could have been made by Oswald or they could have been made by Mr. Brooks, if this is a photostat of the card which Mr. Brooks first worked with. Can you see that?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I see what it is. That's what Mr. Statman said in his testimony and in any event, from examining the card and your interview, it was your impression on that day that he did not have a driver's license?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But you don't recall you made a specific inquiry on the subject?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; what is on the card would tend to indicate that I took it as it was recorded and that I did ask whether he had to use the bus to get to and from work--to--yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the next line in your handwriting reads----

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "Wife and child" and in parenthesis "8 months" which indicates the information I was given about the age of the child as of that date.

Mr. JENNER. The child was 8 months old?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When did you make the entries about which I am now examining you?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. In October 1962.

Mr. JENNER. At that time this child was more than 8 months old?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I could have recorded it wrong. I could have been informed wrong.

Mr. JENNER. Let me see--I will withdraw that--I may be wrong.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I don't even know enough to check on it.

Mr. JENNER. That's what you recorded, in any event?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you would have received that information from him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next line?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "Outstanding verbal and clerical potential." That comes from what I was seeing on the test scores. It is to alert the placement worker of where the counselor finds his greatest potential to be through the testing.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Next line.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "Financial position necessitates immediate employment."

Mr. JENNER. And that in turn affected what I might describe as being your immediate classification of him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And has a bearing on that--is there another line in your hand?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is it?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "Brother--junior executive, Acme Brick" and the second line entry----

Mr. JENNER. That would have been information you received from him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. "Brother--Staff Sgt. Air Force."

Mr. JENNER. Does that indicate to you two separate brothers?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that is information that he afforded you?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

The next entry is "10-10-62."

Mr. JENNER. All right, that is 8 days later?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. It sounds like to me the first day I saw the boy, or the second day.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; you are right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "HPC" for my initials, and a "B" with a circle in it.

Mr. JENNER. Meaning what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I'm sorry--I'm not certain as to why that "B" was recorded there. We do use or did use, an A, B, C, D, E, F, for the kinds of problem and it could have been that, but I am unsure of what that entry means.

Mr. JENNER. What were your A-B-C problems?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. This gentleman is going to ask me to remember the whole manual this afternoon.

"A" is little or no work experience, and entry into the labor force basically, with no vocational choice.

"B" is an entry into the labor force or relatively so, or re-entry with a questionable choice.

Mr. JENNER. You mean questionable choice in what sense?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That the applicant says, "I want to be a lawyer," and you say, "Are you ready, what training do you have, what is the indication?"

Mr. JENNER. Your questionable choice, therefore, is a question on your part as to his capability to attain that which he desires?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Which is an expressed desire, but you see, sir, I do not have my basic counseling record among these papers and this is part of the reason that I am uncertain here. If I had the comparable and complete record, I could better answer the present question.

Mr. JENNER. What is your best recollection?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I have no definite recollection of what the boy asked for, as far as an occupation is concerned.

Mr. JENNER. He wanted work immediately, you were also attempting to determine what he was seeking ultimately and your judgment of his capabilities to accomplish that which he sought ultimately; am I correct?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes--but I again remind you that I did not attempt with Oswald the full counseling service, because I placed emphasis on the immediate with him.

Mr. JENNER. Well, that's important to me.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, I'm sure it is.

Mr. JENNER. What is "C"?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "C" is expressed change of occupation for a variety of reasons.

Mr. JENNER. A desire to change whatever occupation he had been pursuing?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. And in that case it is presumed that the person is fully qualified in an occupation from his work experience.

Mr. JENNER. If a counselor reached the conclusion that he was not qualified or needed further training or you had any question about it as to the other occupation or the change of occupation the applicant desired, would you then classify him under "B" rather than "C"?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; because as a counselor, I am applicant-and-individual oriented, and I guess as a counselor also, I work under the philosophy that the individual has some choices of his own and the best that I can do is give him information, use what tools and what knowledge I have gotten out of training and experience to help him to make the best choices, but the decisions basically are the applicant's.

Mr. JENNER. Did you say there was a "D" classification?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; there is a "D".

Mr. JENNER. What is that?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I'm sorry, I cannot bring it to mind at the moment. There is an "E" and an "F" and a "G".

The "F" is emotional problems, which were not apparent in this young man to me in the few times that I saw him. He was well contained, well spoken, and did not give any information, as I recall, except what I referred to.

As I see his mother on television, this interviewee seems to me, and I have to use that verb, that there is a certain same kind of firmness in the individual there, and certain capabilities there, and to use words well.

Mr. JENNER. On the part of Mrs. Marguerite Oswald?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you notice any personality quirks or qualities or attributes in Marguerite Oswald as you observed her on television and her son, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is a driving in the woman that I did not see in the son. There is a strident of voice in the mother as she comes through to me on television that was not in the son. He was very self-contained.

I didn't probe for information because I was trying to meet the immediate need and to deal with the employment problem, only, sir, and then we also have workload and time pressures on us, as you well know in any job there are that.

We have applicants who are waiting to be interviewed and I guess now, with hindsight, I'm sorry that I didn't--but that's hindsight.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have capabilities in that area?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Sir?

Mr. JENNER. Do you have capabilities in the area of inquiry into personality--when I said "capabilities"--first, do you have any training in that area? You necessarily have some experience, I am sure--formal training, let me put it that way.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I'm going to get into your overall training in a little bit.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I hesitate to say this, because the pressures are with us in the Texas Employment Commission, to do a limited job on the vocational employment thing, because that is our emphasis and that is as right, but I have to say that I think a life is a unit and that you can't take a slice out of it and look at it alone and be very effective, nor that a human being can cut away from all his past, nor his associates, nor the other things that are affecting him and so I try to approach an individual, when time permits and when it seems like it might be effective in his vocational life, to get some information about other parts of his life.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, I got you off on this because I asked you what the "B" in the circle meant--may we go back to that?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I thought I had answered completely.

Mr. JENNER. I think you have, but as I say, I got you off on it when we reached that point--I interrupted you.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The entries on the application form, E-13 (Cunningham Exhibit No. 1) below "do not write below this line"--none are in my handwriting and they are not counseling records. They are referral placement records.

Mr. JENNER. Now, does the recording there indicate a reference of a job to the applicant and the result of that reference--what happened after the reference was made?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The record is not absolutely complete, but in general--yes--and some line entries--yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would that form necessarily indicate if the applicant refused the position as distinguished from the possibility, for example, that the employer, when he interviewed the applicant, concluded that he did not wish to employ him?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is some indication of each, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, taking those entries, would you comment on each of them in that respect, taking them seriatically and tell us about it.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. On the first line entry, in the column headed "Call" there is a dash. That indicates to me that the applicant was not called in, that he was in the office and referred to the placement section. On the same line, under the word "referred" there is a date--10-8, which is struck through, and above that is written "10-10" and then under the heading, "Employer or agency," I am reading the entry there, "Harrel and Harrington, architects;" under job title or purpose, the word "Messenger"; under the abbreviation for duration, the letter "P" which indicates a permanent job; under "pay", I am reading $1.50.

Mr. JENNER. Per hour?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The hour is not indicated--that is inferred. There is no entry under "results". On the same line under "remarks" are the initials "LL".

Mr. JENNER. Whose initials are those?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Placement worker who was with us formerly, whose name is Louise Latham.

Mr. JENNER. She was with you until yesterday?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I knew it has been an off again and on again situation--so you are more current than I about even in my own agency.

Shall I begin on the next line?

Mr. JENNER. Now, as far as that reference is concerned, there is nothing recorded as to what the result of that reference was?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That is right. After having seen it, my recollection was that the boy was not hired.

Mr. JENNER. That was the decision of the employer?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; and that is the information that would have come through me, either from talking to the placement worker or to Oswald on a second interview, you see?

Mr. JENNER. The cause for that doesn't appear--of course, it may be that when he got there the job was filled or anyone of a number of reasons?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Since it is a blank entry, the applicant could not have reported, or the employer had rejected him, or he had seen other applicants and chose from them.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Let's go to the next line.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under the column "Call"--10-26-62.

Mr. JENNER. That indicates what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That he was called by telephone message, because there is a "TM" above the date.

Mr. JENNER. That means "telephone message"?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I think that I am correct that that is the meaning there. Under the "referred"--NRO.

Mr. JENNER. What does that mean?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No referral offered.

Mr. JENNER. What does that mean?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That in trying to fill an order of an employer, the placement interviewer called in a given number of applicants, in trying to find one who would meet his specifications after reviewing application cards (referring to Form E-13; Cunningham Exhibit No. 1), and I would read it that the applicant replied that he came to the placement worker, that in the discussion the placement worker made the decision not to refer him.

Mr. JENNER. Is there a recording there of what the prospective reference would have been?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes--employer agency: The Dallas Transit.

Mr. JENNER. For what position?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Messenger, and I cannot read something in parentheses after that--"permanent duration"--I judge it to be $175 a month.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is nothing in the result column.

Mr. JENNER. Whose initials?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I'm sorry, I cannot distinguish them.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. However, there is the date--10-30, and I can't read what is above the date--10-30.

Mr. JENNER. Is that on the same line?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; I think.

Mr. JENNER. Let me see if I can read it--could that first word be "working" and then there is some initial following 10-30, the first of which appears to be "W", the next is "T", and the next is "F".

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I wouldn't risk a guess at either one of those, sir, because I am not acquainted with this handwriting and it is not mine.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Go to the next line, please.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The next line--there is a dash under the word "Call", "referred"--there is a date 10-12, there are no other entries on that line.

Mr. JENNER. So, what does that mean to you?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it can mean a number of things.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is no indication on the front of the card to indicate that the applicant was in the office at that time. It can be that someone started an entry and never completed it, and I am sorry, I just don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Okay, let's get to the next line.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under "called"--the change of the year is indicated by 1963 having been written.

Mr. JENNER. Let's----

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under that is May 3 and the letter "M" which indicates a call in by mail. We use a form.

Mr. JENNER. Does that mean the applicant called in?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That means the agency called him in by mail?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, just as the 10-26-62 "TM" meant telephone message.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is no entry under "referred". Under "Employer--Agency" is Texas Power & Light Co. The job title or purpose is "Meter reader." The duration is permanent, the pay is $250. A runover item in the "Results" column is an E-19. That is one of our form numbers which the employment service uses to inform the unemployment compensation office that an applicant who is a claimant was called but did not report or did not accept--or at any rate appears not to be available for referral to jobs.

Mr. JENNER. Could it be that there was no response to the mail notice?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; it does mean that because there is no entry in the referred column, you see.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under the remarks are the letters "NR" which means "nonreport"--just what you were asking, and there is a repetition, if I am reading it correctly, of E-19, which is the same entry we just spoke of and the date----

Mr. JENNER. One, which is a similar entry meaning the same thing as the previous one?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Which is a duplicate entry--E-19?

Mr. JENNER. I wanted to make clear that you weren't merely reading the same entry you read before.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; on the same line is written the date 5-8-63, which is 5 days subsequent to when the card was mailed, wasn't it?

Mr. JENNER. What was the date--May 8, 1963?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. And then in parentheses are written the words "Moved--left no address" and there are two initials there that I cannot decipher.

Mr. JENNER. I don't think I need to ask you to interpret that.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. All right.

Mr. JENNER. Is there another line?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under the word "Called" is 10-7-63--TM, indicating a telephone message under the column headed "Referred" is 10-8-63.

Employer-agency--I read--"Solid State Electric; job title or purpose--sales clerk; duration--permanent; pay--$350 a month; under "Results"--"NH"--meaning, "Not hired."

Under "Remarks" is printed the word "direct," which I interpret to mean that our staff member did not make an appointment for the applicant but asked him to go directly to see the employer.

Mr. JENNER. The "not hired" entry indicates what to you as to whether the employer rejected the applicant or whether the applicant declined their employment or any other reason. What did that indicate to you in this area?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Ordinarily it means that the employer rejected the applicant and I am seeing that there was an erasure in this "NH" which looks as if it could have been "ARJ".

Mr. JENNER. What does that mean?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That means "Applicant rejected job," and frequently these kind of changes are usual happenings with us because we can always call an employer and check too quickly and he will say one thing, or if you talk to another person in staff they will say, "No; we didn't hire him." Can you see how that would happen, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; that combination with the erasure leads you to interpret that, that while there was initially a report that the applicant refused the job, on a further check it was ascertained that he was not hired, meaning that the prospective employer did not hire the applicant, rather than that the applicant rejected the position?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is there another entry?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I think I got into the column under "Remarks" and had explained the word "Direct" before.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I'm sorry--I cannot read the entry under the word "Direct." I can read the initials "RLA", who is our Mr. Robert Adams.

Mr. JENNER. That is the man I examined this morning?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That means that Robert Adams handled that particular item?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; and that he saw the applicant on that day and gave the referral.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. In the next line under the word "Called" is a dash, which indicates that the applicant was not called in, but probably appeared at the office and was routed back to the placement interviewer, and the date is the next day--10-9-63; "Employer agency is Burton-Dixie"; job title or purpose is "Clerk Trainee"; the duration is permanent; the pay is $1.25, the results are "NH", which means "not hired."

Under "Remarks" is "direct" and the initials RLA which is our Mr. Bob Adams.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Under "Called"--10-15, with a "T," which means that he was called by telephone, under "Referred" is 10-15, which would indicate that he reported the same day, and under "Employer-agency--Trans-Texas"; under "Job Title or Purpose--cargo handler"; under "Duration" is "P"--under "Pay" is $310.

Mr. JENNER. That's a month?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; "result" is "NR".

Mr. JENNER. What do you mean by that?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "Nonreport."

Mr. JENNER. That in turn means what?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That the applicant accepted the referral, led the placement interviewer to assume that he would see the employer, and that when the placement interviewer checked with the employer, he reported to him that the applicant had not reported. Under "Remarks"--working--I think it is 10:30 a.m., 10-16. There is no indication of where working.

Mr. JENNER. Are there any initials there?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. "RLA."

Mr. JENNER. That's the same Mr. Adams?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. That would indicate that when that reference was made, it was found that Mr. Oswald was already working somewhere else?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; it would indicate that Mr. Adams very likely checked the following day in some fashion or it could be that Oswald called Mr. Adams and reported that he was working.

Mr. JENNER. This reference was made on what day, according to that record?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Are you using the word "reference" as we use the word "referral," sir?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. 10-15.

Mr. JENNER. And then there is an indication that Mr. Adams made a check on that reference the following day or the same day?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I am uncertain which it is referring to, whether he left the entry there--let me go back--"NR" that he called the employer on the 16th and recorded the "NR," or whether there was a conversation between him and Oswald on 16th, from where he got the information he was working--I do not know whether he ever worked at Trans-Texas from this.

Mr. JENNER. Does this complete the entries under that section of the form?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, give me your impression of Lee Harvey Oswald, as you recall him, doing your best to transport yourself back to the time that you had contact with him.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Self-contained, able, perhaps not giving any more information than he was asked for, entirely presentable as far as grooming and appearance was concerned; there was nothing at all that I recall that was argumentative in my contacts with him. The general appearance was of, and what these records indicate to me, was of a young applicant with capability, not any sound or extensive work experience, the longest period of the training and experience was in the Marine Corps----

Mr. JENNER. And a limited education?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. A limited education, but he had done something about it before he came to me or he wouldn't have a high school equivalency certificate, if he did have. At least, I had no reason to question that he did not have, after I got the test results from the Fort Worth office.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Cunningham, would you tell me, please, your education qualifications for the work you are doing and your experience qualifications and what brought you into this field?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I have a master's degree from the University of Missouri, which was granted in 1938. It is a B.S. in educational and vocational guidance.

Mr. JENNER. You have a master's--and you have a B.S.--did you say?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I have the B.S. and the master's subsequent to it and I have a B.S. in education from Southeast Missouri College in 1928, which you see comes before this master's work.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I have taken some subsequent courses at night classes as I could at a variety of universities, St. Louis University, Washington University, in St. Louis, at SMU--a summer subsequent to the master's at the University of Minnesota.

Mr. JENNER. All in what areas?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. The B.S. was education.

Mr. JENNER. That was in 1928?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And at Southeast Missouri, did you say?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; Cape Girardeau. And my undergraduate majors are math and science, I guess I've got one in English, too, that I picked up.

Mr. JENNER. You graduated from college, then what did you do--there's 10 years there I wanted to cover.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I taught school and went to school some summers, I did some social work during the depression days in the Southeast Missouri area.

Mr. JENNER. I remember them--I was practicing law then.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. You should have been down where they have good land and poor people, down in the Boot Heel of Missouri.

Mr. JENNER. In the Wood River country?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. In the Boot Heel of Missouri where the Mississippi and Ohio come together.

Mr. JENNER. I was down in the area where the Mississippi and Ohio come together forming the tip of Illinois--down at Little Egypt.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. In Cairo?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, in Cairo.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. And part of the time I was a housewife. In 1938 I went to Jefferson City where my husband was employed--this was Jefferson City, Mo.

Mr. JENNER. That is the State capital?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. I was with the Missouri Employment Commission and I worked in the central office there and he was a teacher in the public schools of the city and I went from there to the St. Louis metropolitan office in the spring of 1940, I think.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the OPA?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No; that was the War Manpower Commission--really during the war period. You know, we moved from State to Federal and then back to State--it was much easier going in than coming out--with the stroke of a pen--we were in.

I moved with that agency, I guess, from interviewer to labor market analyst for that metropolitan area and then I taught awhile. There may have been a period where I was not employed, because Mr. Cunningham and I have had heavy family responsibilities on the other end of life from 1940 to the death of his mother this past Christmas at 89, the same as Churchill, and in 1951, we came down here.

I have basically worked for A. Harris as an accounting clerk. In 1957 I had qualified under the Texas law and had taken the examinations, and in August 1957--I was employed by the Texas Employment Commission as an interviewer of some variety.

Mr. JENNER. And you have been at it ever since?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Cunningham, does anything occur to you that you think might be helpful to the Commission in these areas about which I have inquired of you which, due to my lack of knowledge of the facts or for any other reason I have not brought out, that you would like to volunteer and which you regard as pertinent to our investigation?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. I've never really been into the investigation--of course, have never been into any kind which was of such grave importance as this, sir. I couldn't really make a judgment of what would be important to you.

Mr. JENNER. Well, I don't want you to try to make a judgment as to what would be important--all I said, is there anything you think is pertinent?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. I would like to say this: As I said to the gentlemen from the FBI who called me.

I have not been close to the Mellers recently. You see, this acquaintance came through our both working for A. Harris.

Mr. JENNER. For whom?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. A. Harris & Co.

Mr. JENNER. What business is A. Harris?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. A retail trade--it is now Sanger-Harris, one of the major department stores here, but I have no reason to believe otherwise that the Mellers were good citizens and very grateful for American democracy.

I rather suspect that the records show that I was a sponsor of Mr. Meller for his citizenship, and I think, having been one made me value my own greater, because I came down and sat in the courtroom and saw what it meant to incoming people.

I also recounted to him that one time when we were playing tennis--Mr. Meller came to the court, and he said, "I have a letter I want to show you," in a state of excitement, and I said, "You have?" And he got it out and it was from the U.S. Department of State, saying "You registered as an alien" at such and such address. "We have a request from Australia of a sister or a woman who purports to be your sister, and she is asking for your address. Do we have your permission to give it to her?"

And then Teofil said, "Nowhere else in the world would any Government be this considerate of me. I am only an alien."

Now, I haven't seen him because our paths haven't crossed very much in the recent years, but I think that that incident sticks with me because, again, I'm a stick in the mud--I have been in Missouri and I have been to Texas, and I just have to get some experience by reading and by studying and by talking with people, and other experiences, but when I worked at A. Harris, I talked with some of the displaced people who had been through World War II and through the horrors of that period and it was a broadening of my own experience. There was some gaining of some firsthand knowledge of the Jewish people and their history. I read some in the area. I helped them a bit with their use of English in the trade and they were all apologetic to me for involving me, you see, and I said--well, I just accepted the boy as another applicant.

Mr. JENNER. It was the normal course, as far as you were concerned?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you saw nothing that would lead you to believe it was other than the normal course as far as the Mellers were concerned and they were activated by charity in their hearts and desire to help out?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That's right, and out of their own suffering. It is my observation that people who have suffered and who have helped to share, tend to do it a little more, probably, than those who have never known what it is to starve.

Mr. JENNER. Do you ever recall a conversation of whether the subject of Mr. Oswald's loss of these positions arose, and whether he said anything on that subject?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Which positions, please, sir?

Mr. JENNER. You interviewed him 10-10--he had been employed prior thereto by Leslie Welding Co., I think?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Doing sheet metal work, he says, "Made ventilators, cut sheet metal--4 months"?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. That is a Fort Worth employer, is it not, sir?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; it is. All I am seeking to do is to stimulate your recollection--if you have one--as to whether the subject ever arose in which he said he was having difficulty obtaining a position or retaining, either way, and whether he made any comments in that area?

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; the entry which is on the application card in "Reason for leaving" is "Laid off." I do not know whose handwriting it is in, and I did not delve into that.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us