Warren Commission (10 of 26): Hearings Vol. X (of 15) (part 5 of 5)
Mr. LIEBELER. Those messages are filed chronologically, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Those messages are filed in date order.
Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned two categories of messages to which the search was confined, and those were "Sent paid messages," or "Sent collect messages"?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. "Sent paid cash messages," and "Sent collect messages."
Mr. LIEBELER. What other type messages are there?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The other types of messages are messages charged to customers having authorized charge accounts. It is obvious that a message filed by Oswald would not be found in any of our charge account message files.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, it is possible to pick up the telephone and call the Western Union office and instruct that a telegram be sent and have it charged to the telephone number, is it not?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is that a separate category, or is that a third category?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is a separate category of messages filed by telephone subscribers and charged to their telephone.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was a search made of those messages?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I believe a search was made of those message, but I would have to confirm that with Mr. Wilcox, our local district manager in Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, for the sake of clarity of the record, at this point let me suggest that we go off the record, and Mr. Wilcox is available. Would you confer with Mr. Wilcox on that point and let us indicate on the record what he has advised you?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record indicate that we have conferred off the record with Mr. Wilcox, and you have consulted with him as to whether or not a check was made of the records covering messages called in by telephone and charged to a telephone number. Would you tell us what Mr. Wilcox indicated?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Mr. Wilcox made reference to notes in these files and has determined that a search was not made of messages sent and charged to the telephone, for the reason that it had been indicated that Oswald had filed messages at our office. In such event, the message would not be charged to the telephone, and for that reason, a search of the sent messages charged to the telephone was not made.
Mr. LIEBELER. At the same time you mean to indicate that the thing that prompted this search by your office in the first place was the story that Oswald had actually been in the Western Union office and filed the message in person; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. If he had filed it in person, it would obviously not have been called in by telephone and charged to his telephone number; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the top of page 3 of your memorandum 3001, the statement appears "For money orders payable to Lee Harvey Oswald and his aliases or to anyone at a specific address in Dallas--October through November 1963--result: Negative." Would you explain that for us, please?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. As I have indicated in my prepared statement, one of our employees thought he had recognized Oswald as having received a money order at our main office sometime during the dates mentioned.
Mr. LIEBELER. October through November 1963?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. It was thought that the money order was payable to someone at a specific address in Dallas, which was the YMCA.
Mr. LIEBELER. So when you searched through the records indicating money orders payable during the period October through November 1963, you determined that no money order had been made payable to Lee Harvey Oswald, or to these aliases, and in addition to that fact, that no money orders of any kind had been made payable to anyone at the YMCA in Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where the information came from that the money order was supposed to have been payable to Oswald at the YMCA?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. This information came from one of our night employees, Mr. C. A. Hamblen.
Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into Mr. Hamblen, I want to cover the rest of the statements made in your memorandum, and we will try to cover them generally. The memorandum indicates that certain money orders were received by Jack Ruby, and that certain telegrams were sent by Jack Ruby through the Dallas office; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that information was determined as a result of the search that you have just described?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is, the search of the money order payable file, plus the telegrams sent file, which search was confined, as you have indicated, only to the telegrams sent cash paid or sent collect; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct. With respect to the money orders, the search was made of the received money order file records of which we have. As to the telegrams filed by Mr. Ruby, knowing that he was a resident of Dallas, having a business here, we asked the FBI agent to check with the telephone company to see whether or not their records indicate any messages had been sent by Ruby and charged to his telephone. This information was secured by the FBI from the telephone company and enabled us to readily locate the messages in our files which were charged to his telephone.
Mr. LIEBELER. You indicated before that when searching for telegrams sent by Oswald, a general search was made of the chronological dates that you have described; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. You searched all the chronological records of the two classifications of telegrams that we have indicated?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. During the time that search was made for telegrams sent by Oswald, did the person making that search also look for telegrams sent by Ruby?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. No. The search made for telegrams sent by Ruby was confined to the dates given to us by the FBI, which dates were obtained from the telephone company records showing telegrams charged to Ruby's telephone number or numbers on those dates.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, it is possible that Mr. Ruby may have sent other telegrams which were not charged to his telephone number or numbers, and of which we would not be aware as a result of the search made in connection with Mr. Ruby; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. On page 3 of your memorandum, exhibit 3001, you indicate that a telegram dated Painesville, Ohio, January 13, 1964, to Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, was received. How did that come to your attention, Mr. Semingsen?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That telegram was brought to my attention by District Manager Wilcox, it having been shown to him by one of our main office employees who handled the message.
Mr. LIEBELER. It was shown to Mr. Wilcox because of the nature of the message which the telegram contained; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to which reference has just been made is attached to the memorandum as attachment No. 4. Your memorandum also indicates negative results when a search was made of the office in Irving. Tex., in Fort Worth, Tex., and in New Orleans, La., for money orders payable to Oswald or to his aliases, or in the case of New Orleans for money orders sent or received by Oswald and aliases through the periods indicated in the memorandum. Were these statements made in your memorandum as a result of searches made similar to that in the Dallas office, do you know?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you personally instruct the New Orleans office to conduct the search of their records or cause such instructions to be given?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The search at New Orleans with respect to received money orders was authorized by our district manager in New Orleans. Later a request was made for a similar search of sent money orders, which was referred to my office. And in this instance I authorized our New Orleans office to make the search.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, as far as you know, the search concerning received money orders was instigated by a direct request to the New Orleans office by the FBI or some other investigatory agency, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. I notice that the period for which a search was made in the Fort Worth office is confined to July 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 29, 1963. Can you tell me the reason for that?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The request for the search for money orders payable to Oswald on those dates was made by local FBI agents in Fort Worth of our district manager there. The FBI agents requested the search because they had information to the effect that the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald was a tenant at this address during that time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which address is that?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The address was the Rotary Apartments, 1501 West Seventh Street.
Mr. LIEBELER. Fort Worth?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Fort Worth.
Mr. LIEBELER. In answering the last question, you referred to a memorandum in your file from a Mr. T. R. Coates to you, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is dated December 9, 1963; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. The memorandum indicates that a Mr. Meyers of the FBI came to the Fort Worth office of your company and requested that a check be made of the received money orders for the last 2 weekends of July to determine if a money order had been received addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald, or anyone at the address of the Rotary Apartments, 1501 West Seventh Street, Fort Worth, Tex.; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Coates says that the FBI agent said that the FBI had information that Lee Harvey Oswald's mother was a tenant at that address during that time, and Mr. Coates also indicates that a search of the received money orders of July 19, 20, 21-22, 26-27 and 28-29 were made, but no record was found of any having been received; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been possible for Oswald to have received money orders at any offices in Dallas other than a Dallas main office?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. He could have received money orders at the branch offices.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would the records of received money orders for the branch offices be filed at the Dallas main office or at the Dallas branch offices?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am not certain about that, but the search of all received money orders was made covering both the main and branch offices.
Mr. LIEBELER. In Dallas?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. In Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. What about suburban offices? We have noted that a specific search was made of the Irving office. Are there other suburban offices at which Oswald could have received money orders, which would not have been uncovered by the search which was made?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; it is possible he could have received money orders at such places, for example, at Garland or Grand Prairie.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is there only one office in Irving?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; there is one office in Irving.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not the records of received money orders for suburban areas of Dallas are kept in the local suburban office or kept in the Dallas main office?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. They are kept at the branch office.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you are absolutely certain that the records relating to the money orders received at the Dallas branch office are either kept at the Dallas main office or would the search that was made include a search of the branch offices; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; and in addition, Irving, Tex.
Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned a moment ago the fact that one of your employees, Mr. C. A. Hamblen, who is presently a night manager in the Dallas main office--is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am not sure what his title is.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Hamblen said that he thought he recognized Oswald as a customer in that office, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. He had indicated that he had thought he had seen Mr. Oswald or someone that looked like him in the office on some occasion, either receiving the money order or sending a telegram.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the background of Mr. Hamblen's involvement in this matter. In your own words tell us the story of the events that prompted this search. What investigation was made as to Mr. Hamblen's activities, and what conclusion the company came to in this respect?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Perhaps it would be best to get that testimony direct from Mr. Wilcox. However, I did participate in a very thorough questioning of Mr. Hamblen and can furnish you with this information.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you indicate for us briefly, and we will perhaps go into greater detail with Mr. Wilcox after lunch.
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Sometime shortly after the killing of Oswald by Ruby, which was shown on television, Mr. Hamblen indicated or mentioned to Mr. Wilcox that he thought he had seen someone who appeared to look like Oswald in our main office, either receiving a money order or sending a telegram. When Mr. Wilcox learned of this information, he had a search made of our files for certain dates which he is in better position to testify on.
Mr. LIEBELER. He caused the search to be made for a telegram that might have been sent by Oswald or money order received by Oswald; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct. There were two specific instances in which Mr. Hamblen thought that he had seen Oswald in the office. One having to do with a received money order, and the other instance having to do with the filing of a telegram. The search made by Mr. Wilcox revealed no such transactions.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was this search made before or after Mr. Hamblen's views became known to the press?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The first search was made before the information reached the press. The second and more intensive search was made following appearance in the press concerning the alleged filing of telegrams and receiving of money orders by Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand the chronology of events here, Mr. Hamblen first indicated to Mr. Wilcox that he, Hamblen, thought he recalled Oswald having been in the Western Union office, the main office in Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, as I understand it, Mr. Wilcox observed a story in the newspaper that indicated that Oswald had been in the office and had received a small amount of money by telegram money order; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand it, Mr. Wilcox at that point concluded that the story must have gotten to the press through Mr. Hamblen, and after that time, Mr. Hamblen was questioned by Mr. Wilcox and also by yourself, and gave to Mr. Wilcox certain statements relating to his alleged recollection of Oswald having been in the office; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have given me copies of two statements by Mr. Hamblen, dated December 2, 1963, and December 5, 1963, respectively. Did you have any personal involvement in the preparation of these statements to which I have referred?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I did not. At a meeting in Mr. Wilcox's office following my receipt of copies of these statements, I personally interrogated Mr. Hamblen and other employees whom Hamblen had thought had handled the transactions in question.
Mr. LIEBELER. Specifically, that would have been a Mrs. D. J. McClure? Is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. McClure is an employee of the company who Mr. Hamblen said had had trouble with Oswald and had requested him, Hamblen, to assist in handling Oswald; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make any written report to the file, or for any other officer of the company, of your interrogation of Mr. Hamblen or Mrs. McClure?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I did not.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you state for us at this time the general nature of the interrogation and the conclusions to which you came as a result of your questioning of Mr. Hamblen and Mrs. McClure?
We will note at this time for the record that while Mr. Semingsen is referring to copies of the two statements made by Mr. Hamblen, dated December 2 and December 5, 1963, they will not be marked at this time, since Mr. Semingsen had no direct involvement in the preparation of these statements. They will be marked subsequently upon the examination of Mr. Wilcox.
You may refer to those statements, if you wish.
Perhaps the record should also note that a statement was given to Mr. Wilcox, apparently by Mrs. McClure, on December 4, 1963. Mr. Semingsen, you indicated that you had questioned both of those employees. I assume that when you did question them, you had these statements before you; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Please state the general nature of your questioning and the conclusions to which you came as a result of your questioning.
Mr. SEMINGSEN. As previously indicated, I questioned both of the employees separately, individually, and together in the presence of Mr. Wilcox, my purpose being to reconcile the differences in their statements.
After having informed Mr. Hamblen of the extensive search that had been made for the telegram which he so vividly recalled having been filed by someone who looked like Oswald, and calling to his attention that all of the cash messages that had been handled by Mrs. McClure had been accounted for and no such message located, I asked for a further explanation from him. After questioning him, he would give no further explanation in the presence of Mrs. McClure.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he still stick to the proposition that to the best of his recollection Oswald or someone that he thought looked like Oswald, had, in fact, been in the office and had these difficulties with Mrs. McClure?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I similarly questioned Mrs. McClure, and I am satisfied from the answers that she gave that her story is the correct one. Particularly in the absence of any such message in our files.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. McClure's version is that no such person as Oswald ever came in the office, and she had no difficulty with anyone as a result of which she requested assistance from Mr. Hamblen; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you satisfied that is a correct story?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am satisfied that that is the correct story as indicated by Mrs. McClure in her statement that Mr. Hamblen was confused, possibly had Oswald mixed up with someone else who looked very much like him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Hamblen particularly mentioned a message that this person who he thought looked like Oswald was supposed to have sent to Washington, D.C.; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. To the Secretary of Navy in particular; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The message that he had reference to was supposedly a night letter addressed to Washington. D.C., as indicated in his statement of December 5. In that statement he also indicated that the telegram was a cash telegram, accounted for by Mrs. McClure as a night letter. Such accounting would have to appear on her record of cash telegrams accepted.
Mr. LIEBELER. This is the telegram with respect to which Hamblen said Mrs. McClure had difficulty with a customer and requested his assistance; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have caused a thorough search of Mrs. McClure's records to be made and you have not found any night letter to Washington, D.C.; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct during the period searched. We did locate several messages to Washington, D.C. I do not recall that they were accepted by Mrs. McClure, but Mr. Wilcox can testify as to that. In any event, a telegram to Washington, D.C., and several other cities fitting the description that Hamblen had given were shown to him and he could not identify any of them as the telegram he had referred to, which Mrs. McClure was supposed to have accepted.
Mr. LIEBELER. What dates were searched for the specific message to Washington, D.C.?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. All cash messages sent to Washington, D.C., from the latter part of October through November 22, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you be more specific as to what the latter part of October might be?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Whether or not accepted by Mrs. McClure. In addition, a search of all cash messages accepted by Mrs. McClure during the period November 1 to November 21, 1963, inclusive, was made, and all messages accepted by her were matched out with her cash sheet and all messages have been accounted for. All cash messages accepted by her have been accounted for. None could be identified as the message in question referred to by Mr. Hamblen.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you said it could not be identified, you mean it could not be identified by Mr. Hamblen? When shown to Mr. Hamblen, he could not identify them?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, you are perfectly satisfied in your own mind based on the investigation which your company has conducted, and your questioning of Mr. Hamblen and Mrs. McClure, that Oswald did not receive any money order through your Dallas office or any of the other offices indicated in your memorandum, Exhibit 3001, and that Oswald did not, in fact, send a message to Washington, D.C., or give a message to Mrs. McClure as indicated by Mr. Hamblen; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct, and I am satisfied of that conclusion.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no more questions at this point, Mr. Semingsen. I think that some of the details of the searches made and of other aspects of this matter will be taken up with Mr. Wilcox after lunch. If you have anything else that you would like to add, or you think I should ask you that I haven't asked you, I would appreciate if you would so indicate on the record at this point.
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I can think of nothing at this time, but if anything further does occur to me, I will be glad to bring it to your attention. I am sure that Mr. Wilcox will be more helpful in answering any questions that you may wish to ask him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mr. Semingsen.
TESTIMONY OF LAURANCE R. WILCOX
The testimony of Laurance R. Wilcox was taken at 2 p. m., on March 31, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr. LIEBELER. Before I start, I want to swear you in as a witness.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. WILCOX. I do.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Wilcox, my name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the Commission appointed by President Johnson to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy.
Staff counsel have been authorized to take the testimony of witnesses by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission under Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and Joint Resolution of Congress No. 137.
The Commission rules of procedure require that copies of that Executive order and the congressional resolution, as well as copies of the Commission's rules and procedures relating to the taking of testimony be provided to each witness prior to the time his testimony is taken. I now provide you with copies of those documents. The general nature of the testimony that we wish to get from you today relates to investigations made by Western Union Telegraph Co. concerning the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald received money orders through the offices of your company, either in Dallas or the surrounding area, and the possibility that he may have sent telegrams to other persons through the facilities of your company.
Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into the details of your testimony, would you please state your full name for the record?
Mr. WILCOX. Laurance R. Wilcox.
Mr. LIEBELER. By whom are you employed?
Mr. WILCOX. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Mr. LIEBELER. In what capacity?
Mr. WILCOX. District manager.
Mr. LIEBELER. What are your duties as district manager?
Mr. WILCOX. Administrative; in charge of the operation for Western Union in the city of Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are general manager then of the area which includes just the city of Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. District manager.
Mr. LIEBELER. Of just the city of Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes; and immediate surrounding towns such as Garland, Mesquite, Grand Prairie, Irving, and Lancaster. That is all I can think of right now.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are generally in charge of the operations of the company within that particular area; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did there come a time, Mr. Wilcox, when you caused a search to be made of the records of the Western Union Telegraph Co. to determine whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had ever received or sent any telegrams through the offices under your jurisdiction?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us about that?
Mr. WILCOX. Can I refer to these papers?
Mr. LIEBELER. You may refer to any papers that you wish.
Mr. WILCOX. I want to so that I will have this exactly right as to what took place. My first knowledge of the message that was supposed to have been sent by Oswald was when Mr. Hamblen, early night manager at my office, visited with me telling me----
Mr. LIEBELER. Is that Mr. C. A. Hamblen?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead.
Mr. WILCOX. Telling me that he had been watching the television, and when he saw the picture of Oswald, he recognized that as being a man that had been in our office and had filed a message.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when Mr. Hamblen told you this?
Mr. WILCOX. This was on a Wednesday following the assassination--following the shooting of Oswald. He told me that he was positive that he had seen Mr. Oswald in our office.
Mr. LIEBELER. He told you this on Wednesday following the Sunday on which Mr. Oswald was shot by Ruby; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 27, 1963? Thanksgiving was on November the 28th.
Mr. WILCOX. Yes. It was on a Wednesday preceding Thanksgiving. I asked Mr. Hamblen to tell me exactly what had taken place.
He stated that Oswald had filed a message going to Washington--a cash message, and it was written in a peculiar script, as Mr. Hamblen put it. It was typed in pencil. I think he meant is printed in pencil.
I asked him to immediately set about to obtain copies of that, as I was leaving town, and to get a copy of the message, and to do that it would be necessary for him to see Mr. Pirtle, our bookkeeping manager, and to get the message, put it in an envelope, and address it to my personal attention while I was in Kansas City.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mr. Hamblen tell you anything about what the message said or to whom it was addressed at this first conversation?
Mr. WILCOX. No, he didn't. We left for Kansas City and was there over the Thanksgiving holidays.
Mr. LIEBELER. You and your family?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes. And while there, this article appeared in the Kansas City Star, their evening paper; very much the same story as appeared in the Dallas Times Herald.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a copy of a clipping which purports to have appeared in the Dallas Times Herald on November 30, 1963. I ask you if this tells a story similar to the report you saw in the Kansas City Star?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, same story.
Mr. LIEBELER. We will mark this clipping as Exhibit 3002 on the deposition of Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. I have initialed the clipping in question, Mr. Wilcox, and ask you to do the same.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.] Immediately when I read this story in the Kansas City paper I recognized it as being the same story that Mr. Hamblen had told me just a couple of days before in my office.
We returned to Dallas Sunday, and immediately on my return to the office Monday----
Mr. LIEBELER. Monday, I suggest would have been December 2, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you fix that by recalling that the assassination was on the 22d. The following Friday would have been the 29th. Saturday, the 30th. Sunday the 1st; and Monday would have been December 2?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, December 2. Now, this was on my return to the office, and we indicated that was December 2. I went over the information that was contained in the newspaper article with Mr. Hamblen, reminding him that this was in effect the same story as he had told me just 2 days before, a few days before. Particularly, its comment about the strange printing on the telegram which he had seen presented by Oswald.
Mr. Hamblen admitted that he had discussed several matters with different reporters, but insisted that he hadn't given out such detailed information as appeared in the newspaper article.
However, I was constrained to feel that he had because it was exactly the same story as he had given me initially in the past week.
There was no doubt in my mind but that the newspaper article stemmed from Mr. Hamblen's visit with a newspaper reporter.
Mr. LIEBELER. In this connection, Mr. Wilcox, you have referred to a copy of a letter dated December 3, 1963, which appears to be a letter from you to Mr. Semingsen; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir; would you like to have a copy?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Did you prepare that letter on or about December 3?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does it accurately reflect the events that occurred prior to that time?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. I mark that letter as Exhibit 3003, on the deposition of Mr. Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. I have initialed the copy in question, Mr. Wilcox, and would like to have you do the same thing if you would.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. Before we go on, I call your attention to the fact that this letter of December 3, 1963, starts out by saying "This is to supplement my report of December 2 in connection with newspaper article regarding messages and money order to Ruby or Oswald."
Do you have a copy of your report of December 2, referred to in Exhibit 3003?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. May we mark that as Exhibit No. 3004 on the deposition of Mr. Laurance R. Wilcox, Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964?
Mr. WILCOX. [Hands document to attorney.]
Mr. LIEBELER. I have initialed Exhibit No. 3004 and you have done likewise, have you not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You had just indicated that you had talked to Mr. Hamblen upon your return concerning the newspaper story. Would you tell us what happened next?
Mr. WILCOX. I asked Mr. Hamblen if he had obtained the message from the bookkeeping department as I had requested he do, and he stated that he had not found it and did not have it and it wasn't available.
On December 9, Mr. Semingsen, vice president of Western Union, was at my office, and at this time we interviewed several employees for the purpose of finding out if any of them could recall having seen Oswald in our office. We also discussed the Ruby money orders.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us the names of the employees who were interviewed on December 9, 1963, in connection with the possibility that Oswald might have sent or received telegrams through your company?
Do you have a memorandum reflecting what happened?
Mr. WILCOX. No, because what we did, we asked for statements from these people, and I have those statements and that was the result of that meeting.
Mr. LIEBELER. The meeting you referred to now is the meeting held in your office on December 9?
Mr. WILCOX. The meeting held in my office on December 9.
Mr. LIEBELER. I call your attention to a message that was sent by Mr. Semingsen to Mr. J. H. Waters in New York City, which has been attached as Attachment No. 5 to Exhibit 3001 on Mr. Semingsen's deposition. I show you that message and ask you if that accurately reflects what occurred at the meeting in your office on December 9, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. This doesn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. You say it does not?
Mr. WILCOX. This was pertaining to Mr. Ruby. This did not have anything to do with that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me further point out to you, Mr. Wilcox, that we have statements of Mr. Hamblen dated December 2 and December 5, 1963, which are apparently addressed to you. I show you copies, first, of the statement dated December 2, 1963, and ask you if you can remember the circumstances under which that statement was obtained from Mr. Hamblen?
Mr. WILCOX. This statement was obtained----
Mr. LIEBELER. The statement you are referring to is the statement dated December 2, 1963; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes. This statement was obtained at the time I discussed the matter with Mr. Hamblen on December 2, Monday. That was this statement.
Mr. LIEBELER. That visit with Mr. Hamblen is described in Exhibit No. 3003, your letter to Mr. Semingsen on December 3, 1963, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And the statement of Mr. Hamblen, dated December 2, 1963, was obtained at that time? That time being the first time that you talked to Mr. Hamblen after this matter appeared in the newspapers; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have the original of Mr. Hamblen's statement of December 2, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. I can't find it in my file. I am wondering if it was sent to Mr. Semingsen's file, but we have gone through that.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a thermofax copy that has been provided to us, and ask you if that is an accurate copy of the original statement?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes. That was made in our office on the thermofax machine.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let us mark the thermofax copy of the statement of Mr. C. A. Hamblen to Mr. Wilcox dated December 2, 1963, as Exhibit 3005 on the deposition of Mr. Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., on March 31, 1964.
I have initialed Exhibit 3005, Mr. Wilcox. Will you do the same?
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. Does the statement of Mr. Hamblen, Exhibit No. 3005, accurately reflect the conversation which you had with him on December 2, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you prepare that statement yourself?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir; Mr. Hamblen prepared that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mr. Hamblen dictate it himself, or write it out?
Mr. WILCOX. Wrote it on the typewriter himself.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now in the December 2, 1963, statement, Mr. Hamblen says: "As I recall, several weeks ago Mr. Aubrey Lewis had trouble paying this party a money order. He expected to get same without proper ID. He was informed to get some ID and come back and get paid, and as Mr. Lewis recalled he returned about 1 hour later with Navy ID card and a library card and was paid a small amount with this ID and after payment made, party left the office.
Mr. Lewis remarked to me, I would like to pinch the heads off people of his character."
Do you recall discussing this with Mr. Hamblen on December 2, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you remember anything else that Mr. Hamblen might have said about this incident other than that which is reflected in the statement?
Mr. WILCOX. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall discussing this statement with Mr. Lewis at any time?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first discuss it with Mr. Lewis?
Mr. WILCOX. That is what I am trying to find right here. Must have been on December 4 that I talked to Mr. Lewis about it, and his statement addressed to me was written by himself.
Mr. LIEBELER. On December 4, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. On December 4, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a copy of that statement?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could we mark that as Exhibit No. 3006 on the deposition of Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964?
In this case you have actually provided me the original of Mr. Lewis' statement, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have initialed Exhibit No. 3006 and would like to have you do the same, if you would.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Lewis' statement refers to that portion of Mr. Hamblen's statement, dated December 2, 1963, which we just read, does it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And Mr. Lewis says that he does recall the difficulty he had paying a small money order to a gentleman who struck him as being a feminine type of person, but says he cannot remember the name of that person; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing that with Mr. Lewis to any extent other than as reflected on this statement?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell us what you said and what Mr. Lewis said about this?
Before you tell us what was said, this discussion that you are referring to was held on December 4, 1963, or some other time?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir; at that time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us what that conversation was?
Mr. WILCOX. The conversation with Mr. Lewis had to do with trying to identify the person that he was supposed to have paid this money order to, and the one with which he had some difficulty in establishing identification.
Mr. LIEBELER. I want you to tell me exactly what happened in as great detail as you can remember it.
Now, at this conversation with Mr. Lewis, the possibility that this money order was to be delivered to someone at the YMCA on Ervay Street in Dallas was discussed, was it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us all that you can remember about that aspect of the discussion that you had with Mr. Lewis?
Mr. WILCOX. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Lewis regarding the money order which he was having difficulty in paying. He could not pay the money order because the recipient could not produce suitable identification.
Mr. Lewis was a little hazy on the details about it, but was under the impression that it was a money order or a message in the nearby area, possibly on Ervay Street or at the YMCA.
We instituted a search for all money orders during this period, that might be the message to which Mr. Hamblen was making reference.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was the one with which Mr. Lewis had difficulty in paying; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes. Now, we found some messages. One in the amount of $65. One in the amount of $35. But neither of these were the money orders that Mr. Hamblen had reference to.
Mr. LIEBELER. How did you establish the fact that they were not the money orders?
Mr. WILCOX. He looked at them and decided it wasn't the one, because we couldn't find anything that had reference to this particular identification that Hamblen was talking about.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Lewis looked at these telegrams; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does the telegram indicate what sort of identification was produced by the person to whom the money order was paid?
Mr. WILCOX. Well, there are several others in here.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are looking through a number of telegrams covering money orders; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Going to different people at the YMCA, but none of them was the money order message. None of them was a money order message that Lewis could identify as being a money order of the type Hamblen was describing. In other words, he couldn't find anything that fitted into that pattern at all.
Mr. LIEBELER. You discussed these money orders with Mr. Lewis after you obtained them from the files; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right. Mr. Lewis later told me that it might have been a money order draft that could have been paid to some individual in our town, and that the party holding the draft had presented it at our office for payment, but was having difficulty in producing suitable identification for us to cash the draft. In that event, we would not have any message or record of message in our file locally.
Mr. LIEBELER. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Wilcox, the situation which you just described would occur when a money order telegram had been delivered to some party at some other office, some office other than the Dallas central office?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And he would have the draft in his hand that would have been delivered to him by the telegraph company in some other office, and then he would come to the Dallas central office and attempt to cash that draft; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And Mr. Lewis said it is possible that the transaction with which he had such difficulty could have been a transaction such as the one we have described; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. In that event, you would not have any record of it in the Dallas office?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is it correct that you would not have any record of it in the Dallas office even when the draft had been successfully cashed, as it apparently subsequently was in this case?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You would still not have any record of it?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you have produced 11 money orders in the form of telegrams, transmitting money to individuals living at the YMCA here in Dallas. Is it correct that these are the only 11 telegrams which you were able to find addressed to the YMCA or to anyone at the YMCA during some period beginning on or about October 1963, and running up to approximately the end of November 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you, yourself, personally authorize or instruct that the search be conducted which produced these telegrams?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been a search through every single money order delivered through the Dallas office through the month of October or November, 1963, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. These 11 telegrams are the only 11 that were addressed to the YMCA?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the dates covered by the search would be October 1 through the 17th of November 1963? Or what was it, as best you can recall?
Mr. WILCOX. The end of November, as I remember.
Mr. LIEBELER. Beginning when?
Mr. WILCOX. Beginning the first part of October.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is a fact, is it not, that none of these 11 telegrams are addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir; none of them are.
Mr. LIEBELER. Or to anybody using any of Mr. Oswald's known aliases?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think that we had better, for the record, indicate the names of the people to whom these telegrams are addressed. There is a telegram dated October 4, 1963, addressed to George McMurray, transmitting $15, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is also a telegram dated October 10, 1963, addressed to Michael C. Robinson, transmitting $100 to Mr. Robinson at the YMCA, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And there is a telegram dated October 11, 1963, transmitting $150 to James McGinley, is that right?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Also for the record we better indicate who sent these telegrams. The telegram to Mr. McMurray was sent by Mrs. Mildred McMurray in Plainsfield, N.J.; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to Mr. Robinson was sent by Mrs. S. R. Robinson, of Charleston, S.C.; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to Mr. McGinley was sent by Cornelius McGinley of Chicago; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a telegram dated October 15, 1963, to Mr. Jack Burge from Rosalie A. Burge, Tulsa. Okla., transmitting $10; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is also a telegram dated October 19, 1963, to John A. Casber from John Casber of Midland. Tex., transmitting $35?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. A telegram dated October 28, 1963, to Gary Aue from Mrs. G. C. O'Quinn, Ft. Morgan, Colo., transmitting $65.
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a telegram dated October 31, 1963, to Stanley S. Qupiec from Stayea Houston of Ware, Mass., transmitting $50; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is also a telegram dated November 22, 1963, to Welton Hayes from Louis W. Hayes, of Rome, N.Y., transmitting $25; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And a telegram dated November either 27 or 28.
Mr. WILCOX. It would be November 7. This is a transmission, November 7.
Mr. LIEBELER. 1963 to John M. Brandes, Jr., from Helen Tuttle, San Antonio, transmitting $20; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And one dated November 22, 1963, to Frank or Grace Fitzell, from the Akron Dime Bank in Akron, Ohio, transmitting $200; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And one dated November 28, 1963, to George McMurray from Mildred McMurray, Plainfield. N.J., transmitting $6; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And the addresses in each case were located then at the YMCA on North Ervay in Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Those were the only money order telegrams to individuals at the YMCA that you were able to find in the search of your records, and you are satisfied that those are the only money order telegrams in existence addressed to people in the YMCA during that period; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Lewis' statement of December 4, 1963, mentions that the individual with whom he had difficulty in paying the money order was a man of Spanish descent, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Lewis about that?
Mr. WILCOX. We may have had it at the time we read this statement, but I don't recall anything specific.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Lewis as to whether he recognized this individual with whom he had difficulty in paying the money order, as Lee Harvey Oswald, from pictures of Oswald which appeared in the newspaper?
Mr. WILCOX. I asked him about that and he said he couldn't describe or associate the party to the extent that he could associate it with Oswald's picture or anything like that.
Mr. LIEBELER. He just had no recognition?
Mr. WILCOX. Other than that he had some difficulty in paying a money order.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as a result of these events that followed Mr. Hamblen's statement to the newspaper reporter and the subsequent investigation that was requested or instigated by the FBI and the Secret Service and other investigatory agencies, you conducted certain searches of certain files in your office in an attempt to locate any money orders that Oswald might have received, or any telegrams that Oswald might have sent during certain periods; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes; I can give you those dates.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you Exhibit 3001, which is a memorandum from Mr. Semingsen, and ask you if that memorandum accurately sets forth the dates and the checks that were made of the files in the Dallas and Irving, Tex., offices of your company to determine whether or not Oswald had received or sent any telegrams?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir; that's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Semingsen testified this morning that the paying office--that is, the office through which a money order is delivered, maintains a chronological record or file of all money orders passing through that office; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that you caused the files for both Dallas and Irving to be searched for the periods indicated in Exhibit 3001?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were unable to find any money order payable to Lee Harvey Oswald or O. H. Lee or Alex James Hidell; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is it possible that money orders could be sent to someone just by using initials or some shorthand name?
Mr. WILCOX. No; you never see anything because you would have no way to identify the man or associate it that you are paying it to them correctly, associate it with any identification that he might have.
Mr. LIEBELER. Since each individual must produce identification at the time the money order is paid, the money order is naturally in the full name?
Mr. WILCOX. Correct. They could be accepting it for someone--it might not be their correct name, but they could have some identification that, if it was just a small money order, but we can't change that identification. If it meets what shows on the money order, then we pay it.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you have never heard of a situation where a money order is paid to somebody just addressed to him by initials or something like that?
Mr. WILCOX. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many offices, approximately, does the Western Union office have in Dallas?
Mr. WILCOX. There are eight branch offices.
Mr. LIEBELER. Plus a central office?
Mr. WILCOX. Plus a central office.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is it possible to receive money orders through the branch office?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are the files of money orders received through branch offices kept in the branch offices, or the Dallas central office?
Mr. WILCOX. Kept at our main office.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, that the search that you made of the records of the central office would include money orders that were received through any branch office located within the City of Dallas, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. You said before that your district covered not only the City of Dallas, but surrounding communities including Irving?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are the records relating to money orders received through these other offices of suburban communities located or kept in the suburban offices or the Dallas central office?
Mr. WILCOX. In this case, this was an agency office and it would be--the records were kept at the Irving agency office. We did search those records at the Irving agency office.
Mr. LIEBELER. That fact is indicated in Exhibit 3001, is it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The records of telegrams or money orders received through other suburban offices such as Garland, for example, would also be kept in the Garland office, would they not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. But no search was made of any suburban office other than Irving; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Semingsen's memorandum also indicates that a search was made of the files in Fort Worth and in New Orleans, but you have no direct personal knowledge of what happened at those offices, do you?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. We also have here a statement from Mr. Hamblen dated December 5, 1963. Do you have the original of that statement?
Mr WILCOX. Yes; I do have.
Mr. LIEBELER. We will mark the original as Exhibit No. 3007 on the deposition of Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1963.
I have initialed Exhibit No. 3007, Mr. Wilcox, and I would like you do the same.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. This statement was apparently taken on December 5, 1963. Do you recall the circumstances under which it was given?
Mr. WILCOX. This was following a meeting and discussion that we held on December 4, at which time we discussed the money orders and messages with Mr. Hamblen, Mrs. McClure, and Mr. Lewis.
Mr. LIEBELER. Who was present at this discussion other than the individuals you just mentioned and yourself?
(Mr. Wilcox phoned his office re: correct date of meeting.)
Mr. WILCOX. I did hold this meeting.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record indicate that Mr. Wilcox has just conferred telephonically with Mr. Semingsen and wishes now to clarify the statements concerning the time on which certain meetings were held with the employees.
Mr. WILCOX. I did hold the meetings with these people on December 4, and did obtain these statements, including the statement from Mrs. McClure, Mr. Lewis, both indicated as December 4, and the statement from Mr. Hamblen which is dated December 5.
Following this meeting I endeavored to find the message or messages that Mr. Hamblen was referring to, which he insisted Mrs. McClure had accepted from Mr. Oswald. I did extract from our files all messages matching the message numbers on the cash sheet prepared by Mrs. McClure.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the FBI ask you to do this because Mr. Hamblen said that a message with which Mrs. McClure had difficulty was given to her by a man who Hamblen thought was Oswald, and that the message was one to Washington, D.C., specifically to the Secretary of the Navy----
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that it was accounted for on Mrs. McClure's sheet as a night letter that was set forth on her cash sheet; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you then got all of the telegrams that were listed on Mrs. McClure's cash sheets; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. From the 1st of November through the November 22. We could not find any such messages. However, we did extract all messages going to Washington, D.C., regardless of the names to whom they were sent, or signed, including some messages going to other points, because of their peculiar type of printing.
Now, would you like to see those messages?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir; I would. Let me ask you specifically if the period covered in terms of this extraction was from October?
Mr. WILCOX. From November 1.
Mr. LIEBELER. From November 1?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You picked that period because Mr. Hamblen said that he thought the event occurred about 10 days prior to the assassination; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right. Now, I think you have the only thermofax of Mrs. McClure's. Would you want the original?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; I do want to mark the original statement of Mrs. McClure, dated December 4, 1963, which has been previously referred to by Mr. Wilcox. I will mark it as Exhibit 3008 on the deposition of Mr. Laurance R. Wilcox at Dallas, Tex., on March 31, 1964.
I have initialed that exhibit, Mr. Wilcox, and would like to have you do the same.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. Who prepared Mrs. McClure's statement?
Mr. WILCOX. Mrs. McClure wrote that.
Mr. LIEBELER. She typed it on the typewriter herself?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Were you present at the time she prepared it?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss these incidents with her prior to the statement?
Mr. WILCOX. Only during the course of the meeting that she attended in my office.
Mr. LIEBELER. During the course of that time, Mrs. McClure indicated to you, did she not, that she had no recollection of any of the events described by Mr. Hamblen concerning the message allegedly sent to Washington, D.C.?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let's mark these telegrams as Exhibits 3009 through 3014. I have initialed each one of them and would like to have you do the same. I have not indicated on each one of them in detail. It is on your deposition and on the dates, as I have on the others, but that fact will appear from the record.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. You have now provided me with six telegrams, cables which have been marked for identification as Exhibits 3009 through 3014, and it is my understanding that these telegrams and cables were all shown to Mr. Hamblen and he was unable to identify any of them as answering the description of the telegram or cablegram with which Mrs. McClure had had difficulty, and which Mr. Hamblen thought had been sent by a person resembling Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And a thorough search of the files along the lines that you have previously indicated was unable to produce any other telegrams even remotely falling into the category described by Mr. Hamblen; i.e., a telegram to Washington, D.C. or in a peculiar hand script such as described by Mr. Hamblen to any destination, whether it be Washington or otherwise; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you have provided me with a letter from yourself to Mr. Semingsen, dated December 6, 1963, which we will mark as Exhibit 3015, on deposition of Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. I have initialed that exhibit and ask you to do the same, sir.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. And ask you if you prepared the original of that letter on or about December 6, 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. You sent the original of it to Mr. Semingsen, did you not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir; that's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And the letter accurately sets forth the events preceding that date which we have been discussing here, does it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have also provided me with a copy of a letter from yourself to Mr. Semingsen, dated December 9, 1963, to which is attached the original of statement from Mrs. Betty Bedwell, dated December 6, 1963, and A. I. English, dated December 6, 1963. I notice that Mr. English's statement is not signed.
Mr. WILCOX. [Signs.]
Mr. LIEBELER. And I ask you if the original of it was signed at the time you received it?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir; he just signed this on the typewriter to me.
Mr. LIEBELER. No; he did not himself sign it?
Mr. WILCOX. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have indicated below that it was in effect signed by Mr. English when he delivered it to you?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Also attached is a statement of Miss Bess Mildred Francis, dated December 9, 1963. Also attached is a statement of Doyle E. Lane, dated December 9, 1963; and one of Mr. E. T. Pirtle, dated December 6, 1963; and one of Ward Townsley dated December 6, 1963. Did you receive those statements from the individuals thus described?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. We have marked the letter described above, together with the attachments just described as Exhibit 3016 on the deposition of Mr. Laurance R. Wilcox at Dallas, Tex., on March 31, 1964. I have initialed the first page of that exhibit and would like to have you do the same.
Mr. WILCOX. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you send the original of your letter dated December 9, 1963, to Mr. Semingsen on or about that date?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The statements made in that letter are true and correct to the best of your knowledge, are they not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have also given me the original of a statement dated December 6, 1963, of Mr. Doyle E. Lane. Was that also attached to your letter of December 9, 1963, to Mr. Semingsen?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you receive yourself from Mr. Lane the statement just described?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me mark it as Exhibit 3017 on this deposition.
Would you initial the statement of Mr. Lane which we have marked 3017?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir. [Initials.]
Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you.
You previously testified, Mr. Wilcox, that you had a meeting on or about December 4, 1963, with Mr. Hamblen, Mrs. McClure, and Mr. Lewis in regard to the meeting we have been discussing, and you also testified that you thought you had an additional meeting on December 9, 1963, at which Mr. Semingsen was present. Would you care to elaborate on that?
Mr. WILCOX. The meeting as you have outlined--the meetings on the dates you have outlined are correct. The meeting on December 9, at which Mr. Semingsen attended was for the purpose of confronting Mr. Hamblen with the messages that we had extracted that were going to Washington, or those which were in peculiar print, that had been accepted by Mrs. McClure during the period of 1st of November until about November 22. Mr. Hamblen, of course, could not identify any of these telegrams as having been the message he described in his statement of December 2 and December 5.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form a conclusion at that time as to the accuracy of Mr. Hamblen's recollection concerning the events which he had related to you and to the press?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. What was that conclusion?
Mr. WILCOX. That this whole thing was a figment of Mr. Hamblen's imagination. I am fearful that he was just emotionally upset over the events as they transpired, and this may have been the factor causing him to say what he had said about the acceptance of the messages and the money order, and possibly have something to do with his statements to the press.
Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand you, you were perfectly satisfied at that time that Oswald had never in fact been in the office either to receive money orders or to send any telegram of the type described by Mr. Hamblen, or as far as you have been able to determine, any other telegram; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. At this point I can't think of any further questions, Mr. Wilcox. If you can think of anything that you would like to say that in your opinion would be of assistance to the Commission in its work, please indicate that at this time? Can you think of anything else?
Mr. WILCOX. I can't think of anything else now, but if I do, I will be happy to pass it along to you.
Mr. LIEBELER. If you do think of anything subsequently, call it to my attention and I would appreciate it very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wilcox. You have been very helpful and very cooperative. The Commission appreciates the cooperation you and Western Union have shown. Thank you very much.
Transcriber's Notes:
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be due to mispronunciations were not changed.
Some simple typographical errors were corrected.
Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.
Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.
Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.
Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of conversation?") retained.
Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.
Occasional periods that should be question marks, and question marks that probably should be periods, not changed.
Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and corrected, but some almost certainly remain.
The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be available at Project Gutenberg.
Page 1: "had an acquaintance with the Oswald's" was printed that way.
Page 24: "thinking she said this latter" probably should be "later".
Page 54: "October 18, 1938" is the date printed in Testimony; Oswald's actual date of birth was October 18, 1939.
Page 110: "ever been a subscribed to The Militant" should be either "subscriber" or "ever subscribed".
Page 112: "examine Watts' No. 8" probably should be "Dobbs' No. 8".
Page 117: Sentence beginning "If my voice is low, young lady" is unattributed, but in context, probably was spoken by Mr. Jenner.
Page 130: "or anyone of a number of" was printed that way.
Page 204: "through his hurrying be made" perhaps should be "he made".
Page 208: "NVD" is either misprint or mispronunciation for "MVD".
Page 273: "you know, what night or" probably should be "that night".
Page 277: "Rubenstein" is spelled "Rubinstein" elsewhere in this and other volumes of the Hearings.
Page 282: "To be best of your recollection" was printed that way.
Page 351: "Bogard was bound to own" probably should be "found".
Page 352: "Vending machines. What kind of vending machines?" was missing the period; changed here.