Warren Commission (11 of 26): Hearings Vol. XI (of 15) (part 3 of 5)

Warren Commission (11 of 26): Hearings Vol. XI (of 15) (part 3 of 5)

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe she stayed with us the full time, no.

Mr. JENNER. But she did stay with you during a period?

Mrs. GIBSON. A few; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection of how she got there, whether you went or your husband went and picked her up and brought her to your home or whether Lee brought her?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe Lee brought her. I think it would be more--it would be normal to assume, I don't remember this, that my stepmother or my father must have brought her, because I know we didn't. I don't recall picking her up at all.

Mr. JENNER. But she stayed with you then, you think, during the period that he was at the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, did Lee visit at your home while she was there during this YMCA period?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether your husband Gary went over to the YMCA and picked him up and brought him to your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't think so. I think he came by bus, or walked. That was possible, too. It wasn't that far.

Mr. JENNER. Would you locate your apartment at 3519 Fairmont with respect to the location of the Dallas YMCA. That was downtown?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, it was almost downtown. I believe it was on Maple Avenue or very near Maple Avenue.

Mr. JENNER. That is, the YMCA was?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and Maple Avenue, we were only one block off of Maple Avenue. We ran parallel with Maple, Fairmont did, and we were only 1 block off of Maple, and I'd say it was, oh, maybe 12 blocks from the YMCA.

Mr. JENNER. An easy walk?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; 12 or 14, maybe farther, but it was not a real long walk. It is possible to walk the distance. Bus service was very frequent and very easy to get.

Mr. JENNER. Now, did you become aware, you and your husband, of the fact that Lee obtained a position at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on the 12th of October? That is while he was at the YMCA, he had already obtained this position and had begun to work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall?

Mrs. GIBSON. He began to work there while he was at the Y?

Mr. JENNER. He went to work on the 12th of October 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh my goodness. Well, it is possible that we knew this. I know, I remember that he was employed there because I remember he used to tell Gary how he liked the job, how that interested him.

Now, when I thought he was employed there I don't know. I remember when he was at the Y that he was looking for a place to live in the Dallas-Oak Cliff area.

Mr. JENNER. Did you or your ex-husband Gary or both of you help him to look?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I believe one evening we went out with them and looked over the prospective places, places that we knew of, the place where we used to live--and Worthington, and just in the general low-rent area which would be accessible to where he was going to be working.

Mr. JENNER. So that you knew at that time where he was working or going to work?

Mrs. GIBSON. We knew the location of the place where he was working.

Now, I am not sure if we knew that he was working already or if we thought he was still unemployed, not unemployed but already employed but not working yet.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall Mrs. Hall having been involved in an automobile accident?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was in October, was it not, 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know what the month was, but I imagine it was. It must have been in the latter part of October.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall Marina residing with Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. She was with Mrs. Hall before the accident and after the accident and while Mrs. Hall was in the hospital she lived at the house.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall also that Mrs. Hall, after she returned from the hospital, went to New York City?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And that while she was in New York City, that Marina stayed at her home also?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; she did.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether during that period Lee Oswald stayed at the Halls'?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he did. I believe, while Mrs. Hall was in the hospital; he stayed with Marina while she was alone for 2, 3, or 4 days, something like that. He was there off and on. He spent quite a few nights there, I know this.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any occasions when you and your husband or either of you were at the Halls' when Oswald was there?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe we took him to Fort Worth once to visit, and we stayed for supper, and Mrs. Hall was there and she cooked us supper. This is before her accident, and Alex was there and Marina and Gary and myself.

Mr. JENNER. This is the occasion to which you earlier made a reference, is it, or had you done so?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was the occasion where Alex and Lee got into an argument; yes. And this was prior to Mrs. Hall's accident. We stayed until fairly late in the evening. I can't remember if we brought Lee back with us or if he spent the night. It would seem logical, I think we brought Lee back with us.

Mr. JENNER. You brought him back to where?

Mrs. GIBSON. To Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. To where in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I can't remember.

Mr. JENNER. This was before he stayed at the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; this was after.

Mr. JENNER. This was after Mrs. Hall returned from the hospital?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; this was before her accident. This is while Marina was there.

Mr. JENNER. To help orient you, she was in the hospital from the 18th of October 1962 to the 26th of October 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. This is before her accident. I think only a couple of days before her accident or a day before, because I remember how shocked I was when I heard that she had been in an accident. It was only a day or two before, so where would he have been living, at the Y, wouldn't he, at that time?

Mr. JENNER. He would be at the Y.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. He was at the Y on the 15th.

Mrs. GIBSON. I imagine that is where we dropped him then.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know of your own personal knowledge the fact that Lee stayed with Marina at the Halls' from time to time?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; Mrs. Hall told me--he told me and Marina----

Mr. JENNER. Oswald told you?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and Marina told me in a roundabout fashion.

Mr. JENNER. How?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, she'd tell, you know, Mrs. Hall to tell me something and Mrs. Hall would tell me, that is how, or through Lee, or through gestures or a dictionary she would be able to tell me a few words.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether or where, I will put it that way, where Lee stayed between the 19th of October 1962, when he left the Y, and November 3, 1962, when they moved into the Elsbeth Street apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I know that he stayed part of the time, I'd say a good portion of the time, at Mrs. Hall's. Now, whether he had another residence I don't know. I know he spent a few evenings with my father. If he spent a night there I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. When you say he spent a few evenings with your father, I infer from that--and if my inference is wrong please tell me--that there were occasions when he stayed overnight in your father's home.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not occasions. I think possibly one or two times. But he would be over there evenings and they would talk. Then he would leave. Now, where he went to I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But your recollection is that there were at least several occasions in which he stayed overnight in your father's home?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I am trying very hard to think of where he stayed. It is such a very vague recollection, so vague it is barely there, that he had a room. But I don't know where.

Mr. JENNER. During this period?

Mrs. GIBSON. During that period; yes.

Mr. JENNER. From the 19th to the 3d?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; it is so vague but it is there, that he had a room somewhere. Where I don't know. I just can't think.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection that either you or your husband ever went to visit him at some room?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; Gary possibly, but me, no. Gary might have picked him up some place, but not me. I don't recall. It is just so vague and maybe it is just because you think there was one that I say this. But I feel that there was a room some place.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection that your stepmother gave you at any time an address?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. At which Lee, a place where Lee was staying during this period from October 19 to November 3?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't. She might have, but I have no recollection of it whatsoever. But then we weren't on too tremendously good terms and I might have just not even thought of what she said.

Mr. JENNER. In any event, it is your recollection that during this period, October 19 through November 3, that Lee did stay a good portion of the time at the Halls?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. With Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. It seems to me that he had a place to live somewhere near where he was working, somewhere easily accessible on foot, to where he was working.

Mr. JENNER. That is your former husband Gary's recollection, and he seemed reasonably confident that you would recall the address.

Mrs. GIBSON. No, no; no idea. Did Gary mention something about one night we were in Oak Cliff and we were looking for some place.

Mr. JENNER. He said you were looking for Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Is that what he said? And we went up and down and up and down and we never found the place. I recall one evening, I don't remember what we were looking for, but I recall this.

Mr. JENNER. You were looking for Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. Is that who we were looking for?

Mr. JENNER. No; I----

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know, I am not sure, but one evening Gary and I were looking for some place, and I don't know where it was. But it was in Oak Cliff. It was right over the river. And we went up and down and back and forth for a good hour looking for this address. And I can't think of where it was, and we never found it. I do remember that. We never found it.

Mr. JENNER. But it had something to do with Oswald?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it did. I think it had to do with a room that he had over there, but where it was, the address, I don't know. I never knew Oak Cliff very well in the first place.

Mr. JENNER. You say he was now employed and could afford a room?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; but I don't know where. I--we couldn't find it wherever it was, because we looked.

Mr. JENNER. But you did have an address at that time?

Mrs. GIBSON. I had an address for something I was looking for. What it was I don't know. If I was looking for him or if I was looking for somebody else, if Gary was looking for somebody, I don't recall. But it could possibly be that it was him that we were looking for. I don't know how Gary thinks I can remember an address, though. I don't.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall an occasion when you assisted Marina and Lee to move into the Elsbeth Street apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. What day of the week was that?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. Weekend.

Mr. JENNER. Was that a weekend?

Mrs. GIBSON. It seems reasonable that it would have been a weekend, but then with Gary working as a cabdriver, I don't know if it was or not, because he sometimes worked weekends. They were good days to work. Saturday was very good. Was it a Sunday?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. Wait a minute, it was a Saturday, the 3d of November 1962, was a Saturday.

Mrs. GIBSON. Did we move him in on that day or did he start rent from that day?

Mr. JENNER. The advice of the landlord or manager of the building was they moved in on the third, but do you recall that it was a weekend rather than a weekday?

Mrs. GIBSON. I wouldn't know. It could have been. It seems more logical that it would have been a weekend.

Mr. JENNER. Now, tell us about that from the beginning. What led up to it, how you participated, the extent you participated with your husband?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, when we were over in Fort Worth visiting Mrs. Hall, we had taken Lee over there to see Marina, we told them we would help them move when he found a place, and he came by one evening or----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. This then was after he had obtained a job?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes. He either called or came by one evening.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. Hall home on that occasion when you went over to see them?

Mrs. GIBSON. When we moved them or before, that other time?

Mr. JENNER. That other time.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; she was.

Mr. JENNER. So this was subsequent to October 26?

Mrs. GIBSON. And also we were over there to visit them also another time after she had the accident, and I remember she was in bed.

Mr. JENNER. Was it before or after she went to the hospital?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was after, right after, when she came home and she was still in bed. It was before she went to New York.

Mr. JENNER. She came back on the 26th of October?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and we went over there and she was still in bed.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the occasion? Was he there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was that the occasion when you told him that you would help him move?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When he found a place?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I believe he said he was looking. And I believe----

Mr. JENNER. Lee was at the Halls' on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I think we took him there.

Mr. JENNER. All right, he was not at the YMCA.

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. He was not staying at the Halls'?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he came to our apartment.

Mr. JENNER. So he must have been staying somewhere in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he must have been. He came to our apartment. I don't ever recall taking him back to any place in particular, or picking him up at any place in particular. See, that is my problem. But I do remember the visit when she was in bed, and we told them that we would help them move. And I guess he must have called us or come to visit us about moving, and we took our car and I think, I don't know if we rented a trailer, I think they rented a trailer in Fort Worth, I am not sure, and left it in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Let's get it sequentially. You left your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Lee came to your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In the morning was it?

Mrs. GIBSON. Morning or early afternoon.

Mr. JENNER. And then you left your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You, your husband, and Lee?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And where did you go?

Mrs. GIBSON. To drop the baby off.

Mr. JENNER. Your baby?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. With a sitter?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; to Mrs. Taylor, Gary's mother.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. GIBSON. From there we went to Fort Worth to Mrs. Hall's, and then Lee and Gary went to rent a trailer, and I stayed with Marina.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. Hall home on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Where was Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I guess she was in New York. So, they came back with the trailer and we started to load up all the stuff, and Alex----

Mr. JENNER. Kleinlerer?

Mrs. GIBSON. Kleinlerer came by, I guess to supervise the moving, to see that nothing was taken of Mrs. Hall's, and he watched us move and we got all their stuff out, and we took them to their apartment in Oak Cliff, Elsbeth apartment, to move them in there. By then it was early evening, and then we left them there. We looked over the apartment and we left them there.

Mr. JENNER. Your husband rented that trailer?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think Lee did; didn't he? I don't think Gary paid for it. Did Gary pay for it? I can't imagine Gary paying for it. He might have, but I don't see it.

Mr. JENNER. Apart from that, did Lee thank you for spending the day?

Mrs. GIBSON. Very briefly, thank you, and that was all. Marina was not happy with the apartment at all. She said it was filthy dirty, it was a pigsty and she didn't want to stay there. Lee said it could be fixed up.

Mr. JENNER. What was their attitude toward each other on that occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. They were arguing.

Mr. JENNER. During the day when you reached the Elsbeth Street apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not too much during the day but after she saw the apartment she was very unhappy with it and they were arguing very much when we left.

Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression she had not seen it?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe she had; no.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of the apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was a hole. It was terrible, very dirty, very badly kept, really quite a slum. It had possibilities to be fixed up. It was large, quite large, built very strangely, little rooms here and there, lots of doors, lots of windows. The floor had big bumps in it, you know. It was like the building had shifted and you walked up hill, you know, to get from one side of the room to the other. It was not a nice place; no.

Mr. JENNER. Was it a brick structure, wooden?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was brick outside, dark red brick. It was a small apartment building. I think two stories, overrun with weeds and garbage and people.

Mr. JENNER. Did you visit the Oswald's in that apartment thereafter?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether your husband did?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he told me when I came back to Dallas in December that he visited them once.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then that sometime after November 3, you left Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I left Dallas the latter part of November.

Mr. JENNER. And just to orient you, where did you go?

Mrs. GIBSON. I went to Tucson, Ariz.

Mr. JENNER. You were with your aunt?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I was by myself.

Mr. JENNER. Had you lived in Tucson?

Mrs. GIBSON. Before that, no; not really. I had been to boarding school there a few years, and I lived in Tucson 1 year with my aunt in a house that we rented, and her husband, but I had not lived in Tucson before this.

Mr. JENNER. Let's identify her. What was her name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Mrs. Tilton.

Mr. JENNER. What was her full name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Do you want her first name?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. GIBSON. Nancy.

Mr. JENNER. Nancy Tilton?

Mrs. GIBSON. Nancy Sands Tilton.

Mr. JENNER. And her married name?

Mrs. GIBSON. Mrs. Charles Elliott Tilton III.

Mr. JENNER. And in previous years you had as a young girl, even as a child, lived with her; had you not?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was a good many years?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; 14 years.

Mr. JENNER. Fourteen years. Was that in Arizona or Florida?

Mrs. GIBSON. It was all around. I lived in Vermont in the summer, Arizona in the winter, Florida sometimes. It depended.

Mr. JENNER. Your aunt was a person of means I gather?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You have already mentioned that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald when you returned from Arizona?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am not sure if it was then or if it was right before I left.

Mr. JENNER. Before you left for what?

Mrs. GIBSON. Arizona.

Mr. JENNER. And where did you see him?

Mrs. GIBSON. At the apartment. He came by to pick up a manuscript that I had of his.

Mr. JENNER. That is at your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I show you a document that is in evidence in this proceeding as Commission Exhibit No. 95. Would you examine that and tell me whether that is the manuscript to which you have made reference several times.

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe it is. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. Tell me the circumstances under which you first saw that document and how it came into your possession?

Mrs. GIBSON. I asked Lee if he had written anything on Russia that I could read, if he had any material, and he said yes, he did; that he had a manuscript that he had written on general life in Russia and I asked him if I could read it and he said yes and he gave it to me. He brought it over one evening. I have no idea of the date or the time.

Mr. JENNER. Was it reasonably early in the course of your acquaintance with the Oswalds?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was before they moved to Dallas, to Oak Cliff.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever discuss the manuscript with him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I did. I told him he should publish it and he said no, that it was not for people to read.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever discuss its contents with him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; a little bit. I asked him questions about it.

Mr. JENNER. Can you recall any of the inquiries you made of the discussions you had with him regarding the substance of it?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I asked him, I believe on this manuscript that it was said that you could not move from town to town.

Mr. JENNER. In Russia?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and he was telling me why.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mrs. GIBSON. He said that the housing problem was so difficult there that once you got an apartment or a room in one city, that you had to wait in line in another city to get housing, therefore, you were not allowed to leave from one city to another unless you already had housing and a job. But for him it was easier because he was an American, and I guess as he said they were trying to impress him a little bit.

Mr. JENNER. In that connection did he imply that he was free to move about the country as he saw fit?

Mrs. GIBSON. Freer than Russians I would imagine. He did imply that he was freer than they were.

Mr. JENNER. To move around?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say that he had at any time left Minsk to go anywhere else?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe he had been to Moscow.

Mr. JENNER. Was that in connection with his efforts to return to this country?

Mrs. GIBSON. I have no idea. I think it was just to see the countryside.

Mr. JENNER. Would you look further through that manuscript and see if your recollection is refreshed as to any other discussion you had with him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, we talked a little bit about clothing and food.

Mr. JENNER. That is a generalization. Tell me what you talked about.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, he said that the Russian people were very impressed with his clothing, that they did not have the quality or the style that he had. Also the sparseness of fruits, vegetables there. He told them about the supermarkets we had here and how plentiful fruit and vegetables were, how expensive butter and everything was in Russia, like that, your dairy products, aside from milk, butter, and cottage cheese, and all these things were extremely expensive and, well, like gold. Education we talked about, how much higher their educational standards are.

Mr. JENNER. Than ours?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say in that connection?

Mrs. GIBSON. They are much higher, that everybody is trained there to do something. That they have what would be considered, well, like your elementary school, and after you finished this required, oh, I don't know what it is, 8 or 9 years of school, you take this test, and if you pass this test you are admitted into what is considered college. If you don't pass it, you are able to choose a vocational school that you can go to to train you in some vocation, oh, like bricklayers or electricians or plumbers or something like this. You are allowed to choose whatever you want. You hear, he said, that women are laying streets, let's say, in Russia and he said that isn't because they are made to but this is because what they have chosen to do, what they want to do. That is about the general gist of what he had to say.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall something about a time when little June was baptized?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that, please.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, one evening there was a knock at the door and I went to answer it and Mrs. Hall and Marina and June were outside, and Mrs. Hall came in and told me that she had just brought Marina and June to Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina and the baby come in the apartment, too?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And Mrs. Hall said this in the presence of Marina?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was your husband home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No. She said that they brought the baby to Dallas to be baptized without Lee knowing it because he would object, and that Marina had been brought up in Russia with religion, although it was against the law there, and that she wanted her child to be baptized, and that Lee objected so strongly to it that she did it on the sly, and she asked me please not to tell him. And she left a box of clothes of his there for me that she had bought him. It was his birthday, I believe, the next day.

Mr. JENNER. Lee's birthday?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, he was born on the 18th of October 1939, so this was the occasion when he was living at the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. His birthday was the next day or something, or a couple of days.

Mr. JENNER. He was at the YMCA from the 15th through the 19th, 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am getting my days messed up, because I thought she stayed with us while he was at the YMCA. She must not have. You know, I can't place when she stayed with us. I can just place the period of time that she stayed with us, you know, that it was not over 3 or 4 days.

Mr. JENNER. Could it have been right following his leaving the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. It possibly could have been. I really don't know. But like I said, that is something I forgot. Now that you know his birthday, you can place when she was baptized and when she brought this box to me.

Mr. JENNER. She was baptized the day before his birthday?

Mrs. GIBSON. I am not sure if it was the day before or 2 days or 3 days, but it was real close to his birthday.

Mr. JENNER. Real close?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. The records indicate the baptism occurred on the 17th of October, 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. Then it must have been the day before.

Mr. JENNER. Which is the day before his birthday, but the occasion you remember it was about his birthday time?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. They left a box of clothing or some gift?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, it had a shirt and a pair of sox and general things.

Mr. JENNER. These were new?

Mrs. GIBSON. Brand new.

Mr. JENNER. A gift?

Mrs. GIBSON. A gift; yes. From his wife.

Mr. JENNER. Didn't it seem strange to you at that time with him at the YMCA they didn't ring him up or go by the YMCA and leave this birthday gift?

Mrs. GIBSON. She didn't want him to know that she was in Dallas because she didn't want him to know she had baptized the baby.

Mr. JENNER. Did Lee speak with you on that subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I guess it must have been the next day that he dropped by and I gave him the box, and I didn't say anything about this, but I think he had heard it. I think he had talked to Marina or something on the telephone.

Mr. JENNER. He became aware when he came by the next day, which would be his birthday, that they had----

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she told him on the telephone that she had baptized the baby, and he asked me if I knew, and I said yes, and he said, "Why didn't you tell me?" And I said, that it was not any of my business.

Mr. JENNER. I am a little bit confused. He came by the next day, that is the day after Mrs. Hall and Marina were there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And he came by to pick up his birthday gifts?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. At that occasion you didn't say anything to him about the baptism?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Therefore, at some subsequent occasion----

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. After that----

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. There was a discussion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I think it was probably the day after that that he dropped by and he asked me about this. He asked me if they had been there, and I said yes. He says, "Why didn't you tell me?"

Mr. JENNER. Why you didn't tell him what?

Mrs. GIBSON. That they had been there and that the baby had been baptized, and I said that it was none of my business.

Mr. JENNER. The thing that confuses me a little bit is he came by and picked up the birthday gift.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Nothing was said about baptism.

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. On that occasion.

Mrs. GIBSON. No, no; I think he----

Mr. JENNER. Therefore, he must have known or inquired as to where you got the birthday gift, correct?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't recall. I think I had some story fixed up for that. Mrs. Hall, I think, told me to tell him that she had been by, or something. I can't remember what it was, but she had some story, you know, for how come I had that.

Mr. JENNER. That would explain that, then.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I don't, you know, really remember what was said exactly.

Mr. JENNER. The day following that occasion----

Mrs. GIBSON. I did not tell him that I had seen Marina, though.

Mr. JENNER. Is when he approached you on the subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Of the baptism and why you hadn't told him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say to him?

Mrs. GIBSON. I told him it was none of my business, and he wasn't too happy about it.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about the fact that June had been baptized?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not too much. He wasn't really that upset about it. He just said he didn't like the idea, but that was all. He wasn't terribly upset about it.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Gibson, was he upset because the baby had been baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church rather than the Lutheran Church, for example?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he was an atheist. He just didn't want anything to do with religion.

Mr. JENNER. Did you and your husband have discussions with him on the subject of religion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And what were his views on the subject of religion?

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't believe in it. He didn't believe in God. He didn't believe in anything.

Mr. JENNER. And did that discussion occur reasonably often, on more than one occasion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, it was mentioned in with politics. You know how that can get. The two subjects you are not supposed to talk about we talked about probably the most.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression about any view or hope or desire or ambition on his part of some future attainment?

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't really talk too much about in the future or what he wanted to do. I don't know what he wanted to do with himself.

Mr. JENNER. Was President Kennedy ever mentioned in the course of the discussions between your husband and Lee?

Mrs. GIBSON. Never, never. He wasn't President at the time anyway, was he?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; he was.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he was. He had just become President, hadn't he? No, he was never mentioned. Now, the only person ever mentioned pertaining to that was the Governor of Texas.

Mr. JENNER. He became President in 1960.

Mrs. GIBSON. It was the Governor of Texas who was mentioned mostly.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mrs. GIBSON. First you are going to have to tell me who the Governor was.

Mr. JENNER. Connally.

Mrs. GIBSON. Connally. Wasn't that the one that----

Mr. JENNER. That had been Secretary of the Navy.

Mrs. GIBSON. That had been Secretary of the Navy, was it? Well, for some reason Lee just didn't like him. I don't know why, but he didn't like him.

Mr. JENNER. Would this refresh your recollection, that the subject of Governor Connally arose in connection with something about Lee's discharge from the Marines?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't recall. I just know Lee never spoke too much about why he left the Marines or anything like that. I don't know. Maybe it was a dishonorable discharge, I don't know. All I know is that it was something he didn't talk about. And there was a reason why he did not like Connally.

Mr. JENNER. Whatever the reason was, he didn't articulate the reason particularly?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; he just didn't like him.

Mr. JENNER. But you have the definite impression he had an aversion to Governor Connally?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; but he never ever said a word about Kennedy.

Mr. JENNER. Did you answer?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I did; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your answer is yes?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That he did have a definite aversion?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. To Governor Connally as a person?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And did he speak of that reasonably frequently in these discussions?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not really, no. He didn't bring it up frequently.

Mr. JENNER. But he was definite and affirmative about it, was he?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he didn't like him.

Mr. JENNER. Was General Walker ever discussed?

Mrs. GIBSON. No, no.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any discussions in these political arguments between your husband Gary and Lee Oswald about, oh, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Birch Society, people having, let's say, extreme right viewpoints or left viewpoints?

Mrs. GIBSON. Gary was quite a Democrat, and he disliked the Birch Society intensely. So every once in a while they would come into the conversation, being that Gary felt so personal about them. He didn't like them at all. And Gary once in a while would make a comment, "Oh, he is a Bircher," I can't name any particular person, but just somebody in particular.

I think Dallas is a fairly Republican city. No, there was nothing ever about any of the different factions, or right or left wing. Just I know Gary disliked the Birchers. As I recall, I don't think Lee had much to say about them. I think maybe he liked more radical people than we did, you know, the normal straight down the middle or conservative or something.

Mr. JENNER. Were there occasions when you saw either of the Oswalds at your father's home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Were there occasions when your father and your stepmother brought either of the Oswalds to your apartment other than those you have already testified about?

Mrs. GIBSON. Not that I recall, no.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall seeing Oswald on the day before he moved into the YMCA? He moved into the YMCA on Monday, October 15. Did you see him the previous day, Sunday?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know. I really don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But you do recall taking him to the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mrs. JENNER. On Monday, the 15th?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; we might have. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Did you go and pick up Oswald at Mrs. Hall's when you took him to the YMCA, or did he just come by your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I can't remember where we picked him up, but I know we didn't go to Fort Worth to pick him up, no. It could have been at the bus station.

Mr. JENNER. But you went somewhere to pick him up is your recollection?

Mrs. GIBSON. We could have gone somewhere. He could have come to our apartment. I don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. You were aware of Marina staying with the Halls?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were you aware of her going to attend to Mrs. Hall; to do that before she actually went to live with Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. I might have heard something about it from my father. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But you did not hear it from Mrs. Hall?

Mrs. GIBSON. I didn't know Mrs. Hall until I met her through Marina.

Mr. JENNER. After Marina----

Mrs. GIBSON. When I went to visit there.

Mr. JENNER. That is when you went to visit Marina while she was staying at the Hall's?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; when Lee and Gary and I went over there. That is the first time I ever met her. But she was very friendly because she knew my father, you know, and so it was a very friendly atmosphere.

Did Mrs. Hall give a fixed time of when Marina stayed with her?

Mr. JENNER. I can't say it was a fixed time, but she testified that it was before she had her automobile accident.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, what I am trying to fix in my mind is when Marina stayed with me, you know.

Mr. JENNER. That is the 3 or 4 days?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I can't fix that in my mind at all now. I thought it was when he was at the YMCA and then it couldn't have been because of when the baby was baptized and when his birthday was. But it must have been shortly before that, because it wasn't after that. So it must have been before.

Mr. JENNER. Well, it wasn't on the 14th of October because you took him to the YMCA on the 15th. Was Marina living with you then?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not then, no. But she might have been shortly before that. I believe she was at Mrs. Hall's then, wasn't she. Doesn't she know where she was?

Mr. JENNER. Well, she has got some impressions; yes.

Mrs. GIBSON. I hope she does.

Mr. JENNER. I am trying to find out what you recall.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, you know, I can't recall when she was there. I know when she wasn't there now more than I did before, from placing his birthday and the box and that, I know she wasn't there then.

Mr. JENNER. Wasn't where?

Mrs. GIBSON. At my place. I know she wasn't there then, because she came to visit me from Fort Worth with Mrs. Hall. But how long she had been with Mrs. Hall must not have been too long.

Mr. JENNER. The thing that bothers me, also, Mrs. Gibson, Mrs. Hall entered the hospital on the 18th of October.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is Lee's birthday. She was at your place the preceding day?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was that night that she got in the accident. That is why I said it was very shocking when I heard, you know, that she had been in an accident.

Mr. JENNER. And at the time she had her accident, Marina was living with the Halls'?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was living at Mrs. Hall's home?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your husband Gary recalls that while Lee was at the YMCA, that he came to visit at your home.

Mrs. GIBSON. That is possible.

Mr. JENNER. And his recollection was that Marina was with you at that time.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, she couldn't have been.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Could it be that she stayed with you for a few days after he left the YMCA and before they moved into the Elsbeth Street home or apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I don't know how it could be possible, because when we moved her from Fort Worth, she was at Mrs. Hall's. Now whether she stayed with me while Mrs. Hall was in New York, she couldn't have because she was, Mrs. Hall was in New York when we moved Marina, see, and Marina was there.

Now, I suppose it is possible that she stayed with us, then, but I remember she stayed with Mrs. Hall after the accident because Mrs. Hall needed her. She couldn't get around. I know she was there before the accident because of the baptism and Lee's birthday. So it leads me to believe she was there the whole time, you know.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall when the Oswalds left the Mercedes Street apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't know when they left that. They moved, from there they moved all her stuff to Mrs. Hall's.

Mr. JENNER. Right from the Mercedes apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess they must have. All the stuff was there.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall an occasion when your father moved Marina and the baby from the Elsbeth Street apartment to Mrs. Meller's?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall the Oswalds living at 214 Neely Street?

Mrs. GIBSON. Where was that?

Mr. JENNER. That is just about a block from the Elsbeth Street apartment, which they moved into from the Elsbeth Street apartment.

Mrs. GIBSON. That must have been after I left.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; it was.

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. You just don't recall anything about that?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I wasn't there.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you do recall Marina staying 3 or 4 days.

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Can you grasp in your recollection why? What led up to that?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was the period before she went to Mrs. Hall's. It must have been after Lee lost his job, or quit.

Mr. JENNER. In Fort Worth?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; and before he got the new one. It must have been then. And I think it was while they were trying to find her a place to live, while he was job hunting.

Mr. JENNER. And before he got his job with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall?

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been.

Mr. JENNER. On the 12th of October? You see that is a 4-day period, Mrs. Gibson.

Mrs. GIBSON. Between when he lost his job and got his job?

Mr. JENNER. That is right.

Mrs. GIBSON. That is probably where she stayed then. I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. The last day he worked at Leslie Welding was the 8th of October 1962. He became employed and went to work for Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on the 12th of October 1962.

Mrs. GIBSON. That probably was when she stayed with us, then. I just don't have any recollection of when it was.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection that she came to stay with you, the reason why? Was she having difficulty with Oswald? Was that the reason, or was it because he was out of work?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was because he was out of work. I don't think they had any money. I think my father lent them money, didn't he? I don't know. Somebody must have given them money. It was Bouhe, that is who it was who lent them money.

Mr. JENNER. It was only 4 days, Mrs. Gibson.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; but he had to have money to get started. He had to have money to stay at the YMCA. He had to have money to get started, and I know who gave him money. George Bouhe did.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; George Bouhe did, there is no question about that.

Mrs. GIBSON. Because I recall that. He gave him money, and he also had the debt to pay to the American Embassy.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any recollection as to where Oswald stayed prior to the time that he went to the YMCA on the 15th of October, that is between the 8th of October and the 15th of October? That is a week.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; all I know is he never did stay at our place overnight ever.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall when you were looking for this address, was it an address on North Beckley?

Mrs. GIBSON. It is possible that it was.

Mr. JENNER. Does that stimulate your recollection at all?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; it doesn't. I just know that Beckley is near the river.

Mr. JENNER. And you were looking in the area.

Mrs. GIBSON. Near the river; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, between the 19th of October and the 3d of November, which was the day you picked up Oswald and Marina and the baby and took them to the Elsbeth Street apartment, do you know where Oswald was staying?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; but it was probably in that area where I was looking, you know. I am not even sure who I was looking for, but it seems possible. I don't know anybody else in Oak Cliff, you know. If that is anywhere near the Jaggars Co., and I think it is, that is probably where, and who we were looking for.

Mr. JENNER. Was Marina taken to the dentist to your knowledge other than the first period, the first visit in August of 1962?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think she might have had another appointment. That possibly could have been the other reason why she stayed with me, but I am not positive. It seems to me you know by the dentist records if she had. I remember she had teeth pulled. Now, how many--and, as I recall, those first appointments led to a later appointment after her mouth had healed. But I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina stay at the Halls' on more than one occasion, that is periods?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER. Was it just one period?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think it was one period.

Mr. JENNER. Did it have anything to do with Mrs. Hall's accident?

Mrs. GIBSON. Why Marina stayed there, you mean, or why she left?

Mr. JENNER. Why she went there in the first instance.

Mrs. GIBSON. No; Mrs. Hall had not had her accident when Marina first moved in.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mrs. Hall aware that Marina had stayed at your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think so. In fact, I could almost say positively she must have been aware of it.

Mr. JENNER. What leads you to say that?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I mean she never knew that Marina and I knew each other. She brought her to my place. I had told her that, I believe I myself, told her that Marina had stayed with me. I mean it is just in common conversation that she must have known. Didn't she know?

Mr. JENNER. Including this 3- or 4-day period?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; she must have known because that was before Marina stayed with her. Does she know?

Mr. JENNER. She didn't mention it in her testimony.

Mrs. GIBSON. Am I the last one to testify?

Mr. JENNER. No. Mrs. Gibson, were you aware that Lee Oswald gave your apartment address and your telephone number--when I say your I mean you and your husband--when he was seeking employment in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he asked Gary's permission and Gary said all right.

Mr. JENNER. That was in your presence?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was that permission requested before he went to the YMCA on the 15th of October? He obtained his job at Jaggars, remember, on the 12th of October.

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe it was before. He said he needed to establish a residence, and a place where people could get in touch with him, where if there were any jobs coming up that they could get in touch with him and call him and he would check with us and we would tell him if there had been any calls for him or messages during the day.

Mr. JENNER. Now, were there any calls or messages?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not that I recall. I don't believe there were.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recall him looking for work during this period? That would be the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th of October.

Mrs. GIBSON. I really don't know. If he had a job, it doesn't seem that he would be looking for a job.

Mr. JENNER. He was at the Texas Employment Commission on the 9th, 10th, and 11th.

Mrs. GIBSON. Then probably he was. And if he gave our address and our phone number; I am sure he was.

Mr. JENNER. But you don't recall where he was staying during that period?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. The 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Could he have been staying at Hall's?

Mrs. GIBSON. Gee, it is possible, but I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. But you do recall that he did stay at the Hall's a good deal or portions of the time that Marina was there?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he went there weekends, as I recall, when he was working. He spent the weekends there.

Mr. JENNER. When he was working at Jaggars?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So when he began to work at Jaggars, which was the 12th of October, up to the 3d of November when you and your husband, Mr. Taylor, took the Oswalds to the Elsbeth Street apartment, he visited at the Hall's on weekends?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So there was some place he was staying then himself during that period?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; there must have been.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mrs. Hall live in Fort Worth?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And Fort Worth is approximately 30 miles?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. From Dallas, isn't it?

Mrs. GIBSON. He didn't stay in Fort Worth.

Mr. JENNER. He stayed in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. But you can't recall still where he stayed in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I have no idea.

Mr. JENNER. But it is now your definite recollection that he did stay in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, I know that----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--after he became employed at Jaggars?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I will tell you why. Because he told us that he goes by bus Friday night or something to Fort Worth and he'd come back Sunday evening. So it would be my normal assumption, I would say, that he was staying in Dallas at the time.

Mr. JENNER. Had you and your father had some difficulty, some spats between the two of you along about this time?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; we had been spatting all our life.

Mr. JENNER. I mean were you on speaking terms?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I'd say so.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall at least one occasion when you picked up Oswald in front of the YMCA?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't.

Mr. JENNER. That your husband Gary would go over and pick him up?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess so.

Mr. JENNER. Bring him to your apartment?

Mrs. GIBSON. I guess so, or he'd walk. I don't know. I don't believe Gary picked him up there. I believe he walked or took the bus.

Mr. JENNER. What do you recall with respect to Lee's habits of temperance or intemperance, drinking?

Mrs. GIBSON. I never saw him take a drink.

Mr. JENNER. Did he smoke?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't think he did.

Mr. JENNER. Did Marina smoke?

Mrs. GIBSON. On the sly.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mrs. GIBSON. Because he objected to smoking, as I recall. He did. He didn't like to see her smoke, and he didn't like to see her wear any makeup.

Mr. JENNER. Did any discussions respecting that occur at your home?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; she told me this. Don't ask me how. We just got it across to each other, you know.

Mr. JENNER. How did she communicate with you?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, when two people get together, if you try hard enough you will get your idea across. If you have a dictionary and two hands, you will get the idea across, and that is how we managed to, you know, get our ideas fairly well across most of the time. But we didn't make too great an attempt at speaking because it was so much effort. But I do know this about makeup and smoking.

Mr. JENNER. Were there arguments between them on the subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. Oh, I'd say maybe small ones. He didn't like her to wear lipstick and she liked to, things like that. She did like to smoke.

Mr. JENNER. What about his reading habits?

Mrs. GIBSON. He read a lot.

Mr. JENNER. How do you know that?

Mrs. GIBSON. My father had given him books to read. He was very much interested in them.

Mr. JENNER. Did he have them with him at times when he was at your place?

Mrs. GIBSON. One book I think he gave me that my father had asked him to give me or I gave him that my father had asked him to give me, one way or the other, it was called "Animal Farm."

Mr. JENNER. What is that book about?

Mrs. GIBSON. It is a satire, I guess. It is about animals, but it is a takeoff on people. Orwell--did he write it?

Mr. JENNER. I think so. What is your recollection as to whether you gave Oswald that book to read or whether your father gave it to him to read?

Mrs. GIBSON. One way or the other it got to me. Either my father gave it to me to read and I gave it to Lee or he gave it to Lee to read and then Lee gave it to me. It was one way or the other.

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember any other books?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think my father gave him some literature. I don't know what it was, though. Oh, "1984" was another book that he read.

Mr. JENNER. Did he indicate that he had read it before?

Mrs. GIBSON. I believe that he had. That was by Orwell, too, wasn't it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; it was. Did he indicate that he had read "1984" when he was a Marine at El Toro, Calif.?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I think he read it again. My father had it and my father read it, and I think Lee said he wanted to read it again.

Mr. JENNER. Did he ever discuss that book in your presence?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. What else do you recall as to the titles of books he read?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he read the "Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich." He read Hitler's, what would it be, autobiography?

Mr. JENNER. "Mein Kampf"?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; he read the Marx book--what was that, was that the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? No; what was it, about Marxism?

Mr. JENNER. "Das Kapital"?

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know what it was, but anyway, he read a book that Marx wrote on Marxism, and that is about all I can recall on his literature.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall some people or a person whose first name was Natasha or Evalina?

Mrs. GIBSON. I know Natasha.

Mr. JENNER. How did Natasha come into this?

Mrs. GIBSON. First you will have to give me her last name so I am sure I have got the right one.

Mr. JENNER. I can't give it to you.

Mrs. GIBSON. You don't have it?

Mr. JENNER. I can't because I don't know.

Mrs. GIBSON. You can't because you don't have it? Really?

Mr. JENNER. Really.

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, Natasha was a friend of my parents. They got in some numerous squabbles and sometimes they'd part.

Mr. JENNER. Was she a single lady?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; she has a husband.

Mr. JENNER. They lived in Dallas?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; they are Russian. I can't think of her last name for the life of me. Now, I don't know if Natasha knew Lee or not. Natasha was a friend of my father and Jeanne. They got in numerous squabbles. Their friendship would break off and then they'd come back together again after a few months after the squabble had quieted down. Now, whether she knew Lee or not, I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. You mentioned that in one of your interviews, and my query of you is what led you to mention that, Natasha?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, being that she was one of the Russian colony I figured probably she would know them. That is all.

Mr. JENNER. You were speculating?

Mrs. GIBSON. Speculating; that is all. Whether she did or not, I have no idea.

Mr. JENNER. In one of your interviews you stated that after Marina had stayed with you, she had moved into the Hall's. Does that refresh your recollection that that 3- or 4-day period was immediately preceding her moving into the Hall's?

Mrs. GIBSON. No. When all those questions were given to me, I didn't have much time to think. It was completely by surprise. And when I said that, I meant the first day, because as you found out, those days that I am talking about are extremely vague. Why I don't know, but they are very vague.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether possibly Oswald stayed with his mother in Fort Worth?

Mrs. GIBSON. Maybe.

Mr. JENNER. In this period, say, from October 19 through November 3?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe he did, because he had to be in Dallas. He couldn't commute to Dallas every day. Does his mother say this?

Mr. JENNER. No. Do you have any recollection that Oswald stayed in the Elsbeth Street apartment before Marina was moved in?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I don't believe he did.

Mr. JENNER. Did any discussion occur as to whether Oswald had renounced or attempted to renounce his American citizenship?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was the subject even discussed?

Mrs. GIBSON. Well, it was when he told us about how, you know, the Russians wanted him to give it up.

Mr. JENNER. And he declined to?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was Marina politically minded?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; I wouldn't say so.

Mr. JENNER. But she was religious?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I'd say she was.

Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of Oswald as to his intellect?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he was very intelligent.

Mr. JENNER. Was he articulate?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And what about his argumentation?

Mrs. GIBSON. Very good. He could make almost anybody believe what he was saying.

Mr. JENNER. He was strong in his convictions?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Unbending?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any impression of whether he was quick-tempered or prone to violence?

Mrs. GIBSON. I think he was very quick tempered.

Mr. JENNER. He flared up, did he, during these arguments?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And other things, with your husband?

Mrs. GIBSON. No; not with my husband. With his wife. He got disgusted, I think, with our stupidity, as he called it, which used to infuriate me. I don't particularly like being called stupid, and he used to call us stupid a lot.

Mr. JENNER. Was that because you differed in your view?

Mrs. GIBSON. Differed with him.

Mr. JENNER. From him?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; that was his favorite word, we were stupid, we weren't using our brains. He'd come up with something like, "How could you possibly say such a thing?"

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever pick him up at the Jaggars place of business?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. Your father and your stepmother now reside in Haiti?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When did they go to Haiti?

Mrs. GIBSON. Last year some time.

Mr. JENNER. June of 1963.

Mrs. GIBSON. I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. Have you seen your father or your stepmother since then?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I saw them a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. JENNER. When they were here to testify, they dropped by to see you, did they?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your husband Donald Gibson is a native-born American?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In an interview on December 3, 1963, you are reported to have said that Lee Oswald occasionally came to your apartment, of yourself and your husband, and although Marina stayed at your apartment, only about 2 weeks, Oswald continued to visit on occasions. Does that refresh your recollection that this stay of Marina at your home was longer than 3 to 4 days?

Mrs. GIBSON. It must have been misunderstood. If I had said 2 weeks I must have meant in all, meaning putting all your days together, because I never would have said 2 weeks meaning a solid period of time of 2 weeks.

Mr. JENNER. I think that is about all. I neglected to do this, Mrs. Gibson. You received a letter from Mr. Rankin, did you not?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. General counsel for the Commission, with which he enclosed a copy of the legislation, Senate Joint Resolution 137, authorizing the creation of this Commission?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. A copy of President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130 which created the Commission?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And fixed its scope and its powers and its duties and responsibilities, which in general are to investigate the circumstances surrounding leading up to, and involving the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And, also, a copy of the rules and regulations of the Commission under which depositions are taken?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you understand from all those papers that the Commission is interviewing people who had, fortunately, or unfortunately, touched the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and others?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And we had understood and as has now been revealed you did have a connection with or some connection with the Oswalds?

Mrs. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Which you have now elucidated.

I am Albert E. Jenner, Jr., one of the members of the legal staff of the Commission, and Mr. Mosk, who was present earlier, likewise is a member. Now, having in mind the objects and purposes and duties of the Commission, is there anything that occurs to you that you would like to add that you think would be helpful to the Commission in its investigation of this subject?

Mrs. GIBSON. No.

Mr. JENNER. All right, that is all I have, and I appreciate very much your coming here today. I know it is a considerable inconvenience.

AFFIDAVIT OF RUTH HYDE PAINE

The following affidavit was executed by Ruth Hyde Paine on June 24, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

Ruth Hyde Paine, being affirmed, says:

1. I reside at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. I am the Ruth Hyde Paine who testified before the Commission on March 18, 19 and 20, 1964, and gave testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. at the offices of the Commission on Saturday, March 21, 1964, and gave further testimony by deposition in my home the evening of Monday, March 23, 1964.

2. On the occasion of Saturday, November 9, 1963, about which I testified before the Commission, when I took Marina and Lee Oswald in my station wagon to the Texas Automobile Drivers Bureau Station in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, Texas, to enable Lee Oswald to make application for an automobile driver's learner's permit, each of my two children and both of the Oswald children, June and Rachel, accompanied us.

3. Upon our arrival at the Automobile Drivers License Bureau, which was located in a shopping center area in Oak Cliff, we discovered that the Automobile Drivers License Bureau was closed. All of us went down the street to a ten cent store which was located approximately three doors down the street from the Automobile Drivers License Bureau Station. We entered the store. I purchased some child panties for my children and Marina selected and Lee paid for an infant's pacifier.

4. After we made the purchases, all of us returned to my station wagon, entered it, and I drove directly to my home in Irving, Texas. Upon arrival there, all of us entered my home where we remained throughout the balance of that day and evening. Marina and Lee Oswald and their children were present in my home throughout the two following days and evenings, November 10 and 11, 1963. Lee Oswald returned to his work at the Texas School Book Depository Tuesday morning, November 12, 1963. I was present in my home throughout November 10 and 11, 1963, except as described in paragraph 13.

5. During the course of my testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, March 21, 1964, Mr. Jenner examined me with respect to the various entries in my calendar diary, Commission Exhibit No. 401, for the period commencing and following September 24, 1963, including, in particular, those entries respecting baby and child clinic appointments for June Oswald and Rachel Oswald, in clinics in Irving, Texas, and in Dallas, Texas, as well as other appointments for June Oswald. On all occasions following Marina's return to my home from Parkland Hospital on October 22, 1963, following the birth of her daughter Rachel on October 20, 1963, when baby clinic, dental and other medical and physical attention appointments for either of Marina's children were made, and about which I have heretofore testified, I drove to the clinic or doctor's office in my station wagon accompanied by each of my children and by Marina and both of her children. This was so irrespective of which of Marina's children was to receive medical or other attention.

6. There were a number of occasions subsequent to September 24, 1963, on which Marina and both of her children accompanied me when I drove in my station wagon to shops, grocery stores, etc., in and about Irving, Texas, to do limited shopping or purchase food stuffs. On each of these occasions, we were also accompanied by my children. Understandably, Marina desired "to get out of the house" and visit with me around Irving, Texas, when convenient to me. I understood this and often went out of my way to invite her to come with me. She always brought her daughter June and after the birth of her daughter Rachel, also brought her.

7. On none of the above occasions did we shop in or visit or enter any furniture store. This includes the Furniture Mart, a store that was located at 149 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas, which I now understand was owned and operated during its existence by one Edith Whitworth.

8. There were only two occasions during all the period in the Fall of 1963 that I took Marina and Lee together in my station wagon to Dallas, Texas, or anywhere in Irving, Texas. One occasion was a trip to Dallas, Texas, the morning of November 9, 1963, which I have mentioned above. (The other is described in paragraph 14.) I do not know Mrs. Whitworth. I never visited her place of business, nor did I ever drive Lee Oswald or Marina to that place of business; and, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, Marina was never at or in that place of business with or without Lee Oswald during the period she resided in my home in the Fall of 1963.

9. At no time after Marina and I and our children arrived in Irving, Texas, on September 24, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, did I ever take Lee Oswald or Marina Oswald to the Irving Sports Shop, which is located at 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas. I was quite aware during all of this period of Marina's activities and where she was. I know of no occasion when either she or Lee Oswald visited either the Furniture Mart or the Irving Sports Shop.

10. There was no occasion during the period Marina resided with me in the Fall of 1963, of which I was aware or now recollect, that Marina rode either in my station wagon or any other automobile or means of conveyance with Lee Oswald at the wheel. Neither the Irving Sports Shop nor Mrs. Whitworth nor Dyal Ryder was ever mentioned in my presence by either of the Oswalds.

11. I never drove Lee Oswald, with or without Marina, to any area or place in or about either Dallas, Fort Worth, or Irving, Texas, to enable Lee Oswald to engage in rifle practice. I did not know until the afternoon of November 22, 1963, that he possessed or owned a firearm of any kind or character. At no time prior to November 25, 1963, did I know or had I heard of anybody by the name of Dyal Ryder.

12. Lee Oswald was not in my home and to the best of my knowledge was not in Irving, Texas, at any time on November 6 or 7, 1963. My recollection is clear that on each of those days, as well as November 8, 1963, Marina and her two children, June and Rachel, were present in my home day and night. Lee Oswald arrived at my home from Dallas, Texas, between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on November 8, 1963, for his customary week-end visit, which as to this particular week-end was to extend over through Armistice Day, November 11, 1963. Except for the trip to Dallas, Texas, on November 9, 1963, which I have described above, Lee Oswald remained in my home from the time of his arrival, the late afternoon of November 8, 1963, until he departed for Dallas, Texas, in the early morning of November 12, 1963.

13. I was not present in my home for part of the day on November 11, 1963. As I testified, I made a trip that day, which was Armistice Day and a holiday, to Dallas, Texas. I was gone from approximately 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Not wishing to burden Lee and Marina with my children, I had them stay at my neighbors the Craigs. Marina and Lee Oswald and their children were in my home when I left and were there when I returned. Based upon my conversation with Marina and Lee Oswald, and my understanding of their plans for the day, it is my clear opinion that all of them remained in my home during my trip to and from Dallas.

14. There was one occasion in addition to the occasion of Nov. 9, 1963, which I have described above, that I drove Marina and Lee in my station wagon to Dallas, Texas. On Monday, October 14, which was the day before Lee Oswald obtained a position at the Texas School Book Depository, I drove him to Dallas, Texas. We were accompanied by Marina and her child June as well as by my children. I testified about this event. We left Lee Oswald off in Dallas at Ross Avenue near LaMarr. I then took my typewriter to a shop in Dallas for repair and Marina and I and our children returned to Irving, Texas.

Signed this 24th day of June 1964.

(S) Ruth Hyde Paine, RUTH HYDE PAINE.

AFFIDAVIT OF M. WALDO GEORGE

The following affidavit was executed by M. Waldo George on June 12, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

M. Waldo George, 6769 Inverness Street, Dallas, being duly sworn says:

1. I am the office manager of Tucker Manning Insurance Company. I am the owner of the premises at 214 Neeley Street, Dallas, Texas, consisting of two apartments, one upper and one lower. In the latter part of January 1963 the upper apartment became vacant and I posted it "For Rent" by means of an appropriate sign in the yard in front of the premises.

2. On March 2, 1963, I was advised by Mrs. George that an individual by the name of "Oswald" had inquired about renting the apartment. Later that day I met the individual who identified himself as Lee H. Oswald. I advised him that the rent for the apartment was $60 per month, and he rented the apartment on a month-to-month basis, paying me $60 in cash for one month's rent in advance.

3. On April 1, 1963, I collected $60 in cash from Oswald, covering rent for the month of April 1963 to and including May 2, 1963.

4. Shortly after this occasion the downstairs tenants, Mr. and Mrs. George B. Gray, called me and informed me that the man in the upstairs apartment was beating his wife. I made no inquiry into this subject matter.

5. Two or three days later, myself and Mrs. George called on the Oswalds in their apartment and invited them to attend Gaston Avenue Baptist Church with us. He informed me and Mrs. George that he attended the Russian Orthodox Church although they were not regular in their attendance, because they had to depend on their friends to take them.

6. During this visit Oswald stated that he had met his wife while he was serving in the United States Marines as a guard at the United States Embassy in Russia, and had married his wife in Russia. I made direct inquiry of him as to whether he had had any difficulty in getting out of Russia with his wife and he said that he had had no difficulty whatsoever.

7. Neither myself or Mrs. George saw Oswald again at any time thereafter. Oswald did not pay rent for the succeeding rental period of May 2 through June 2, 1963. Because my attention was diverted by other matters, I did not go by the apartment to collect the rent for that period until several days after May 2, 1963. When I arrived at the apartment I found it vacant.

Signed this 12th day of June 1964 at Dallas Texas.

(S) M. Waldo George, M. WALDO GEORGE.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM KIRK STUCKEY

The testimony of William Kirk Stuckey was taken at 9:35 a.m., on June 6, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. JENNER. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in your deposition which you are about to give?

Mr. STUCKEY. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Be seated. State your full name?

Mr. STUCKEY. William Kirk Stuckey.

Mr. JENNER. I regret, Mr. Stuckey, that we have to inconvenience you to have you back to have your deposition taken again. But through some happenstance in New Orleans, the transcript of your deposition never went beyond the U.S. attorney's office apparently, and we appreciate your willingness to come up here and be with us today so that I can depose you again. When I took your deposition before you had received a letter from Mr. Rankin, had you not?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. I guess I called you when I was down there, didn't I?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And I explained to you at that time, the time before when I took your deposition, however, the legislation under which the Commission was authorized and the Executive order of the President creating the Commission and the rules and regulations of the Commission on the taking of depositions?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I understand that.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. In effect, we want to inquire of you in particular with respect to the course of events in which you interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in New Orleans in 1963 at some radio broadcasts which you, in your professional capacity, that is, your professional business, had organized, had put on, and you had some fairly extended acquaintance with Oswald in a professional sense.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Would you like me to tell you from the very first?

Mr. JENNER. Well, I think for the very first, for the purpose of the record, identify yourself, who you were then and who you are now, and your profession and business and associations.

Mr. STUCKEY. Fine. At present I am employed at Tulane University as a special writer. In this capacity I write a syndicated column on higher education which Tulane distributes to 85 newspapers throughout the country. In August 1963 I was a broadcaster with WDSU Radio, New Orleans. This is the NBC station. I had a weekly 5-minute radio program on economic and political developments in Latin America. I had been in this particular specialty for about 2 years previous. Prior to that I was a columnist with New Orleans States Item, with an interest in Latin America. As a result I had been looking for a long time for representatives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in that area.

Mr. JENNER. If you would excuse me a second, would you give me your formal education because, as I recall in taking your deposition in New Orleans, you acquired some interest in South American relations which led you into looking for something on this Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Formal education was a B.S. degree in journalism from Southern Methodist University in Dallas. After graduation I went into the Marine Corps and completed 2 years of service, after which I spent some 8 months in Central America and Mexico traveling around, essentially hitchhiking, some walking, some third-class bus riding, in which I acquired a good deal of Spanish and an interest in the countries.

Mr. JENNER. What is a third-class bus?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is where the goats and chickens aren't on top; they are in there with you.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. STUCKEY. After I returned I went into the newspaper business.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, how old are you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Thirty-two.

Mr. JENNER. You are married?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; and----

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a family and you live in New Orleans?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is your address?

Mr. STUCKEY. 2317 State Street, and I have two children. I went into the newspaper business after returning from Latin America, working largely as a political reporter for a number of years.

Mr. JENNER. Were you giving attention to any particular phase of politics?

Mr. STUCKEY. Local government?

Mr. JENNER. Thinking of it in the higher sense--local government.

Mr. STUCKEY. You mean in a higher sense, in a subject category?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. I was interested particularly in planning and zoning.

Mr. JENNER. Did you acquire also an interest in South American relations?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; well, I had this interest, but I had no opportunity to exercise this interest in my work until the New Orleans States Item made me a columnist. This was in February 1962 when I started my column, and this extended on until April, I believe it was, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. What was the title of that column?

Mr. STUCKEY. New Orleans and the Americas. That was really my first professional involvement in Latin American affairs. After I left the paper, doing public relations, I acquired this radio program, this radio broadcast, which was a very short thing. It was largely to keep my name in front of the public in this capacity. And----

Mr. JENNER. That was a broadcast program?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. It was put on regularly, was it?

Mr. STUCKEY. Once a week.

Mr. JENNER. And it is the NBC station down there?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Radio and television or just radio?

Mr. STUCKEY. Radio.

Mr. JENNER. That program had a title?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; Latin Listening Post.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us in general the character of that program and to what you were directing your attention.

Mr. STUCKEY. Politics and economics. I inquired a bit about the Cuban situation. I had a number of programs that I think you would classify as news features. They didn't particularly have current events value, but they were interesting topics, and I just went and talked about them. I talked about social welfare programs in Uruguay, the Mexican Revolution; Central American common market; the character of the Latin American university student, this sort of thing.

Occasionally, when I had a live one, when I heard there was somebody in town who was a Latin bigwig, I would bring him on and we would talk whatever he wanted to talk about.

Mr. JENNER. How did you organize those programs?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well----

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any preliminary discussions with the people you were going to have on your programs?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, yes; sometimes I took up to 3 to 4 days to prepare a 5-minute broadcast.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Actually it is 5 minutes which demands about 700 words, which was just about as long or longer than the column that I used to write, so these columns, 700 words, which would run about a column and a half of type in the paper, consumed within a 5-minute period on the broadcast. Anything else along that line?

Mr. JENNER. I think that covers it generally. Tell us the nature of your work with Tulane University.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You became associated with Tulane when?

Mr. STUCKEY. In January, January 6.

Mr. JENNER. Of this year?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is the nature of that work?

Mr. STUCKEY. I write a syndicated column on higher education. The column is called Dimension in Education. We deal with all manner of events and affairs affecting higher education, and sometimes things that do not affect higher education. I roam the spectrum of interest in the things. It is extremely interesting.

I sometimes write about such things as the Common Market, the humanities versus science, all this sort of thing, all the current controversies we get into.

Mr. JENNER. Is that in the nature of public relations work?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; very soft shell public relations. Sometimes we don't even mention Tulane. It is just that I think probably Tulane just wants to be established as a fount of wisdom in this particular field, and that is why they print these reports.

Mr. JENNER. During the year 1963, did an event occur, a series of events occur, in which you became acquainted with a man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In your own words, taking it from the very first instant of the course of events, perhaps even before you met this man, tell us in your own words, and it doesn't have to be chronological, but the way you would put it out, about it.

Mr. STUCKEY. Fine. As I told you before, as a Latin American columnist and one interested in affairs, I had been looking for some time in New Orleans for representatives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. There haven't been any. Most of the organizations that I had contact with in my work----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--how did you learn about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. STUCKEY. I was going to get to that.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. Most of the organizations that I had contact with were refugee organizations, very violently anti-Castro groups, and there were a number of them in New Orleans. These people were news sources for me also. I used them quite frequently. One day, I think it was in August, the latter part of July of 1963, I was in the bank, and I ran across a refugee friend of mine by the name of Carlos Bringuier. Bringuier told me----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--identify Mr. Bringuier.

Mr. STUCKEY. Mr. Bringuier at that time was the New Orleans delegate to the Revolutionary Student Directorate which was an anti-Castro group with headquarters in Miami. He also ran a clothing store called Casa Roca. He was an attorney in Havana before the Revolution, the Cuban Revolution of 1958, and had been very active ever since I had known him in New Orleans in anti-Castro activity. I had interviewed him on a number of occasions in connection with Cuban current events. Mr. Bringuier ran into me in the bank, and I spoke to him and he said that a representative of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had appeared in New Orleans and that he had had an encounter with him shortly before.

Mr. JENNER. That interested you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, very much, very much, because I knew something of the reputation of this group. I regarded them as being about the leading pro-Castro organization in this country, a propaganda organ for the Castro forces, and I had done a considerable amount of reading of congressional testimony, articles, and this sort of thing about their activities. Mr. Bringuier said he had had an encounter with a young man who was representing the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me--you had known Bringuier and you had had contact with him; had he ever been on your program up to this moment that you speak of?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he had never been on my program, but, as a newspaperman, I had contacted him quite frequently for information.

Mr. JENNER. Proceed.

Mr. STUCKEY. He told me that--this is in the bank--a few days before, I don't recall exactly----

Mr. JENNER. This was a chance meeting?

Mr. STUCKEY. This was a chance meeting with Mr. Bringuier. I was cashing my paycheck and Bringuier told me a few days before he had run into this fellow in his store, this Casa Roca--this young man had approached him.

Mr. JENNER. A young man had come in?

Mr. STUCKEY. A young man. At the time he had mentioned no name. If he had, it wouldn't have made any difference to me because the name meant nothing.

He said a young man came in, introduced himself and said he was a veteran of the Marine Corps, he had just gotten out, and that he was very disturbed by this Cuban situation and he wanted to do something about hurting Castro, or trying to change the regime. He, in some way----

Mr. JENNER. This was something this up-to-the-moment unnamed young man had said to Mr. Bringuier?

Mr. STUCKEY. Had said to Mr. Bringuier as Bringuier recounted it to me later. I am telling you Bringuier's story now.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I wanted to make clear that you were.

Mr. STUCKEY. Right. Now, this young man said somehow he knew Bringuier was connected with the Revolutionary Student Directorate, how, I don't know. But, at any rate, as I said, he offered his services.

Then he presented a Marine Corps Handbook to Bringuier. He said, "This might help you out in your guerrilla activities and such. This is my own personal Marine Corps Handbook", which Bringuier accepted. That was the gist of the conversation. Bringuier told me that sometime after that, I don't recall exactly how long it was, he was walking on Canal Street, the main street of New Orleans, about a block away from his store, and he ran into this young man again. This time he was distributing literature, handbills, and the handbills said, "Hands Off Cuba", and on the handbill it said, "Join the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, Charter Member Branch".

It was this same young man. Bringuier, who was a rather excitable fellow, and he couldn't understand why this fellow was now distributing pro-Castro literature whereas a short time before he had posed as an anti-Castro man. So Bringuier got into a shouting match with him on the street corner, and I think some blows were exchanged, I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. Bringuier is again telling you this?

Mr. STUCKEY. This is what Bringuier is telling me, because I did not witness this. At any rate, regardless of what happened, I don't know the exact sequence of events, the police arrived on the scene and took everybody down to the jail. Oswald was booked for disturbing the peace, and I think later fined $10, and let go. Well, this is what Bringuier told me in the bank.

Mr. JENNER. I may assume up to this moment you had not seen anything in the newspapers on this subject?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I hadn't. There wouldn't have been anything in the newspaper had it not been in my column, and my column at that time did not exist.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. STUCKEY. So I mentioned to Bringuier that I was interested in locating this fellow and talking to him. Bringuier gave me his name.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall that this was the early part of August?

Mr. STUCKEY. Or the latter part of July, I am not really sure. It wasn't--I would say probably the early part of August. It was a Friday. I can tell you that.

Mr. JENNER. It was August 9, 1963.

Mr. STUCKEY. That is quite possible. So I inquired as to the name and the address of this fellow, and telephone, if any, and Bringuier said his name was Lee Oswald, and he lived on Magazine Street, somewhere in the 4000 block, I forget the exact address, and he had no telephone. This was a Friday. My program is on a Saturday.

I decided that early the next morning I would go by this address and ask Oswald if he would appear on my program. So very early, it was about 8 o'clock the following--wait a minute, I am losing some chronology. This was not the next Saturday. Then some time elapsed, and, at any rate, it was August 17 when I went by his house. I forget now exactly why this time did elapse, but it did.

Mr. JENNER. Had he again distributed handbills?

Mr. STUCKEY. To my knowledge; no. He may have. He may have. But, of course, I had no particular interest in it, and the papers were not carrying stories about it, and I, well, just had no contact with him at all.

I did not meet him until August 17, at which time I went by his house on Magazine Street to ask him to appear on my program. This was early in the morning, about 8 o'clock. I went early because I wanted to get him before he left.

Mr. JENNER. This was a Saturday?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is a Saturday. I knocked on the door, and this young fellow came out, without a shirt. He had a pair of Marine Corps fatigue trousers on. I asked him, "Are you Lee Oswald?" And he said "Yes."

I introduced myself and I told him I would like to have him on my program that night. So he asked me in on the porch. This was a screened porch, and I had a very brief chat. He said he would ask me inside for some coffee but that his wife and his baby were sleeping so we had better talk on the porch.

Mr. JENNER. Describe this Magazine Street place. Were you able to find it easily?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; no problem. It was on the side of the house--or the entrance was on the side.

Mr. JENNER. Was on the side and somewhat back from the front?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; it was facing the street; it wasn't facing the side of the property, but it was offset, to the rear.

Mr. JENNER. Frame house?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; it was a frame house, as well as I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. So we had a few cursory remarks there about the organization. He showed me his membership card to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which was interesting, and it identified him as the secretary of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and it was signed by A. Hidell, president.

Mr. JENNER. Was that president or secretary?

Mr. STUCKEY. President, A. Hidell. He was identified on the card, as I recall, as the secretary.

Mr. JENNER. That is, Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oswald; yes. It was a card on which there was a handwritten--it said "Mr." and then a blank, and a handwritten name "Lee Oswald" was in the center of the card. In the lower right-hand corner it was signed by A. Hidell, president.

Mr. JENNER. Was this name familiar to you?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; as a matter of fact, I would like to explain this, that the name meant nothing to me at all, and the name never occurred to me again, I never thought of the name again, until after the assassination when Mr. Henry Wade of Dallas on television on a Sunday, I believe, mentioned that Oswald purchased a rifle from a Chicago mail-order house and had used the name A. Hidell in purchasing the rifle. When he said "A. Hidell" it hit me like, it was like a light bulb over my head, I recalled the name. Otherwise I would never have remembered the name.

Oswald gave me some pieces of literature at this time. There were several--I will mention them if you would like.

Mr. JENNER. I wish you would.

Mr. STUCKEY. There were two speeches by Fidel Castro. One was "The Revolution Must Be a School of Unfettered Thought." Another was "Bureaucracy and Sectarianism." There was a pamphlet by Jean Paul Sartre, and this pamphlet was called "Ideology and Revolution."

There was a pamphlet called "The Crime Against Cuba," by Corliss Lamont. I believe that is all the literature that he gave me at that time. I got some subsequently to that which, incidentally, Mr. Jenner. I promised you that pamphlet the last time I saw you, and I couldn't find it, but I have since found it, and I brought it up for you. I will give it to you now before I forget.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. I will show you what is marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if you recognize the person shown on that photograph.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; that is Lee Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Does it look like him as of the time that you interviewed him on Saturday, August 17?

Mr. STUCKEY. Almost exactly. He was dressed almost in exactly the same way, with a short-sleeved dress shirt, and a tie, and a black looseleaf notebook under his arm which apparently he used as a holder for literature.

Mr. JENNER. I hand you a series of exhibits, Pizzo Exhibits Nos. 453-A, 453-B, and 453-C. Would you examine those and tell me whether your friend, Mr. Bringuier, is shown on any of those photographs?

Mr. STUCKEY. He is not there.

Mr. JENNER. You were referring to Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A; he is not on that one?

Mr. STUCKEY. No. Pizzo Exhibit 453-C is of Oswald alone.

Mr. JENNER. Pizzo Exhibit 453-C is a picture of Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Pizzo Exhibit 453-B is also Oswald, but Bringuier is not in the picture.

Mr. JENNER. All right. We will mark the pamphlet you have brought with you, which is entitled "The Cuban 'Episode' and the American Press: April 9-23, 1961" as Stuckey Exhibit No. 1.

(The pamphlet was marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Handing you Stuckey Exhibit No. 1, being a 15-page pamphlet--I guess it is 16 including the back cover--is that one of the pamphlets that he handed to you and exhibited to you on August 17 and Saturday morning when you interviewed him in his home?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; this is not one. I received this pamphlet that night when he showed up at the radio station.

Mr. JENNER. We will go into it later on, but I think for purposes of identification, was it a pamphlet that he gave you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he gave it to me.

Mr. JENNER. Prior to the radio broadcast you are about to describe?

Mr. STUCKEY. Immediately prior to that. Incidentally, I requested all the literature that he had.

Mr. JENNER. You did?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; and he gave me everything he could find that morning which were the four or five pieces I have already described. Then at night he says, "Look, I found this also", and he brought this.

Mr. JENNER. Meaning Stuckey Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. STUCKEY. Stuckey Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. JENNER. I offer Stuckey Exhibit No. 1 in evidence. All right, we had you still on Saturday morning talking with him at his home on Magazine Street.

Mr. STUCKEY. Right. We discussed literature, his literature, the pieces of information I have already described. He showed me the Fair Play for Cuba Committee membership card. I asked him about the membership of this organization, and he said there were quite a few, quite a few members. The figure 12 or 13 sticks in my head. I don't really recall why now. There were that many officers or something like that, 12 or 13 people he mentioned that he was responsible to, or active workers, something like that, although I guess I shouldn't mention it until I have a more coherent idea of why he used that.

Mr. JENNER. Just give your best recollection of what he said on that occasion.

Mr. STUCKEY. Right. Also as I recall, he was very vehement, insisting he was not the president, but was the secretary, and that was the occasion in which he pulled out his card showing that he was the secretary, not the president, and this other gentleman, Hidell, was the president.

Mr. JENNER. Did that strike you in any special way that he was apparently careful to point out to you that he was secretary instead of president?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it made no impression on me, none whatsoever. It seemed logical. He appeared to be a very logical, intelligent fellow, and the only strange thing about him was his organization. This was, seemed, incongruous to me that a group of this type--or he should associate with a group of this type, because he did not seem the type at all, or at least what I have in my mind as the type.

I would like to mention this. I was arrested by his cleancutness. I didn't expect this at all. I expected a folk-singer type, something of that kind, somebody with a beard and sandals, and he said--I found this fellow, instead I found this fellow who was neat and clean, watched himself pretty well.

Mr. JENNER. You mean he watched his----

Mr. STUCKEY. He seemed to be very conscious about all of his words, all of his movements, sort of very deliberate. He was very deliberate with his words, and struck me as being rather articulate. He was the type of person you would say would inspire confidence. This was the incongruity that struck me, the fact that this type of person should be with this organization. That is the gist of the first meeting.

I asked him to meet me at the radio station that afternoon about 5 o'clock for the interview, and he agreed.

Mr. JENNER. This was to be an interview preliminary to a broadcast?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, this was to be a recorded interview prior to the broadcast.

Mr. JENNER. Why would you do that?

Mr. STUCKEY. To avoid the possibility of errors. It is a risky business going on live. You know, you never know when you are going to slip up and, particularly, with somebody as controversial as a representative of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee you want to know what you have in hand before you put it on.

During that day I thought quite a bit about Oswald before he arrived at the station for the interview, and I was interested in his articulateness and in discussing this organization, so I had decided during the day that instead of just interviewing him for 5 minutes, which was the length of my program, that I would just let him talk as long as he wanted to.

Mr. JENNER. In the private interview with you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; but record it.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; of course.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. And then I thought after doing that I could take some excerpts out for a 5-minute program, and then ask the management at the station if they would be interested in running the whole thing in toto as a demonstration of the line of this organization. So this was the decision I made before the broadcast.

I drew up a lengthy list of questions, and then I met him that afternoon about 5 o'clock at the studios of WDSU, 520 Royal Street, New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. That is in the French Quarter, is it not?

Mr. STUCKEY. In the French Quarter. He was dressed exactly as he is shown in this picture.

Mr. JENNER. Garner Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. STUCKEY. Which is Exhibit No. 1, short-sleeved dress shirt with a tie, a black looseleaf notebook under his arm. There were no preliminary remarks particularly. We just went immediately into the studio. It was at this point that he gave me this pamphlet.

Mr. JENNER. Stuckey Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct. And we were seated--this conversation was witnessed or listened to by an engineer in WDSU by the name of Al Campin.

Mr. JENNER. Was that prearranged?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, you have to have an engineer to record it.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. STUCKEY. He just happened to be there operating the equipment, but he was, I mean he was, there, as a witness, and was greatly interested in it, because like me he hadn't run across too many of these birds, and we were curious to see how they thought and why.

So at that time then we began a long rambling recorded interview which lasted 37 minutes, covered a wide range of subjects.

Naturally, a lot of the subjects had to do with Cuba. We discussed the problem of the refugees leaving Cuba, we discussed as to whether or not Castro was an independent ruler of an independent nation or whether he was merely the head of a colony which was the line that I took.

Mr. JENNER. Head of a colony?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; a Russian colony, Cuba. This was the line that I took in this questioning.

We discussed the economic situation in Cuba, as to what had happened to the economy since Castro took over. We discussed a few abstracts. I asked him the definition of "democracy," which was interesting to me.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a transcript of that interview?

Mr. STUCKEY. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Have you brought one with you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. May I have it, please?

Mr. STUCKEY. Incidentally, I have a letter here that you may or may not be interested in. Father Clancy is the chairman of the political science department at Loyola University in New Orleans. I sent him this transcript as a Catholic and as a political science man just to see what his opinion was, and he went much stronger than I ever did after reading that, but the last paragraph, I thought, was interesting, and I thought you might be interested in reading the letter.

Mr. JENNER. The witness has furnished me a 13-page document on light-weight, green-tinted paper. The first page is entitled "Transcript of Taped Interview Between William K. Stuckey and Lee Harvey Oswald, August 17, 1963," and the last page of which, the last three lines of which, read:

"STUCKEY: Tonight we have been talking with Lee H. Oswald, secretary of The Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans," et cetera. "(Standard close.)"

I wonder if you would be good enough, Mr. Stuckey, to initial each of these 13 pages. We will mark this as Stuckey Exhibit No. 2. I suggest you put your initials at the bottom.

(The document was marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The witness has now placed his initials at the foot of each of the 13 pages of the transcript.

When and how was this document prepared, Stuckey Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. I typed it.

Mr. JENNER. You typed it as you were listening to your tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You have also brought with you the actual original tape of this interview?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is the radio tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And this 13-page document is a literal transcription or translation of that tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; there are some errors, but they are very, very small errors, largely typographical errors.

Mr. JENNER. Prepared by you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you look at the 13-page document, and if there are any errors other than obvious typographical errors which you would like to draw to our attention, I wish you would do it. You were going to look through it and see if there were----

Mr. STUCKEY. I can tell you in advance there are no errors in fact, and no deletions, with the exception of this last paragraph which I abbreviated by saying "standard close." All that was, was I would have been talking with Lee Harvey Oswald--"This is Bill Stuckey, Latin Listening Post. Good night"--that is all that was, no facts at all.

Mr. JENNER. The words ("standard close") appearing on the last line of page 13 is a shorthand way of your designating your customary signoff?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I offer in evidence Stuckey Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. STUCKEY. I was going to refer to this definition of "democracy" that he gave.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Are you interested in it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. This is interesting to me for a number of reasons, not just the meaning but how adept this fellow was at taking a question, any question, and distorting it for his own purposes, saying what he wanted to say while making you think that he was answering your question. He was expert in dialectics.

"STUCKEY: What's your definition of democracy?"

Mr. JENNER. You are reading from Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 now?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

"OSWALD: My definition--well, the definition of democracy--that's a very good one. That's a very controversial viewpoint. You know, it used to be very clear, but now it is not. You know, when our forefathers drew up the Constitution they considered that democracy was creating an atmosphere of freedom of discussion, of argument, of finding the truth; these rights, well, the classic rights of having life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In Latin America they have none of those rights, none of them at all, and that is my definition of democracy, the right to be in a minority and not to be suppressed; the right to see for yourself without government restrictions such countries as Cuba, and we are restricted from going to Cuba."

The question was, "What is your definition of democracy?", and we discussed the passport ban as part of the definition.

Mr. JENNER. In other words, he did not respond to your question?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; except obliquely to make the point.

Mr. JENNER. Did you find that he did that--it will appear, of course, in that transcript----

Mr. STUCKEY. Constantly throughout the interview.

Mr. JENNER. In your discussions with him he parried your questions by not answering them.

Mr. STUCKEY. He would--his general attack would be "I am glad you asked that question, it is very good," and then he would proceed to talk about what he wanted to talk about, and completely ignore your questions on occasions. So there were at least half a dozen examples of that.

Mr. JENNER. In the transcript which you have furnished?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you supply a copy of that transcript to anyone else prior to your bringing Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 today?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. To whom?

Mr. STUCKEY. To the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. JENNER. When you were interviewed by the FBI you supplied the FBI with a transcript?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; as a matter of fact I gave the tape to the FBI the Monday following the interview, which would have been August 20, 1963. I told them I thought it was very interesting, and if they would like to have a transcript they could copy it, which they did. They made a copy and then they gave me a copy of their transcript, and returned the tape to me.

Mr. JENNER. But Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 is the one that you prepared?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. And not one that the FBI prepared.

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

This was on Saturday afternoon. Were you scheduled to go on the air that evening?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; my broadcast time is 7:30. I met him about 5, about two and a half hours in advance.

Mr. JENNER. Had you contemplated that the broadcast that evening would be a discourse only between you and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the way it developed?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is the way it developed.

Mr. JENNER. What was the nature of that broadcast? I should say to you we have from--what is the radio station?

Mr. STUCKEY. WDSU.

Mr. JENNER. From WDSU we have obtained a copy of that tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. Now, you mean of this tape?

Mr. JENNER. No.

Mr. STUCKEY. Because I don't think they have a copy of that tape.

Mr. JENNER. No; the broadcast that evening I am talking about.

Mr. STUCKEY. Is that right? They located it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Because I tried to find a copy of that mainly to take it off the market and never did locate it. I couldn't find it. This must be a recent development.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; but despite that would you tell us about that broadcast?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

As I said, this was a 37-minute, rambling interview between Oswald and myself, and following the interview, first we played it back to hear it. He was satisfied.

Mr. JENNER. That is, you played back the tape of which Exhibit No. 2 is a transcript?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct; Oswald was satisfied. I think he thought he had scored quite a coup.

Then I went back over it in his presence and with the engineer's help excerpted a couple of the remarks by Oswald in this. I forget now what the excerpts were. It has been so long ago. I think we had his definition of democracy because that, in particular, struck me, and we had a couple of his comments in which he said Castro was a free and independent leader of a free and independent state, and the rest of it, as I recall, was largely my summarizing of the other principal points of the 37-minute interview, and it was broadcast on schedule that night.

Mr. JENNER. You had watered it down in length to how many minutes?

Mr. STUCKEY. Five minutes.

Mr. JENNER. Five minutes?

Mr. STUCKEY. Actually 4-1/2.

Mr. JENNER. So you took the portions of your 37-minute interview, which we now have a transcript of, which is Exhibit No. 2, and boiled that down to 4-1/2 minutes?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. And that was a radio broadcast?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That evening. All right. Was that your last contact with Mr. Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it was not.

Mr. JENNER. Following the broadcast did you have any further conversation with him, that evening?

Mr. STUCKEY. That evening; no. The only thing that did transpire was I told him that I was going to talk to the news director to see if the news director was interested in running the entire 37-minute tape later, and I told him to get in touch with me, Oswald to get in touch with me Monday, and I would let him know what the news director said, and that was all the conversation we had that night, and he went his way.

I did just that the next Monday, I called the news director and asked him if he had heard the tape, and he said no. I asked him if he was interested in running it. I told him I thought it was pretty interesting, and he said, for some reason, he thought that it would be more spectacular a little bit--there would be more public interest if we did not run this tape at all, but instead arrange a second program, a debate panel show, with some local anti-Communists on there to refute some of his arguments, which I did. Which I did--I arranged a debate show for a regular radio feature that WDSU has called "Conversation Carte Blanche." This is a 25-minute public affairs program that runs daily. It is almost always interviews of people in the news locally or this sort of thing.

I was in charge of arranging the panel, so I picked Mr. Edward S. Butler.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us who he is.

Mr. STUCKEY. He is the Executive Director of the Information Council of the Americas in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. What is that organization?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is an anti-Communist propaganda organization. Their principal activity is to take tape-recorded interviews with Cuban refugees or refugees from Iron Curtain countries, and distribute these tapes which are naturally, it goes without saying, these tapes are very strongly anti-Communist, and they distribute these tapes to radio stations throughout Latin America. As I recall, they came to have over 100 stations using these tapes regularly.

Well, Mr. Butler is a friend of mine. I knew him as a columnist, and it just seemed like----

Mr. JENNER. He was an articulate and knowledgeable man in this area to which he directs his attention?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; so I asked him to be one of the panelists on the show, which he accepted, and, incidentally, I let him hear the 37-minute tape in advance; and for the other panelist I asked Mr. Bringuier, Mr. Carlos Bringuier, that we mentioned earlier, as being the man who led me to Oswald--I asked him to appear on the show to give it a little Cuban flavor.

And then Oswald called me after it was arranged, and I told him we were going to arrange the show and would he be interested, and he said, yes, indeed, and then he said, "How many of you am I going to have to fight?" That was his version of saying how many are on the panel.

Mr. JENNER. He said this to you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; in a jocular way.

Mr. JENNER. Where did this take place, on the telephone?

Mr. STUCKEY. On the telephone; yes.

This was Monday or Tuesday, the 19th or the 20th of August, whenever it was that I had informed him of the show.

Mr. JENNER. Had he called you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I gave him my office number so he called me at a prearranged time. He was very punctual, very punctual. He was always there on time, all those calls came on time. So I informed him about this debate show and he agreed. He said he thought that would be interesting.

Then the next time I see him is on the afternoon of August 21, Wednesday. I believe this was about 5:30.

Mr. JENNER. Was this to be a preliminary session also?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes--well, no; this was to be a live program. The Conversation Carte Blanche panel show is not to be prerecorded as the other one was.

Mr. JENNER. I appreciate that, but I was just talking about your meeting with him on Wednesday afternoon, the 21st, at 5:30. The program went on at what time?

Mr. STUCKEY. At 6:05.

Mr. JENNER. I see. It was not long before the program.

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. It was not a preliminary interview such as you had had, which is transcribed as Stuckey Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; there were some comments of which I will tell you later.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like to add this, this is very interesting, and gave a little bit of spice to this encounter. During that day, Wednesday, August 21, one of my news sources called me up and said, "I hear you are going to have Oswald on Carte Blanche." I said, "Yes, that is right." He said, "We have some information about Mr. Oswald, the fact that he lived in Russia for 3 years."

He had omitted reference to this in the 37-minute previous interview, and in all of our conversations.

Mr. JENNER. He had never mentioned that subject prior to that?

Mr. STUCKEY. As a matter of fact, he gives an account of his background in here.

Mr. JENNER. In Stuckey Exhibit No. 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. Right; in which he completely omits this. Would you like me to read it?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; you have turned to a particular page?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I will be reading from this. Here is my question.

"STUCKEY:"----

Mr. JENNER. Maybe we can identify the page.

Mr. STUCKEY. This will be page 11.

Mr. JENNER. Page 11 of Stuckey Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. STUCKEY. My question was:

"Mr. Oswald, I am curious about your personal background. If you could tell something about where you came from, your education and your career to date, it would be interesting.

"OSWALD:"--this is his reply--"I would be very happy to. I was born in New Orleans in 1939. For a short length of time during my childhood I lived in Texas and New York. During my junior high school days I attended Beauregard Junior High School. I attended that school for 2 years. Then I went to Warren Eastern High School, and I attended that school for over a year. Then my family and I moved to Texas where we have many relatives, and I continued my schooling there. I entered the United States Marine Corps in 1956. I spent 3 years in the United States Marine Corps working my way up through the ranks to the position of buck sergeant, and I served honorably having been discharged. Then I went back to work in Texas and have recently arrived in New Orleans with my family, with my wife and my child."

There is his answer. He omits the 3 years in Russia by saying that, referring to the fact that, after leaving the Marine Corps he says he went to Texas and then to New Orleans. You will note in there he lied about his rank he achieved in the Marine Corps. Why, I don't know. As far as I know he was just a Pfc.

Mr. JENNER. He never rose any higher.

Mr. STUCKEY. And, as I recall, he did not go to Warren Eastern High School over a year.

Mr. JENNER. You have become aware he attended Beauregard only 1 year rather than 2?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That he attended Warren Eastern about 6 weeks or 2 months.

Mr. STUCKEY. That was my impression. I mention this because with this in mind, this is why it was so interesting to me to find out on that day, August 21, that he had lied to me, that he had, in fact, lived in Russia for 3 years, and had just recently returned, and this individual who called me and gave me this information gave me dates of Washington newspaper clippings that I could check, which were stories about his leaving for Russia, or rather his appearance in Moscow in 1959.

Mr. JENNER. Now, this information came to you between the time of your interview transcribed as Stuckey Exhibit No. 2 and the 21st of August when you were about to put on your debate program, the discussion program?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did this come to you sufficiently in advance to enable you to do some checking vis-a-vis newspaper or articles?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And was he unaware when he came in at 5:30 on the afternoon of Wednesday that you had done this, had received this information and had done some research?

Mr. STUCKEY. He was unaware of that fact. During that day Mr. Butler called, after I had already been tipped off about his Russian residence, Mr. Butler called and said he too had found out the same thing, I think later; his source apparently was the House Un-American Activities Committee or something like that.

At any rate, we thought this was very interesting and we agreed together to produce this information on the program that night.

Mr. JENNER. You were going to face him on the program with this?

Mr. STUCKEY. Unawareness.

Mr. JENNER. You thought it might be a bombshell and be unaware to him.

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. And we decided it would be me who would do it as the introducing participant.

So at about 5:30 that afternoon I arrived at the studio alone. Oswald appeared, and in a very heavy gray flannel suit, and this is August in New Orleans, it is extremely hot, that he appears in a very heavy gray flannel suit, very bulky, badly cut suit, and looking very hot and uncomfortable. He had a blue shirt on and a dark tie, and a black looseleaf notebook.

Mr. JENNER. The same one he had had before?

Mr. STUCKEY. As far as I know. We shook hands, passed a few pleasantries, nothing much of importance.

Mr. JENNER. Were the others present?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; they arrived a little bit later. Oswald was there first, as usual on time, and then Mr. Butler came in with Mr. Bringuier. Both looked as if they had pounds and pounds of literature with them, and statistics.

Mr. JENNER. Did Bringuier and Oswald recognize each other?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. And it was apparent to you they were acquainted?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oh, yes; indeed.

Mr. JENNER. And that Oswald was acquainted with Bringuier and vice versa?

Mr. STUCKEY. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Had Oswald met Mr. Butler before?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't know if he had or not. It was my impression that he had not, but I think he knew who he was. Oswald asked me something about the organization, and I told him, I said, "Well, it is just like your organization; it is a propaganda outfit, just on the other side of the fence," and that satisfied his curiosity.

I think he immediately kissed it off as a hopeless rightist organization, "You can't reason with those people," that approach.

So it was a somewhat touchy exchange there between Bringuier and Oswald in the studio. Bringuier, as well as I recall, started out with a remark like this, saying, "You know, I thought you were a very nice boy. You really made a good impression on me when I first met you." Referring to Oswald's visit to Bringuier in the store when Oswald was posing as an anti-Castro enthusiast, and Bringuier said, "I cannot understand how you have let yourself become entangled with this group."

He said, "I don't think you know what you are doing."

Oswald said something to the effect that, "I don't think you know what you are doing," and back and forth such as this. Bringuier said, "Anytime you want to get out of your organization and join mine there is a place for you," and he says, "I hope one day you will see the light."

And again Oswald says, "I hope you see the light," and that was about all there was to that.

Butler didn't say anything to him particularly. It was just pleasantries, "How do you do," and such.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man is Butler?

Mr. STUCKEY. Butler is in his late twenties, he is 29 or 30.

Mr. JENNER. Is he an educated man?

Mr. STUCKEY. College, as far as I know. He is advertising, public relations man before he went into the propaganda business, and that was about the extent of the exchanges prior to the broadcast.

Then I left to go back to the newsroom, which was a different room from the room where we were sitting, to get Bill Slatter, who is the official moderator of the program, and we came back and picked up our participants and went into the broadcast room.

As I recall, in opening the show Bill Slatter said that myself and he would be talking to three other people. In other words, I was not considered a panelist, but there were two station people and three panel people. This was the way it was explained, and Slatter turned the program over to me after a very brief introduction and description of Oswald and a brief capsule of his background in New Orleans to date, and then he turned the show over to me, and I gave a several-minute description of the organization, Mr. Oswald and his activities in New Orleans up to that time, and then I pulled the Russian thing on him.

I did mention--I think I did it this way, I said:

"Mr. Oswald, in the previous interview, gave me a description of his background. He told me this and that and this and that, but he omitted some information, to the best of my knowledge," and I mentioned that that day some newspaper clippings had come to my attention about his residence in Russia, and I said, "Is this true, Mr. Oswald?"; and Oswald said, "Yes."

Mr. JENNER. Would you mark what I hand you, Mr. Reporter, as Stuckey Exhibit No. 3.

(The item was marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Mr. STUCKEY. You may be interested in knowing that the Information Council of the Americas, Mr. Butler's organization, has since made a record out of this debate, and just released it about 2 weeks ago, called "Self-Portrait in Red."

Mr. JENNER. I am going to hand you, to refresh your recollection, if it needs refreshing, a 10-page document which I have marked for purposes of identification only as Stuckey Exhibit No. 3. Each of these pages bears the figure 236 in red ink at the bottom. It is also known here as, that is, around here, as Commission Document No. 87B. The pages are numbered at the top 1 through 10, inclusive. It purports to be a transcript of a tape recording of your broadcast of the evening about which you speak, a debate on August 21, 1963.

We have obtained from the radio station, WDSU, a duplicate of the tape itself. Would you take a look at this transcript and perhaps, if you will run through it, tell us whether it is, to your recollection, a transcript of your program that night?

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like to say this about this transcript. I think it is very unfair. These people have put in all of Oswald's hesitations, his "er's," and that sort of thing. I notice when the AP ran an account of this after the assassination they had done all of this on Oswald. They were apparently trying to make him look stupid. Everybody else was using the "er's," but they didn't put those in.

Mr. JENNER. I will say it is a transcript--your attention is drawn to the fact that the hesitations of Oswald are included, but the hesitations of, let us say, even yourself and the other participants, are not.

Mr. STUCKEY. Are not.

Mr. JENNER. And in that sense it is in some measure a distortion of the actual tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. A slight distortion. I think it is an unfair thing.

Mr. JENNER. Well, we have the actual tape so the hesitations will appear, and what I was using this primarily for is to afford you an opportunity, if you wish to use it, to refresh your recollection of this program.

What were some of the things that you now recall that struck you about this dissertation?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, of course, the principal thing that came out on that program, aside from the Russian residence, the most striking thing was his admission that he was a Marxist. We asked him if he was a Communist--we were always doing this--he was very clever about avoiding the question. He would usually say, "As I said before, I belong to no other organization other than the Fair Play for Cuba Committee."

So we asked him this question, of course, and he gave us that answer, and I asked, "Are you a Marxist?"; and he said, "Yes."

Otherwise, it was--the program was largely speeches by Bringuier and Butler, and Oswald did not have a chance to ramble much or to talk much as he had earlier, and most of his answers are rather short.

Mr. JENNER. Did you get into a discussion of democracy and communism and Marxism and then the distinctions?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, yes.

Mr. JENNER. The distinctions between them?

Mr. STUCKEY. A brief discussion. We asked him, I say "we," I mean Mr. Butler asked him the difference between being a Marxist and being a Communist, and this was a typical oblique Oswald answer. He says, "It is the same difference between Ghana and Guinea, and even in Great Britain they have socialized medicine," and that is about the extent of the answer.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you have as to this man's deep or fundamental appreciation of Marxism, democracy, communism, fascism, socialism, as the case might be?

Mr. STUCKEY. It was my impression he had done a great deal of reading.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have an impression that his knowledge--that he was, if I may use this expression, that he had a superficial knowledge as distinguished from a close study with a critical leader or teacher pointing out to him the fundamental distinctions between these systems?

Mr. STUCKEY. It would be difficult to say. It was apparent he was acquainted with a wide body of facts and he knew appropriate words and such from historical points concerning the development of Marxism.

Mr. JENNER. You see I am seeking your impression at the time and not one that you have formed since.

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; right. Well, I had not run across many Marxists in my time, and I guess this was about the first professional Marxist I had run across, and he impressed me as knowing something about the subject. But again it was difficult to appraise the full measure of his learning because of his oblique way of answering questions and dodging questions whenever he did not want to speak about a particular point. I would hesitate to say whether it was superficial or not. I just don't know that much about it.

Mr. JENNER. Give me your impression of his demeanor.

Mr. STUCKEY. Confident.

Mr. JENNER. Confident, self-assured?

Mr. STUCKEY. Self-assured, logical.

Mr. JENNER. Able to handle questions?

Mr. STUCKEY. Very well qualified to handle questions, articulate. There was a little bit of a woodenness in his voice at times, and a little stiff. This was another impression of mine about Oswald, his academic manner. If he could use a six-syllable word----

Mr. JENNER. You mean demeanor?

Mr. STUCKEY. Demeanor; yes. If he could use a six-syllable word instead of a two-syllable word, he would do so. Now that characteristic in itself would not tend to make it that his learning was superficial.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have the impression he searched for the multisyllable word?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, yes; as I say, he would prefer that. I don't know why--of course, this is all hindsight, but it occurred to me he would be the type of man who would not use the word, say, "murder," when he could use something a little more formal like "act of violence," this sort of thing. It was, as a matter of fact, his manner was sort of quasi-legal. It was almost as if he had--as if he were a young attorney. He seemed to be very well acquainted with the legal terminology dealing with constitutional rights.

Mr. JENNER. Did this discussion become heated?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; it did. It got rather heated. Mr. Butler, in particular, more or less took the offensive, and attempted to trip him up a few times on questions, questions about the nature of Marxism and of the nature of the Castro regime and this sort of thing, and Mr. Oswald handled himself very well, as usual. I think that we finished him on that program. I think that after that program the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, if there ever was one in New Orleans, had no future there, because we had publicly linked the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with a fellow who had lived in Russia for 3 years and who was an admitted Marxist.

The interesting thing, or rather the danger involved, was the fact that Oswald seemed like such a nice, bright boy and was extremely believable before this. We thought the fellow could probably get quite a few members if he was really indeed serious about getting members. We figured after this broadcast of August 21, why, that was no longer possible.

Mr. JENNER. The broadcast ran approximately how long?

Mr. STUCKEY. Twenty-five minutes.

Mr. JENNER. And after the broadcast broke up was that the last of your contacts with Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it wasn't. The others left, and Oswald looked a little dejected, and I said, "Well, let's go out and have a beer," and he says, "All right." So we left the studio and went to a bar called Comeaux's Bar. It is about a half-block from the studio and this was the first time that his manner kind of changed from the quasi-legal position, and he relaxed a little bit. This was the first time I ever saw him relaxed and off of his guard. We had about an hour's conversation, 45 minutes to an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, and, by the way, I mentioned his suit being rather gawky cut, and he told me afterward the suit was purchased in Russia, and they didn't know much about making clothes over there. Would you like me to tell you about the conversation?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I would.

Mr. STUCKEY. We covered a number of points because I was relaxed, as far as I was concerned professionally I had no other occasion to contact Oswald. He was off the spot. So we just had a little conversation. During that conversation he told me that he was reading at that time about Indonesian communism, and that he was reading everything he could get his hands on. He offered an opinion about Sukarno, that he was not really a Communist, that he was merely an opportunist who was using the Communists.

We had a discussion about alcohol. I noticed he wasn't doing very good with his beer, and it was a hot night, and he made a reference to that. He said, "Well, you see, I am not used to drinking beer. I am a vodka drinker." And he said, "My father-in-law taught me how to drink vodka," and then he proceeded to tell me that his father-in-law, who was the father of his wife Marina, was a Russian Army colonel, and mentioned that as an army colonel he earned quite a bit more money than Oswald was earning in Russia. Oswald told me at that time he was making about 80 rubles a month as a factory worker, whereas his father-in-law, the Colonel, was making something like 300 rubles a month, so he could afford all the vodka he wanted, and he says that is who taught him to drink vodka. May I refresh my memory----

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. With some notes?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. You have mentioned Marina for the first time when you cited her a moment ago. Had he mentioned her prior to that time?

Mr. STUCKEY. Not by name. He only referred to her as "my wife."

Mr. JENNER. Had he identified her as to her origin here or in Russia?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; this was afterward. Naturally when we brought up this business about the Russian residence, he mentioned she was a Russian girl and spoke no English. He said that was the way he wanted it because it gave him an opportunity to keep up his Russian. He wanted to keep his Russian up, and so they spoke nothing but Russian in the home.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about having any family?

Mr. STUCKEY. He mentioned a wife and child. Now on the first broadcast on Saturday the 17th he mentioned, you will recall, in that brief digest of his background, he said he had been in the Marine Corps and then had left and gone to Texas and had recently arrived in New Orleans with his wife and his child. So in that case he mentioned that he did have a daughter and a wife. I see something I have omitted about the first meeting I had with him on the morning of August 17th.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. At his home.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mr. STUCKEY. He told me at that time he was working as an assistant to a commercial photographer in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. You made no check on that?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I didn't check him out.

Mr. JENNER. You were not then aware of the fact that, the fact was that he was not an assistant to a commercial photographer.

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I was not aware of that.

Mr. JENNER. Did he tell you where he was working?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. You were not aware, therefore, at that time he was at that time an oiler or a greaser at the Reily Coffee Co.

Mr. STUCKEY. Is that correct?

Mr. JENNER. He was out of work at that time, but he had been.

Mr. STUCKEY. I never could figure out why he referred to the trade of photography. Had he been involved in photography?

Mr. JENNER. When he was in Dallas prior to his coming to New Orleans in the spring of 1963, he had been an apprentice with a company, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, a commercial advertising photographing company that produced advertising materials, mats, and photographs, and that sort of thing. He worked in the darkroom. He had very limited experience.

Mr. STUCKEY. That apparently is what he was referring to.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. Here is some additional information if you would like me to bring this out.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; go ahead.

Mr. STUCKEY. I am going to the conversation after the broadcast of the 21st, this is with Oswald and me at Comeaux's Bar. I asked him at that time how he became interested in Marxism and he said that there are many books on the subject in any public library. I asked him if he, if his family was an influence on him in any way. He says, "No," and he kind of looked a little amused. He said, "No," he says, "They are pretty much typical New Orleans types," and that was about all he said.

Mr. JENNER. Did he mention his mother?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he didn't. As a matter of fact, when we referred to his family, all his references were in the plural, and it was my impression that he had a mother and a father, sisters, aunts, uncles and everybody, because the general impression was that there were a number of people in the family. I was surprised to find out that it wasn't true, later.

Mr. JENNER. Well, he had relatives in New Orleans, the Murret family.

Mr. STUCKEY. I see.

Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Murret is--Marguerite Oswald, that is his mother--that was her sister.

Mr. STUCKEY. He told me that he had begun to read Marx and Engels at the age of 15, but he said the conclusive thing that made him decide that Marxism was the answer was his service in Japan. He said living conditions over there convinced him something was wrong with the system, and that possibly Marxism was the answer. He said it was in Japan that he made up his mind to go to Russia and see for himself how a revolutionary society operates, a Marxist society.

Mr. JENNER. He thought that Russia was a Marxist society?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you question or discuss with him whether he found that the system in Russia was a Marxist society or whether it was----

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he wasn't very pleased apparently with some of the aspects of Russian political life. Particularly in the factories he said that a lot of the attitudes and this sort of thing was the same sort of attitude that you would find in an American factory. There was a lot of dead-heading, as we say in Louisiana. I don't know what your expression is.

Mr. JENNER. Goldbricking.

Mr. STUCKEY. Goldbricking. The boss' relatives on the payrolls at nice salaries.

Mr. JENNER. Nepotism.

Mr. STUCKEY. Nepotism, this sort of thing. Anybody with any authority at all would just use it to death to get everybody extra privileges that they could, and a lot of dishonesty, padding of production figures and this sort of thing. He said he wasn't very impressed.

Mr. JENNER. Were you curious as to why he had come back to the United States and did you, if you were curious, discuss that subject with him?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't believe I did. As a matter of fact, I wasn't curious at the time. We just accepted the fact that he had. In hindsight we should have asked a lot of questions about him.

Mr. JENNER. The newspaper material that you had read, there was, was there not, something about his dishonorable discharge from the Marines?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I don't recall any reference to that in the newspapers. Incidentally, Oswald had told me and had produced a discharge card that he was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. He produced a card showing this.

Mr. JENNER. When had he done that?

Mr. STUCKEY. This was the night of the 17th at the radio station. Why he did this I don't know. I forget what the circumstances were. I recognized the card because, after all, I was a marine myself and I had one exactly like it.

Mr. JENNER. Did you, in the tete-a-tete in Comeaux's Bar discuss with him his attempt, when in Russia, to renounce his American citizenship?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; we didn't, because that was alluded to in the broadcast and, as far as I was concerned, it was satisfactorily answered.

Mr. JENNER. He does respond--you say, and I am now turning to the document identified as Stuckey Exhibit No. 3, a transcript of that radio debate--in your preliminary remarks you advert to the fact that you had sought an independent source, Washington newspaper clippings--you advert to the fact that Mr. Oswald, and I am reading, "Mr. Oswald had attempted to renounce his American citizenship in 1959 and become a Soviet citizen.

"There was another clipping dated 1952 saying Mr. Oswald had returned from the Soviet Union with his wife and child after having lived there 3 years. Mr. Oswald, are these correct?" And he responds, "That is correct." I might say for the record that the date 1952 is the date that appears in this transcript, but the fact is that it was 1962. That was either a slip of the tongue or it is a typographical error, is that correct?

Mr. STUCKEY. I think so.

Mr. JENNER. But in this informal conversation following the broadcast you did not pursue these subjects?

Mr. STUCKEY. Not those. We discussed other subjects. He made another observation about life in Russia. He said things were extremely bland, homogenized.

Mr. JENNER. Did he elaborate on that?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I thought it was interesting.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that, please.

Mr. STUCKEY. He said that nobody--everybody seems to be almost alike in Russia because, after all, they had eliminated a lot of the dissenting elements in Russian society and had achieved fairly homogenous blend of population as a result.

Mr. JENNER. That was an observation on his part, was it, of an aspect of Russian society that disappointed him?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't know. I don't recall him expressing an opinion as to whether he was disappointed by that. It was a comment. His tone was slightly acid as if he did not like it, but again this is my impression. He did say this which was interesting, he said that they wouldn't allow any Fair Play for Cuba Committees in Russia.

Mr. JENNER. He did?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he said they just would not because it is the type of organization that Russian society would just suppress.

Mr. JENNER. Russian society?

Mr. STUCKEY. The Russian authorities would suppress.

Mr. JENNER. Russian authorities suppress any militant organization of this character.

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. Whether it was Fair Play for Cuba or anything else that is militant in the sense of being openly critical of the Russian society and Russian politics?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did he observe on that subject, did he observe in the sense of his feeling that in America you are permitted within the bounds of the Constitution to enjoy free speech and criticize your Government as distinguished from not being able to do so in Russia?

Mr. STUCKEY. He didn't add anything other than what I have already said, but the implication was that we can do that here. "After all, you know here I have this organization and I am doing this. They probably would not let me do a similar thing in Russia," and this was his tone.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any impression as to his regard or judgment with respect to the government in which he was, whose privileges he was then exercising?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he had given lip service a time or two to the fact that he considered himself a loyal American. He was constantly referring to rights, constitutional rights, and he made some historical references. He illustrated the development of these rights in America.

Mr. JENNER. Did this informal conversation at Comeaux's Bar go on, you said, for about an hour?

Mr. STUCKEY. Approximately an hour.

Mr. JENNER. Was he comfortable in the sense--was he eager, was he pleased----

Mr. STUCKEY. He was relaxed, he was friendly. He seemed to be relieved it was all over. My impression was he was relieved that he did not have to hide the bit about the Russian residence any more, and that it had been a strain doing so, because his manner was completely different. There wasn't the stiffness or the guarded words and guarded replies. He seemed fairly open, and I have no reason to believe that everything he told me that night was not true. I think it was true.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any difference in his attitude or demeanor with respect to personal self-confidence, for example, in that Saturday interview at his home and your interview with him prior to the Monday night broadcast, taking that as a base, and comparing it with his attitude in Comeaux's Bar after you had revealed the fact that he had been in Russia and had attempted to defect?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, there wasn't any change. He was pretty consistent in his behavior from the very first time I met him until Comeaux's Bar, so this was the only notable change I observed. The manner was always guarded, even from the very first when he came out on his porch on August 17 in his dungarees, his manner was guarded.

Mr. JENNER. Was it guarded in Comeaux's?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; it was not.

Mr. JENNER. This was much more relaxed?

Mr. STUCKEY. Considerably.

Mr. JENNER. Following that tete-a-tete in Comeaux's Bar for about an hour, did you ever see Oswald after that?

Mr. STUCKEY. That was the last time I ever saw him.

Mr. JENNER. When was the next time you heard of Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. On November 22, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. What was that occasion?

Mr. STUCKEY. The assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. JENNER. How was it raised, what brought it to your attention?

Mr. STUCKEY. I was watching a TV news broadcast at the time, and they had a bulletin in which they said a suspect had been arrested in the assassination, and they mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald, and I fell to the ground practically; I was surprised.

Mr. JENNER. Was there a video tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes. Following the debate show of August 21, Bill Slatter, the radio announcer, decided that some news had been made that night on the show, so he took Oswald back to the studio to repeat some of the statements he had made on the radio show for video tape. And they interviewed Oswald for quite a while, I would say for 5 minutes. But I understand that that night they only ran a brief excerpt of that tape, and the rest of it they threw away.

Mr. JENNER. The station has supplied us with what tape they did not throw away, the video tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. They are not throwing away anything at that station any more, by the way, now.

Mr. JENNER. I suppose not. Without speculation on your part, if you have a recollection, do you recall whether he was right handed or left handed?

Mr. STUCKEY. I don't recall. I don't believe that he ever had the opportunity to use his hand in such a way you could identify it. I never saw him writing.

Mr. JENNER. At least you never noticed it one way or the other?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did he smoke?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he did not smoke. Again, this was part of my--of the impression of him that struck me. He seemed like somebody that took very good care of himself, very prudent, temperate, that sort of person. It was my impression Oswald regarded himself as living in a world of intellectual inferiors.

Mr. JENNER. Please elaborate on that. And on what do you base that, please?

Mr. STUCKEY. Well, I base a lot of this on the conversation that we had in Comeaux's Bar. After all, I had paid some attention to Oswald, nobody else had particularly, and he seemed to enjoy talking with somebody he didn't regard as a stupid person, and it was my impression he thought that everybody else he had come in contact with was rather cloddish, and got the impression that he thought that he had--his philosophy, the way he felt about things, all this sort of thing, most people just could not understand this, and only an intelligent or educated person could. I don't mean to say that there was any arrogance in his manner. There was just--well, you can spot intelligence, or at least I can, I think, and this was a man who was intelligent, who was aware that he was intelligent, and who would like to have an opportunity to express his intelligence--that was my impression.

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you obtain of this man with respect to his volatility, that is, did you get any impression that he was quick to anger?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; very well-disciplined, as a matter of fact. After all, he had been provoked on several occasions that afternoon by Bringuier and Butler on the show.

Mr. JENNER. Or that evening.

Mr. STUCKEY. That evening; yes. And, of course, Bringuier's attempt to convert him to the cause of Revolutionary Students Directorate was presented in a rather biting way, and Oswald just took it, and just more or less told him that he wasn't interested, whereas other people might have gotten a little mad. After all, you have to recognize that Oswald--they were ganging up on him. There were a bunch of us around there. There were three people who disagreed with him, and he was only one man, and the fact that he kept his composure with this type of environment indicates discipline.

Mr. JENNER. That is right. Now, I show you a Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A. Do you see Mr. Oswald shown on that exhibit?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is there a mark or something over his head?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; there is a green cross of some sort.

Mr. JENNER. All right. There is a man to his left, there is an arrow, a vertical arrow, over that man's head. Do you recognize that person?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Far to the left, the most extreme left, of the picture is another man with dark glasses on. He has a green vertical stripe over his head. Do you recognize him?

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Now, to the left of the man with the vertical arrow above his head is a tall rather husky young fellow whose back is turned. Do you, by any chance, recognize him?

Mr. STUCKEY. This one?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. STUCKEY. No.

Mr. JENNER. I will ask you the general question do you recognize anybody depicted on Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A other than Oswald?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oswald is the only person I recognize in that picture.

Mr. JENNER. I show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B. Do you recognize Oswald on that picture?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; he has the green mark above his head.

Mr. JENNER. That is the vertical mark and it is the only mark on that photograph, is it not?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Directing your attention to the group of men on that photograph in which Oswald is a part although his back is to the group, do you recognize any of those men shown on that photograph?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; I recognize nobody.

Mr. JENNER. And to the right side of the girl there are some ladies. Do you recognize any of them?

Mr. STUCKEY. I was just looking over that. One of them looks vaguely familiar, but--no; I would have to say. No; I don't know the women.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the vicinity or place shown?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; that is the front of the International Trade Mart Building on Common and Camp Streets in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. If I may have that tape so I can put an exhibit number on it----

Mr. STUCKEY. Do you want to take it now rather than go through all the letter-writing proceedings?

Mr. JENNER. I am not going to take it, but I am going to mark it and give it back to you. I don't want to have possession of it. I just want to look to see----

Mr. STUCKEY. Would it be easier for the Commission if it were made into a record rather than a tape? I have a record that I have made, my own personal record.

Mr. JENNER. I will inquire about that. It possibly might be better. You mean a platter, a disc?

Mr. STUCKEY. A platter, a disc.

Mr. JENNER. I suppose a tape is easier to preserve. A hundred years from now this tape would be just as true as it is today, that is assuming it is kept under good conditions, whereas a platter might deteriorate.

Mr. STUCKEY. That is true.

Mr. JENNER. So I think we had better have the tape.

Mr. STUCKEY. The disc would start decomposing after about the 25th time you played them, and also they get scratched and such. But one thing is you can't erase a record and you can erase a tape. That is the kind of nightmares you have with a tape. I was afraid to have a copy made of that thing for a long time just out of fear somebody might make a mistake and it would be erased.

Mr. JENNER. You have insured against that by your disk, a platter?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Stuckey, was a recording made on audio tape of the 37-minute interview that you had with Mr. Oswald on Monday, the 17th of August?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I have made one record which is strictly for my own use.

Mr. JENNER. You say you made it?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it it was made for you by somebody?

Mr. STUCKEY. It was made for me by Cosimo's Recording Studio in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. From what source was the tape made by the commercial company you have named?

Mr. STUCKEY. From----

Mr. JENNER. What was used to make the tape? Did you have a tape and you made a copy of the tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; they took my original tape and from that they made the disc.

Mr. JENNER. I see. We are a little confused here. You have an audio tape of the 37-minute interview, do you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And you also have a wax disk?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. It is the wax disk which is the disk recording from the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And it is the wax disk that was made by the commercial people you have named?

Mr. STUCKEY. True.

Mr. JENNER. What I am getting at, Mr. Stuckey, was an audio tape transcript made of your interview with him on the 17th of August 1963?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Who made the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. The original tape was made by WDSU radio in the studios of WDSU, and the engineer doing the taping was Mr. Al Campin.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know what happened to that original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I have it; it is in my possession.

Mr. JENNER. Did you bring it with you today?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; this is a copy which you have in your hand.

Mr. JENNER. Did you bring a copy of that tape, which is Stuckey Exhibit No. 4?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct?

Mr. JENNER. From what source did you obtain the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. From WDSU. When the management of WDSU decided not to run that tape but instead to have the debate, the second show, then they gave me the tape.

Mr. JENNER. What is now marked as Stuckey Exhibit No. 4 is a reproduction on tape of the original tape?

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Who made the reproduction which is Stuckey Exhibit No. 4?

Mr. STUCKEY. Cosimo's Recording Studio.

Mr. JENNER. Where are they located? Do you happen offhand to recall the address?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is on Governor Nichol's Street in the 500 block.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us the full name of that company?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; Cosimo's Recording Studio, I believe it is.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have more than one tape reproduction made of that?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes; I have had--how many do I have? I have two copies and the record in addition to the original tape, so there are four pieces of, four items involved.

Mr. JENNER. You will recall, Mr. Stuckey, that you were good enough when I was in New Orleans to take me over to the radio station, what is the name of it again?

Mr. STUCKEY. WDSU.

Mr. JENNER. WDSU, and there was played in my presence and in my hearing a tape transcript of your 37-minute interview with Oswald on the 17th of August 1963. Is the tape which I have in my hand, marked Stuckey Exhibit No. 4, the tape that was played that evening in my presence?

Mr. STUCKEY. It is.

Mr. JENNER. And it is in the same condition now as it was at the time I heard it?

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. It is in the same condition now as it was when it was prepared by Cosimo's?

Mr. STUCKEY. Correct.

Mr. JENNER. Subject to my understanding with you that you will receive a communication from Mr. Rankin respecting the preservation of this tape against commercial use, I offer Stuckey Exhibit No. 4 in evidence. I am going to return the tape to you so that there will be no question in your mind but what, in the meantime, until you do receive Mr. Rankin's letter, that the tape has been in your possession, and no one has made, surreptitiously or otherwise by accident or any fashion, a copy of it.

Mr. STUCKEY. Very good.

Mr. JENNER. I think I will state for the record, Mr. Reporter, that in an off-the-record discussion with Mr. Stuckey respecting the audio tape of the interview of August 17, 1963, Stuckey Exhibit No. 4, Mr. Stuckey has agreed that he will supply or return, let us say, Exhibit No. 4 to us upon his receipt of a communication from Mr. Rankin, as counsel for the Commission, that the tape when redelivered to us and becomes part of the record of the Commission, will not be subjected to use for any commercial purpose and reproduction.

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like to ask for one qualification.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. I would like my attorney to read over the letter before----

Mr. JENNER. Of course.

Mr. STUCKEY. Before sending you the tape, and in case we suggest possibly some changes----

Mr. JENNER. I think that is wise. Since I am returning the tape to you, why, I am sure you won't send it back unless your counsel is satisfied that you are reasonably protected, because we appreciate the fact that this is personal property and that it has some commercial value to you and, frankly, we would be a little bit surprised if you were not concerned about preserving that.

I think that is all. Is there anything that you would like to add, that you think might be helpful to the Commission in its investigation of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Mr. STUCKEY. I think we have covered just about everything.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. STUCKEY. Certainly all the hard facts.

Mr. JENNER. What is that?

Mr. STUCKEY. I say certainly all the hard facts. The rest is just a lot of speculation and such.

Mr. JENNER. One other thing. Give Bringuier's physical description, describe Bringuier physically to me, please.

Mr. STUCKEY. Describe Oswald?

Mr. JENNER. No; Bringuier.

Mr. STUCKEY. He is about 5 feet 10 inches. He is not particularly dark-skinned, although his hair is black, his eyes are brown. He has the beginnings of a paunch, although his build is generally rather slender; he wears glasses, smokes cigars. I can't think of a thing else.

Mr. JENNER. OK. I guess that is about it.

AFFIDAVIT OF HORACE ELROY TWIFORD

The following affidavit was executed by Horace Elroy Twiford on July 11, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Harris, ss:

I, Horace Elroy Twiford, 7018 Schley Street, Houston, Texas, being duly sworn say:

1. I have been a resident of Houston since May, 1956, and I am a merchant seaman. I am a member of the Socialist Labor Party.

2. The first time I ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald was in July 1963, when The Headquarters of the Socialist Labor Party in New York wrote me that Oswald had requested literature. The New York Headquarters usually furnishes me with the names of any persons in the Texas area who make inquiries about the Socialist Labor Party. I then routinely mailed Oswald literature concerning the Socialist Labor Party to a box number in Dallas appearing on Twiford Exhibit No. 1. I had my return address on the envelope containing the material I sent to Oswald.

3. Twiford Exhibit No. 1 is the envelope which Oswald sent to the Socialist Labor Party in New York, and which they in turn sent to me.

4. The handwritten note across the front of this envelope, containing the words "Labor Day issue WP, 9/11/63" is in my handwriting and indicates that I mailed to Oswald on September 11, 1963, the Labor Day issue of the "Weekly People." I do not recall if this was the first time I sent him material.

5. I recollect having flown home to visit my wife on September 27, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, where the S.S. Del Monte, the ship upon which I was working, was docked. Either at this time or on October 1, when the S.S. Del Monte reached Houston, my wife told me that a L. H. Oswald had called and asked for me during the week. My wife had written his name and the words "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" on a piece of paper in order to mention the telephone call.

6. I recollect that my wife told me that this telephone call had taken place during the week preceding my visit home. I had been home on the previous weekend, and neither at that time nor prior thereto had my wife said anything about a telephone call from Oswald.

7. I have never seen nor heard from Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed this 11th day of July 1964.

(S) Horace Elroy Twiford, HORACE ELROY TWIFORD.

AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ESTELLE TWIFORD

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. Estelle Twiford on July 2, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Harris, ss:

I, Mrs. Estelle Twiford, 7018 Schley Street, Houston, Texas, being duly sworn say:

1. I am the wife of Horace Elroy Twiford.

2. In late September of 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald telephoned my house and asked to speak to my husband. I told him that my husband was at sea. Oswald inquired as to how my husband had his address. He also said that he had hoped to discuss ideas with my husband for a few hours before he flew down to Mexico. He said he only had a few hours. I assume he was calling from the Houston area since he did not, to my knowledge, place a long distance call. However, he did not specifically say that he was in Houston. I have no information concerning his whereabouts when this call was placed. I told him if he desired to correspond with my husband, he could direct a letter to 7018 Schley Street, Houston, Texas, and I would see that my husband received it.

3. I cannot recall the date of the call, but I think it occurred during the week prior to the weekend my husband flew home to visit me from New Orleans where his ship was docked. I recall, my husband had shipped out the weekend prior to the call.

4. I cannot recall the exact time he called, but I think that it was in the evening, sometime between 7:00 and 10:00 o'clock. I was not working during this period.

5. I wrote down on a slip of paper that Oswald had called and that he mentioned he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I did this in order to remember to tell my husband about the call. I told my husband about the call on the weekend he visited me. I have initialed and released note made of telephone call. (To Secret Service.)

6. Oswald did not state what he was going to Mexico for, nor did he state how long he would be there.

7. Other than the above mentioned telephone call, I have never had any contact with Lee Harvey Oswald.

8. I am not a member of the Socialist Labor Party.

Signed this 2d day of July 1964.

(S) Mrs. Estelle Twiford, MRS. ESTELLE TWIFORD.

TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA H. JAMES

The testimony of Virginia H. James was taken at 2:15 p.m., on June 17, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. William T. Coleman, Jr., and W. David Slawson, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Thomas Ehrlich, Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser, Department of State, was present.

Mr. COLEMAN. Miss James, would you state your name for the record?

Miss JAMES. Virginia H. James.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you mind raising your right hand?

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

Miss JAMES. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Miss James, as you know, you are the International Relations Officer, Office of Soviet Affairs, in the Department of State. You will be asked to testify about your actions with respect to Oswald concerning his attempt to return to the United States commencing in 1961, and his attempt to secure a visa for his wife, Marina.

You will also be questioned concerning your actions in connection with obtaining a waiver of Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for Marina, and what part, if any, you had in getting the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to reverse its initial decision to refuse such waiver. And I will also ask you a few questions on whether you have any knowledge concerning actions taken by the Department in 1959 when Oswald first attempted to renounce his American citizenship. Would you state for the record your present address?

Miss JAMES. 2501 Q Street NW.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you presently employed by the Federal Government?

Miss JAMES. I am employed by the Department of State in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs.

Mr. COLEMAN. What is your official title?

Miss JAMES. International Relations Officer.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you occupy that position from 1959 through to date?

Miss JAMES. I did; and do still.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have shown you, and I take it you are generally familiar with, the resolution of Congress which was adopted by Congress in connection with this Commission.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. To the best of your present knowledge, Miss James, could you tell me the first time you heard the name Oswald?

Miss JAMES. When I read a copy of the telegram from the American Embassy at Moscow, dated, as I recall, October 30, 1959, saying that Oswald had called at the Embassy and had attempted to renounce his American citizenship.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you accept my suggestion if I told you that that telegram was dated October 31 rather than the 30th?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why did you receive, obtain or see a copy of the telegram?

Miss JAMES. To begin with, it is my function in the Department of State in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, to handle matters relating to visas, issuance of visas and passport matters from the political angle only.

Mr. COLEMAN. For what area?

Miss JAMES. For the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, and it is part of our responsibility to know what goes on in the American Embassy in Moscow, and to see how it is handled in order that we can continue our function of advising, helping and assisting so it is routine for our office to get a copy of all these telegrams. Practically every telegram that goes back and forth between the Embassy in Moscow and the Department, both ways, comes through our office.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you do after you received the telegram, or saw a copy of the telegram?

Miss JAMES. I think we took no action at that time. We read it with a great deal of interest, as we do all of this type of case of a potential defector, and a person who is an American citizen who is renouncing American citizenship is very unusual. I don't recall any action except that I know it was a source, I mean the subject of unhappy conversation in the office, to see this man carrying on this type of action.

Mr. COLEMAN. You knew, didn't you, that within 2 or 3 days after the telegram was received, that the State Department sent a reply to the Embassy?

Miss JAMES. I must have seen it. I notice from the file copy I cleared it, but I don't remember that exact telegram.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 916, which is a copy of the telegram.

Miss JAMES. I recall this.

Mr. COLEMAN. You do recall it?

Miss JAMES. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall clearing the text of it?

Miss JAMES. I can't recall clearing the text of it, but I am perfectly sure that it was a natural thing for me to clear the text.

Mr. COLEMAN. They normally would clear it with your office?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. And so, therefore, when it is recorded in the lower left-hand corner that it had been cleared with you, you have no doubt of the accuracy of that statement?

Miss JAMES. I have no reason to doubt.

Mr. COLEMAN. The accuracy of that statement?

Miss JAMES. Because we, the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, try to get all offices in the Department to clear everything that is going to Moscow.

Mr. COLEMAN. After clearing the telegram, what was the next time that you had anything to do with the name Oswald, to the best of your knowledge?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, we had a copy of the report that came in from the Embassy telling more in detail about his appearance at the Embassy, and I also read it in the Washington papers.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as James Exhibit No. 1, and I show you--a reference sheet from Bernice Waterman to EE:SOV, Virginia James, under date of November 25, 1959, and I ask you do you remember seeing that reference sheet?

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Miss JAMES. Yes; I remember seeing it in this form [pointing to document in the file].

Mr. COLEMAN. That [James Exhibit No. 1] is a photostatic copy?

Miss JAMES. Yes; I mean the yellow [copy in the file] I recall.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know why you asked them to send you a copy of the telegram of November 2?

Miss JAMES. Again, it is in accordance with my continuing responsibility to follow these cases of visa and passport matters, and the only way we can be informed is to have all the incoming and outgoing correspondence.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you received that document which has been marked as James Exhibit No. 1, did you receive other material from Miss Waterman in connection with Oswald during the period November 2, 1959, to July 1961?

Miss JAMES. I don't recall having received anything from Miss Waterman, but I am sure that we would have had copies of anything coming back and forth, back from the Embassy on the case which we would have read.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, you would say that you or someone in your office should have received in the normal course every Embassy Despatch dealing with Oswald that went to the Department of State?

Miss JAMES. Routine. In fact, it would have been out of order if we hadn't gotten it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you early in December 1959 draft a letter for Mr. Davis' signature to Mr. Snyder dealing with the general question of how he should handle people who want to renounce their citizenship in the Soviet Union?

Miss JAMES. May I ask is that the letter in which we tried to give him helpful advice in handling cases of people who tried to renounce?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. Yes; and, as I recall--if it is the letter I think--it included several paragraphs that had been contributed by Mr. Hickey in the Passport Office. I am not sure that is the one. I would like to see it, please.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you a photostatic copy of a letter which has already been marked Commission Exhibit No. 915. It is from Nathaniel Davis to Richard E. Snyder, and it is under date of December 10, 1959, and it is State Department File Document No. XIII-40. I ask you whether you drafted that letter.

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I did. I am sure I did, in fact.

Mr. COLEMAN. You were replying to Mr. Snyder's letter to Mr. Boster, under date of October 28, 1959, which has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 914, is that correct?

Miss JAMES. As I read this letter, it didn't refer specifically to the Oswald case.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is because the Oswald case hadn't yet occurred.

Miss JAMES. Yes; I mean the effect of renouncing. I mean it had no relation; yes. He had called that in. Yes; I remember that. This isn't the one, though. You just handed me one by Mr. Snyder to Mr. Davis.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. Now, you asked me if I drafted it. I did draft it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Miss James, I take it that after you drafted the letter of December 10, Commission Exhibit No. 915, that from that time until some time in July 1961 that you had no knowledge of any actions with respect to Oswald.

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I did not, unless, as I say, there had been something in from Moscow in the ordinary routine way it would have gone across my desk.

Mr. COLEMAN. On July 11, 1961, or shortly thereafter, perhaps on July 12, the State Department received a Foreign Service Despatch dated July 11, 1961, from the American Embassy in Moscow, which has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 935. I show you a photostatic copy of Commission Exhibit No. 935 and ask you whether you have seen the original or a copy of that document?

Miss JAMES. Yes; I recall this.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after you saw that, what did you do?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, at that time, in 1961, through that period there were several persons in the Soviet Union who attempted or could be placed in the category of defectors. Webster was one, these various people that Mr. Snyder mentioned, and this was a very serious question. We discussed these matters in our office, and so when we saw this, we immediately were interested in it, and the most important thing to our mind was what answer is going to be made to it. So I think I called Miss Waterman and wanted to know what the Passport Office, what action they were going to take on the letter, and told her that SOV was interested and we wanted to clear it, as I recall.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you speak first to Mr. Boster about it?

Miss JAMES. Yes; I would have talked to Mr. Boster about this. He was interested in it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who is he?

Miss JAMES. He was officer in charge of our office at that time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was he your superior?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you tell Miss Waterman?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I would not have made any policy, any effort to judge what they would do, but I would only say we want to know what action you are going to take. That is the way I recall that I would handle it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you say that the Passport Office was the only office of the State Department whose communications to Moscow are not cleared in the SOV?

Miss JAMES. Miss Waterman says I did, and I wouldn't be surprised if I had said it. I know we all felt many times that we would like to have had more of the communications cleared with us, and I have no doubt that I must have said it if she said I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall her replying that she had never heard that----

Miss JAMES. Yes; I do remember at one time she said she didn't recall that this was a necessity, that they had to clear everything with us.

Mr. COLEMAN. But she did tell you that she would put a memorandum in the file to show that there was a special interest of the SOV in the reply to the Embassy Despatch of July 11?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was the special interest of the SOV?

Miss JAMES. Again, it is the same interest I outlined before, which is our responsibility of advising and knowing what is going on in the Embassy in Moscow. We are the political office. We are responsible for the Embassy, and we work together very closely, and we want to be sure that what they send in is answered, how it is answered, and it is our routine way of working to be sure that any despatch is answered, and especially one of this type where we are interested in the case because of the nature of the case.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you an operations memorandum from the Department of State to the American Embassy in Moscow, dated August 18, 1961, which has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 939, and I ask you if you saw a copy of that memorandum at or around the time when it was sent, namely in August 1961?

Miss JAMES. My reply is we should have seen it, but whether we did or not I don't think we did according to this file.

Mr. COLEMAN. You are saying there is nothing on the file which indicates that you got a copy.

Miss JAMES. Nothing on the file that indicates we had it.

Mr. COLEMAN. You said that----

Miss JAMES. But I think we must have known that they made this decision.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with the making of the decision?

Miss JAMES. No; I don't think I can say we had anything to do with the making of the decision. Those matters are legal decisions, and the Passport Office would make it on the basis of their information.

Mr. COLEMAN. You or your office never called, to the best of your knowledge----

Miss JAMES. To needle them on to make it? No.

Mr. COLEMAN. To make it one way or the other?

Miss JAMES. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me from your file the next document that you looked at after receiving a copy of the Embassy despatch of July 11, 1961?

Miss JAMES. I have some notes I think will help me better than the file which isn't in chronological order. I think it would have been the Embassy report asking for a security advisory opinion on Mrs. Oswald's visa application, which would be August 28, 1961, Commission No. X-26----

Mr. COLEMAN. You mean State Department number.

Miss JAMES. I say, State Department No. X-26(2).

Mr. COLEMAN. Can the record show that the Commission exhibit number on that document is Commission Exhibit No. 944.

Now, you say you received a copy of the August 28, 1961----

Miss JAMES. Yes, sir; I received that.

Mr. COLEMAN. Operations memorandum----

Miss JAMES. Twenty-five.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after you received a copy, what did you do?

Miss JAMES. I have no exact remembrance of that, but I can tell you what my practice is. In receiving a document like this, and we have many cases similar, I keep it some place handy, and I will check with the Visa Office and see what they are going to do about it, and are they going to--are they handling it. Then we follow through to see if she is passed by the various security offices. We are aware when these come in that a person has an exit visa. This time it was before the exit visa, I think. Yes--well, we were trying to get this case prepared so it wouldn't be held up in Moscow because of investigations that might be delayed on this side.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why would you do that?

Miss JAMES. Only because it is our regular practice to expedite these matters.

Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't that depend upon whether the case was meritorious or not?

Miss JAMES. Yes; but I mean as a general thing we would expedite, hoping it would be expedited until it its turned down. Then if it is turned down, that is the end of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. What you are saying is that SOV just wants to make sure that all the paperwork gets done, that you are really not making the decisions but you don't want any decision held up on the ground that the papers aren't there, but you have no particular interest which way the decision would be made?

Miss JAMES. Yes; we have an interest in that. We know from our policy what we think is good for the U.S. Government, and we would hope that cases are handled in that framework.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you say that there was a decision in the Oswald case that the best thing for the United States was to get Oswald out of Moscow, Russia, and back to the United States, even if he had renounced his citizenship?

Miss JAMES. I can't go on that because that is a supposition, but on the basis of the case we felt that it was better for the U.S. Government to bring Oswald back.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who made that decision?

Miss JAMES. Again, that is our general policy. When we received this OMV asking for an advisory opinion on Mrs. Oswald's visa application, we already knew that the Passport Office had approved her husband's citizenship.

Mr. COLEMAN. So you say, therefore, that once it was clear that Oswald was still an American citizen, that you felt it was to the interests of the United States?

Miss JAMES. Of the United States?

Mr. COLEMAN. To get him out of Russia?

Miss JAMES. To get him out of the Soviet Union, and also to bring his family.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, could you look in file No. VIII of the State Department, Document No. 21. Is that a telegram?

Miss JAMES. No; that is a wire.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you read what it says? Will you describe to whom it is sent and tell me what it means?

Miss JAMES. It says, it is addressed to the American Embassy in Moscow and refers to this request for an advisory opinion----

Mr. COLEMAN. It has typed thereon: SOV, Miss James. You signed it, didn't you?

Miss JAMES. No; this was the Visa Office telegram, and in fact I didn't initial that telegram. It has my name on it, but Mr. Owen initialed it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Does it have your name?

Miss JAMES. It has my name typed on it, but Mr. Owen initialed it.

Mr. COLEMAN. On October 3, 1961, a cable was sent to the Embassy in Moscow having something to do with Oswald. Would you indicate for the record what the cable said?

Miss JAMES. As I understand it, the cable authorized the American Embassy in Moscow to issue a visa to Mrs. Oswald if when she appeared there was nothing against her otherwise derogatory, and the cable also indicated that her membership in the Trade Union would not affect the issuance of a visa, that such membership did not indicate that she was a Communist.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, the cable or the copy that I have seen indicates that it was typed by you, at least your name appears on it.

Miss JAMES. No; it was drafted by the Visa Office, drafted by V. Smith, typed by initials RLC, signed in the Visa Office by Frank L. Auerbach, and sent to the Soviet Desk, Office of Soviet Union Affairs, for clearance, typed "SOV Miss James" and in parentheses "(in substance)," and I apparently was out that day and it has Mr. Owen's initials on it, and there is another initial which I don't identify, but mine are not on that.

Mr. COLEMAN. But to the best of your recollection you never saw that or had anything to do with it?

Miss JAMES. Never saw that cable, but I was aware that they approved it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Had there been some discussion of the operation memorandum of August 28, 1961, Commission Exhibit No. 944, in your office as to whether Mrs. Marina Oswald was eligible for a nonquota immigrant visa?

Miss JAMES. I don't recall any special detailed discussion, except that this was a case, an unusual case, which we would be interested in following.

Mr. COLEMAN. Were you the one in the office who had the initial contact with the INS, in connection with the waiver of section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. As I recall, I had no contact with INS at that time. I never remember discussing these cases directly with INS. Our conversations were all with the Visa Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. You dealt directly with the Visa Office?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is Mr. Crump in your office?

Miss JAMES. I was going to say I dealt with Mr. Crump in the Visa Office at that time.

Mr. COLEMAN. But he is not in your office?

Miss JAMES. No; he was in the Visa Office, now assigned abroad.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that the Visa Office had made a request of INS to get it to, (1) determine whether Mrs. Oswald was eligible to come into the country, and, (2) whether it would waive the section 243(g) provision? I just asked you, Miss James, what you knew. When was the first time you knew that----

Miss JAMES. When Mr. Crump told me that INS had approved the petition of the husband but had not approved the request for waiver of section No. 243(g).

Mr. COLEMAN. Prior to that time, you had nothing to do with the visa request or the section 243(g) waiver?

Miss JAMES. No; I don't recall having anything to do with it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall----

Miss JAMES. As I recall, it was a surprise to me that it was refused.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you had nothing to do with the first petition?

Miss JAMES. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. You weren't the one that sent the petition from the Department of State to INS?

Miss JAMES. No; that is routine visa work.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall when Mr. Crump informed you that INS had refused to grant the waiver under section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. I don't recall the date. I do recall his informing me that they had had this information from INS that the petition was approved, but that the section 243(g) waiver was not approved and, therefore, it looked as though Mrs. Oswald would not be able to come directly to the United States. If she came at all she would have to go via another country that did not have this sanction against it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you explain for the record just what the sanction is under section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. Yes; the sanction is that the United States will not issue an immigration visa to a citizen of a country which refuses to accept a deportee from the United States based on the reasoning that if you can't deport to that country, if a person turns out to be an unsatisfactory immigrant, you are stuck with that immigrant.

Mr. COLEMAN. Does that mean that the person cannot come into the United States?

Miss JAMES. No; it means that Mrs. Oswald could have gone to Belgium, France, England, any other country that accepts deportees, and applied for an immigration visa and have been admitted without any question on a section 243(g) waiver.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked as James Exhibit No. 2 a memorandum from Robert I. Owen to John E. Crump, under date of March 16, 1962, and the subject of the memorandum is: "Operation of sanctions imposed by Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in case of Mrs. Marina N. Oswald."

(The document referred to was marked James Deposition Exhibit No. 2, for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you prepare the original of that memorandum.

Miss JAMES. Yes; I prepared it under Mr. Owen's supervision.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall Mr. Owen asking you to prepare it?

Miss JAMES. This was my responsibility, this case, but I had long discussions with Mr. Owen on the case as to how we should proceed with it before I wrote the memorandum.

Mr. COLEMAN. And Mr. Owen told you, "Why don't you draft a memorandum for Mr. Crump explaining to him the situation?"

Miss JAMES. We came to agreement in a talk as to how to handle the case, and I drafted the memorandum which would go to Mr. Crump because he was the officer in the Visa Office handling the case.

Mr. COLEMAN. In the third paragraph of the memorandum it is stated that: "SOV believes it is in the interest of the U.S. to get Lee Harvey Oswald and his family out of the Soviet Union and on their way to this country soon. An unstable character, whose actions are entirely unpredictable, Oswald may well refuse to leave the USSR or subsequently attempt to return there if we should make it impossible for him to be accompanied from Moscow by his wife and child."

Did you draft that?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was this language that Mr. Owen had discussed with you and told you to put in the memorandum?

Miss JAMES. My way of working is to draft a memorandum in rough draft. I give it to Mr. Owen. He and I--he might well have put in some few words. I don't know just where he would have changed it or whether he did change it. I can't say. It is impossible to say at this time unless I had the original draft, but I know he was in agreement with this.

Mr. COLEMAN. Were you the one that brought up the point that Oswald was an unstable character, or was that something Mr. Owen contributed?

Miss JAMES. I believe the Department--I will say our office was sure that he was an unstable character by the very fact that he had tried to renounce his American citizenship, and then come--by the fact he had tried to renounce his American citizenship, makes him an unstable character to me.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was it your thought that once he got out of Russia and back into the United States, that we wouldn't let him go back again?

Miss JAMES. I think we would have--I would have, based on my work in the office, I would have hoped we would have done everything to keep him from going back. Whether the passport regulations would have made this possible, I don't know.

Mr. COLEMAN. You never wrote a memorandum to the Passport Office, though?

Miss JAMES. No; that if he applies again, don't let him go back--no; we did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why didn't you do that in the light of the fact----

Miss JAMES. Because there was no reason at this time. He was in the Soviet Union trying to get out, and it would not have occurred to me to predict that 5 years from now he might want to go back and we should put a stop on his passport. In fact, I don't ever recall taking such action.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you drafted this memorandum, did you send the telegram to the Embassy which you suggest in the last paragraph should be sent?

Miss JAMES. I did not send any telegram as far as I know. If it had been sent, it would have been sent by the Visa Office on the basis of our recommendation. I would assume if they agreed to this memorandum, they sent it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was the memorandum which I have marked as James Exhibit No. 2 in any way motivated or written as a result of the telegram dated March 15, 1962, which you received from the Embassy in Moscow, which says: "Please advise when decision on petition in 243(g) waiver Lee Oswald wife may be expected," which I have marked as James Exhibit No. 3 and am showing you a copy of it.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Miss JAMES. May I have you repeat that question again, please?

Mr. COLEMAN. I am asking you was the memorandum of March 16, 1962, drafted by you, which we have marked as James Exhibit No. 2, in any way motivated by the telegram from the Embassy dated March 15, which I have marked as James Exhibit No. 3? It came out of State Department file IV-13.

Miss JAMES. My memory is that it was not motivated in entirety, although undoubtedly the telegram brought the case to our attention. As I recall in those days or weeks preceding March 16, I had been in conversation with Mr. Crump and Mr. Owen and I had been discussing the case, and I cannot be sure, but I believe that we would have had this in our mind before the telegram came in. But undoubtedly the telegram would make us expedite the writing of this memorandum.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you wrote the memorandum of March 16, 1961, did you draft the letter which Mr. Crump sent to INS, asking it to reconsider its original decision that it would not waive section 243(g)?

Miss JAMES. May I see a copy of that letter? You asked me if I drafted it?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. No; I did not draft it, but I believe some of the reasoning in the letter was based on the memorandum from SOV.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can you tell me who drafted it?

Miss JAMES. Mr. Crump has his initials on the file copy. Again, I didn't clear that outgoing letter. Mr. Owen cleared it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft a memorandum from Mr. Hale to Mr. Cieplinski, dated March 20, 1962, or did Mr. Crump draft that?

Miss JAMES. Mr. Crump drafted that.

Mr. COLEMAN. March 20, 1962.

Miss JAMES. We have March 23 from Hale to Cieplinski. It was drafted on the 20th, apparently sent on the 23d.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark as James Exhibit No. 3-A a memorandum from Mr. Hale to Mr. Cieplinski in re immigrant visa of Mrs. Marina H. Oswald, and ask you whether you have seen a copy of that document.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. You got a copy, but you didn't draft it?

Miss JAMES. No; you said, did I see a copy of it, I thought.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; and is that the same document that you described as the memorandum dated March 23?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. After the memorandum----

Miss JAMES. May I have a moment, please, to read this letter that they sent to the INS?

Mr. COLEMAN. Sure.

Miss JAMES. Which I don't remember seeing before.

Mr. COLEMAN. You didn't draft that letter?

Miss JAMES. No. Thank you.

Mr. COLEMAN. You say you didn't draft that?

Miss JAMES. No; it was drafted in the Visa Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you knew that it had gone out, I take it?

Miss JAMES. I received a copy of it, so, therefore, I knew that they had sent this to the head of the Special Consular Administration at that time, SCA.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now after----

Miss JAMES. Special Consular Affairs, I beg your pardon.

Mr. COLEMAN. After that letter was sent out, did you have occasion to call INS, and ask them to find out what the status of the letter was?

Miss JAMES. To the best of my memory I never called INS on this case.

Mr. COLEMAN. My problem is I have a letter here which is from Robinson to Michael Cieplinski, and it says at the bottom: "5-29-62 Miss James SOV called to say she had received letter from Mr. Oswald's mother saying he had written he had no money and was unable to travel."

Miss JAMES. I would have called the Visa Office on that. That doesn't mean I called INS.

Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, I see. All your calls were to the Visa Office?

Miss JAMES. Yes; in fact, I think I am clear that in saying that there is a policy that all approaches to INS are through the Visa Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark as James Exhibit No. 4 a copy of a letter from Robert H. Robinson to Mr. Michael Cieplinski, dated May 9, 1962, and I ask you whether you have seen a copy of that letter.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 4 for identification.)

Miss JAMES. I don't recall having seen it at the time. I do recall reading it in the file prior to my coming to this meeting.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall making the call that they at the bottom said you made?

Miss JAMES. I am sure that I did if Mr. Crump put his initials on it. I don't remember it. I do remember the letter from Mr. Oswald's mother. In fact, I had some telephone calls from her, also.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall receiving a copy of a telegram from the Embassy at Moscow, which telegram is dated May 4, 1962, which I have marked as James Exhibit No. 5?

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 5 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Have you seen that telegram?

Miss JAMES. An information copy came to EUR, which is European Bureau, and I am sure that that means that an information copy came on down to the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, and I would have seen it, and that is why I called to inquire about the case.

Mr. COLEMAN. And there is a note on there that on May 8, 1962, you called to inquire about the case and apparently you were told that the waiver had been granted.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know why you made the call?

Miss JAMES. Well, I would have considered, reading it today, that this is an urgent telegram from the Embassy in Moscow wanting some action from the Department, and I would have made the call to try to get done what the Embassy was pleading for, action one way or the other on this case.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you clear this with anybody else within the office?

Miss JAMES. There is nothing to clear on this, only that I called to find out--I might well have talked to Mr. Owen about this telegram. I am sure he saw it. The general routing is for telegrams to go through the officer in charge to the person who handles the specific subject, but it has been a part of my duty to have called them to----

Mr. COLEMAN. And you say that as a result of getting the telegram from Moscow, that you without consulting with anybody else in the office would call and find out the status?

Miss JAMES. I wouldn't have to have any further instruction on that telegram.

Mr. COLEMAN. I would then like to show you a document which has been marked as Commission--James Exhibit No. 7 which is a telegram to the American Embassy in Moscow, dated May 8, 1962, and ask you whether you sent that telegram.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 7 for identification.)

Miss JAMES. That telegram was sent by the Visa Office of the Department, and was apparently cleared by me telephonically and initialed by Mr. Crump as having cleared with me over the telephone.

Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, I see, Mr. Crump is in the Visa Office?

Miss JAMES. Yes; now this gives me a lead to another paper back there, where I said I had not seen it. It had Mr. Owen's initials or some initials, which I couldn't identify.

I now identify those initials as Mr. Crump's initials, and, after that, it said Miss James, in substance. I now realize that he had probably telephoned to me, cleared it in substance, initialed it, sent it up to SOV, and Mr. Owen put his initials on it, and I never had my initials on it for that reason.

Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you say that this telegram which I have marked as James Exhibit No. 7, was actually drafted by Mr. Crump as a result of Mr. Crump's office finding out that the waiver had been granted?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. That they called you, told you what they were going to do, and you said, "Fine," and that is how your name got on the telegram?

Miss JAMES. That is why my name is there and Mr. Crump's initials above it show that he was the officer who cleared it with me.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, I take it in the document that I have marked as James Exhibit No. 8, which is a telegram dated March 20, 1962, in which the Embassy at Moscow was instructed to "withhold action on Department's OMV 61" because the sanction is being reconsidered. That telegram also was not drafted by you, and the only reason why your name appears on it is that it was cleared with you over the telephone.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 8 for identification.)

Miss JAMES. Yes; and, again, although that was cleared, those are my initials, VHJ, that is my initials. It was apparently cleared over the phone telephonically and also sent it up to us and Mr. Owen and I each initialed it, VHJ, and O for Owen.

Mr. COLEMAN. But the fact that your name appeared on the telegrams doesn't mean you wrote them?

Miss JAMES. No; you see, the way the telegrams are in the State Department, that first line says drafted by, and then underneath is clearances, and those offices are clearing offices.

Mr. COLEMAN. And could you identify for me a letter which I have marked James Exhibit No. 6, which is a letter from Michael Cieplinski to Mr. Farrell, dated March 27, 1962. I ask you whether that is a copy of the letter which was sent forward to the Immigration Service asking them to reconsider the waiver?

Miss JAMES. This exhibit is a photostatic copy of the file copy which is in the file I am examining, and it is an exact copy. I did not clear it.

Mr. COLEMAN. As far as you know, that is a copy of the letter?

Miss JAMES. An exact copy; yes. I see the initials are carried through. Everything is exactly the way the file copy is, the Department's file copy.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as James Exhibit No. 9 a transmittal slip under date of March 16, 1962, and it bears the signature which purports to be Virginia H. James, and I ask you whether that is your signature that appears thereon.

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, what occasioned your sending this transmittal slip to the American Embassy and the attachment?

Miss JAMES. We wanted the Embassy in Moscow to know what we were doing on the despatches and telegrams that they sent in, and that we were in agreement with their recommendation, that we were making these recommendations to the Visa Office, and this would more or less give them some assurance that their recommendations were in harmony with our thinking. This is the way we work, very closely with the Embassy in Moscow.

When we are in harmony with what they do, we write memos through the Department. We frequently send memos to them so they say, "Well, we have made the right recommendation. The Political Office is supporting us and now we wait for the other offices in the Department."

Mr. COLEMAN. Were you aware, did you know, or did you have anything to do with suggesting to the Embassy that they should try to send Mrs. Marina Oswald into the country by her first going to Brussels?

Miss JAMES. No; except that is a regular procedure that we use, we call it third country procedure. The immigrant can't come directly to the United States. They do go to another country.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you were not the one to suggest it in the Oswald case?

Miss JAMES. No; it is established procedure, though. It would not be unusual for any officer in the Visa Office to think of that.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you didn't suggest it?

Miss JAMES. No; I did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, when Mr. Oswald came into the country--when Oswald left Moscow, I take it you were informed the day he left or the day after he left, and did you receive a copy of the telegram from Moscow to the State Department, dated May 31?

Miss JAMES. Yes; our office received it, SOV.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked that as James Exhibit No. 10.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 10, for identification.)

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you then, after he got back, drafted a letter to Oswald's mother?

Miss JAMES. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark that as James Exhibit No. 11.

(The document referred to was marked James Exhibit No. 11 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. This is in file IV, a copy of it. I show you a copy of a letter from Robert I. Owen to Mrs. Oswald, under date of June 7, 1962, and ask you whether that is the letter.

Miss JAMES. Yes; I drafted that letter. I recall it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, in connection with the Oswald case, was there any instance where you wanted to do one thing but somebody told you no, something else would have to be done?

Miss JAMES. In the Oswald case?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. We worked in harmony on these cases. The Visa Office is very well--harmonize with SOV policy on these cases. There is no bickering or unpleasantness or somebody pulling one way or the other. We seem to go along with them. Every time one comes up they go along in the regular way based upon established policy.

Mr. COLEMAN. There was no instance where you said, "I think that this ought to be done" and somebody said, "I don't care what you think, this is the way it should be done."

Miss JAMES. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. In all these cases you discussed the problem with the Visa Office and you reached a mutual agreement. You never had a dispute?

Miss JAMES. I recall no such feeling or reactions.

Mr. COLEMAN. You had indicated earlier, Miss James, that there was a general policy in your office to see that husbands and wives were not separated. Would you want to describe for the record just what that policy was?

Miss JAMES. May I go back historically?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Miss JAMES. Since the time we first recognized the Soviet Union, we have had these cases of separated families, spouses, husbands and wives and children and other relatives who by some reason or another, mostly because of the operation of Communist policy, have become separated from their American citizen families. And from the time we first recognized the Soviets, this has been a problem there. Files are filled with notes to the Soviet Government asking them to please issue exit visas to permit certain relatives to join families in the United States. This has gone on, and I remember hearing an officer say that if the result of recognizing the Soviet Union was for no other reason than to assist these people this was a very powerful reason. During World War II no visas were issued and nobody traveled and this died. Right after the war we again had the problem of people trying to get their relatives out, and the number was greatly increased by Russia taking over those various countries, Lithuania, Estonia, parts of Poland, parts of Czechoslovakia, Rumania went into the Soviet Union, and we had the number greatly enlarged.

Then, in addition to that, because of war operations, American citizens were stationed in the Soviet Union and they had married Soviet women, and so we had pressing cases of correspondents. American correspondents, a few people assigned to the Embassy in Moscow who married Soviet wives, probably about 15 or 16 who were very, what we would call, worthy cases of good marriages and good people who had made a good marriage with women we thought were good people, and they have since made good American citizens.

So in 1953, when Stalin died, we had the first break, and they issued the visas on this group. And since then we have gone forward with this. We saw we had a break and so we have been pressing the Soviet Government to issue visas to clear this problem up.

In 1959 when Mr. Nixon went there, he was importuned by relatives to help to get their relatives out, I mean American citizens, and he took a list of about 80 people, and he agreed to take up these cases, and we added a number of worthy cases, and Mr. Khrushchev said, "I want to clear up this problem"--present it through channels.

Since then, we have presented it through channels and we have succeeded in getting about 800 relatives of American citizens out. And the defector's wife falls into that pattern, because while we are not sympathetic with these people we know that if we refuse to grant U.S. visas to a wife of an American citizen, the Soviet Government can immediately say, "Well, we grant visas to these people, exit visas. Then you don't allow them to go to the United States. What does this mean?"

So that was the basis of our whole policy with Marina Oswald, that we felt that we didn't want to put the Embassy in a position of fighting for exit visas for relatives, and then when they issue you say, "Well, this is not quite the kind we want."

Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you say that once the Passport Office made the decision that Oswald was still an American citizen, then your policy that you don't want to separate husbands and wives came into play, and if the Soviet Union is willing to let both of them out, that we will let them come in?

Miss JAMES. That is the basic policy. That was the whole interest in our Office, the Embassy in Moscow's primary interest there as far as Marina Oswald was concerned, and her child.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have no further questions.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES L. RITCHIE

The testimony of James L. Ritchie was taken at 12:20 p.m., on June 17, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. William T. Coleman, Jr., and W. David Slawson, assistant counsel of the President's Commission, Thomas Ehrlich, Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser, Department of State, and Carroll H. Seeley, Jr., were present.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Ritchie, will you state your full name?

Mr. RITCHIE. James L. Ritchie.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. RITCHIE. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Please state your name and address.

Mr. RITCHIE. James L. Ritchie, 5010 North 13th Street, Arlington, Va.

Mr. COLEMAN. Our information is, sir, that some time around October 22, 1963, you had occasion to look at the Oswald file----

Mr. RITCHIE. I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. After the Department received a telegram from the CIA indicating that Oswald had made an inquiry at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City, and that you took certain action as a result of looking at the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. And that is what we want to ask you about, sir. But before I do that, let me ask you a few preliminary questions.

Mr. RITCHIE. Certainly.

Mr. COLEMAN. You have given your address, is that correct?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Where are you presently working?

Mr. RITCHIE. State Department Passport Office, Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. And what is your position?

Mr. RITCHIE. Attorney advisor.

Mr. COLEMAN. And how long have you been in that capacity?

Mr. RITCHIE. Nine or ten years.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you a member of the Bar?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes; District of Columbia.

Mr. COLEMAN. When was the first time you ever heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. RITCHIE. October 22, 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. And would you indicate what occasioned your hearing the name?

Mr. RITCHIE. The Security Division transmitted a telegram from the CIA marked Secret, to the Passport Office. It was received in the Legal Division October 16, and it had been marked "Mr. Anderson, pull previous" which means get the file, and it was then handed to me October 21, approximately.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who handed it to you?

Mr. RITCHIE. I don't know. It was placed on my desk. I imagine the file----

Mr. COLEMAN. Prior to that time, you hadn't called for the file? You knew nothing about the case?

Mr. RITCHIE. No; I knew nothing about it. It had been placed on my desk for review. I read the telegram, noted that copies had been sent to SCA, that is the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, CMA, Mexico, the Soviet desk, and the press section of RAR.

Mr. SEELEY. American Republics Political Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. Then what did you do after you got the telegram?

Mr. RITCHIE. I reviewed the entire file.

Mr. COLEMAN. That means you read every document in the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. And do you have any idea how long it took you?

Mr. RITCHIE. Not more than a half hour.

Mr. COLEMAN. And then what did you do after you read or reviewed the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. I don't want to say I read every item. I read the majority.

Mr. COLEMAN. As a lawyer?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes; I glanced over it.

Mr. COLEMAN. You read what you felt was relevant?

Mr. RITCHIE. Relevant.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you did thumb through every document?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you then do?

Mr. RITCHIE. I made a judgment there was no passport action to be taken, and marked the file to be filed.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you make a written memorandum?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; just put "file" on it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you discuss it with Mr. Seeley or anyone else?

Mr. RITCHIE. I took the file to Mr. Seeley.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you summarize for him what was in the file?

Mr. RITCHIE. No; I did not. I don't know what my exact words were to him. I must have said, "Look at this."

Mr. COLEMAN. Didn't you say to him, "This guy was a defector"?

Mr. RITCHIE. I don't recall what I said to him, back in October. I know I said something to him. I directed his attention to it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Then did he discuss it with you?

Mr. RITCHIE. No.

Mr. COLEMAN. You put the file on his desk and you didn't have anything to do with it?

Mr. RITCHIE. That is right.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why did you put it on his desk?

Mr. RITCHIE. He was in charge of the section, and I just brought it to him for his attention.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you do that with every file that you are asked to review?

Mr. RITCHIE. Those files that I thought should be brought to his attention; yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, you felt that this file was other than just the routine file that you would look at and put back?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't you tell Mr. Seeley something as to why you thought it was other than routine?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; I just said "Look at it." I presume I just directed his attention to the file, and that he should look at it.

Mr. COLEMAN. And then you had no more discussion with him?

Mr. RITCHIE. None that I can recall.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you say anything to him, like for example, "This guy the last time he was abroad tried to, or at least threatened that he would give to the Soviets whatever he had learned in the Marine Corps with reference to our radar information"?

Mr. RITCHIE. I have no recollection of my conversation with Mr. Seeley. All I know is my usual procedure is I review a case. If there is no passport action to be taken, I place it, mark it "file" and place it in the box to go to file.

Mr. COLEMAN. Without Mr. Seeley taking a look at it?

Mr. RITCHIE. Without Mr. Seeley ever seeing it.

Mr. COLEMAN. And this one you felt----

Mr. RITCHIE. And this one I felt he should see.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you didn't give him any memorandum----

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Or point out what he should look at?

Mr. RITCHIE. I may have directed his attention to the case, but I have no independent recollection of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Then after October 22, 1963, you had no contact with Oswald, the file or anything else?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; let me change that. I reviewed the file before I came here. I have reviewed the file.

Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, sure.

That is all. Thank you, sir.

TESTIMONY OF CARROLL HAMILTON SEELEY, JR.

The testimony of Carroll Hamilton Seeley, Jr., was taken at 11 a.m., on June 17, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. William T. Coleman, Jr., and W. David Slawson, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Thomas Ehrlich, Esq., Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser, Department of State, and James L. Ritchie, were present.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you state your full name, please, sir?

Mr. SEELEY. Carroll Hamilton Seeley, Jr.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you raise your right hand, please?

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give in this deposition is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SEELEY. I do.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I would like to state that you have been called and asked to give a deposition because in looking through certain files supplied us by the State Department, there are indications that you had something to do with one or more of the documents in the file, and we also want to ask you concerning what you did after you received information that a person named Lee Harvey Oswald was at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City some time around the first of October. As we understand it you received such notice on or about the 16th of October.

Mr. SEELEY. I did see the notice. I think that I saw that notice on the 22d, on October 22, 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. Those are the two subjects that we are going to question you about.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you state your address for the record?

Mr. SEELEY. My address is 6944 Nashville Road, Lanham, Md.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you familiar with the congressional resolution in re this Commission?

Mr. SEELEY. I am familiar with the newspaper accounts.

Mr. COLEMAN. You are familiar with the resolution?

Mr. SEELEY. I am familiar with it to the extent that I have read in the newspapers that there is a Commission set up to investigate the assassination.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you state whether you are presently employed by the Federal Government?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I am. I am employed with the Department of State.

Mr. COLEMAN. What is your position with the State Department?

Mr. SEELEY. I am Assistant Chief of the Legal Division of the Passport Office of the Department of State.

Mr. COLEMAN. Who is your immediate superior?

Mr. SEELEY. Robert D. Johnson, chief counsel.

Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you had that position?

Mr. SEELEY. I have been in that position since approximately February 1962.

Mr. COLEMAN. Prior to February 1962, what was your position?

Mr. SEELEY. I was Chief of the Security Branch of the Legal Division of the Passport Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. How long did you have that job?

Mr. SEELEY. I had held that job since approximately 1957.

Mr. COLEMAN. As assistant to Mr. Johnson----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. What are your duties?

Mr. SEELEY. My duties are mainly supervisory and to review material that has been prepared in the Passport Office Legal Division, and on some occasions to clear information or material that has been prepared in other divisions of the Passport Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it you are a lawyer?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you a member of the Bar?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. COLEMAN. Of what State or States?

Mr. SEELEY. I am a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia.

Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you been with the Department of State?

Mr. SEELEY. I have been with the Department of State since 1954.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me the first time you heard, read or saw the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, Mr. Coleman, I don't have an independent recollection of that. I feel that probably the name first appears in the file on March 28, 1961.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, by consulting the file, to refresh your recollection, you think that the first time you heard or saw the name Lee Harvey Oswald was in March 1961?

Mr. SEELEY. It is possible, it may have been that I had heard of it before, though, because he did have some publicity, and I usually follow those items, but I don't have any recollection of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. What happened in March 1961, that occasioned your knowing or hearing the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. May I look at the file?

Mr. COLEMAN. Certainly.

I take it, sir, you are looking at the file which is the file of the passport--the original passport file of the State Department.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is the file that has been given State Department file No. X, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

The first time my name appears in the file is on a form DS-10, which is a reference slip, and it is addressed to Mr. Cacciatore in PT-F, and to Mr. Seeley, in PT-LS.

It requests to know insofar as I am concerned, should instruction be classified confidential.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I will mark for the purposes of this deposition a document as S-1, meaning Seeley Exhibit No. 1, which is the State Department document which already has been marked by the State Department as X-45.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Who is the reference slip dated March 28, 1961, from?

Mr. SEELEY. Mr. Kupiec.

Mr. COLEMAN. To two persons, and you are one of the two persons, Mr. Seeley, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I show you the document which has been marked as S-1 and ask you is that a copy of the document you referred to?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that you got this because someone asked whether the instructions should be classified as confidential.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. I don't have an independent recollection of this, but I assume that it is referring to this instruction which is State Department's document X-47, which had been classified as Official Only.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I show you a document which has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 969, and ask you whether these were the instructions that were attached to S-1.

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I am able to determine, I don't have an independent recollection, but looking at the formation of the file and the fact that this was not sent, and I know that there was another one that was sent, I believe it is the same document.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you were asked as to whether it should be classified as confidential?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. What, if anything, did you do?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't know. I have no recollection of what action I took on that particular aspect of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. You don't recall ever talking to Miss Waterman or anyone else in the Department as to what form the proposed instruction should take?

Mr. SEELEY. No. I don't know whether I even know Miss Waterman. I know Mr. Kupiec, and I probably know Miss Waterman, but I don't have recollection of what she looks like.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Kupiec as to what form the instruction should take?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir. This instruction was drafted by Miss Waterman, and it was sent up for clearance to PTL, Mr. Johnson. I presume that when it went to either Mr. Cacciatore or Mr. Kupiec, I put my name on for the clearance procedure, in particular with regard to whether the thing should have been classified, have a higher classification than it did.

Mr. COLEMAN. You don't have any independent recollection of discussing Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Or whether the instruction should have been in a different form?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me the next occasion where you had anything to do with Oswald, or the file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next occasion, I think, relates to document X-43.

Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as S-2 a memorandum from Robert D. Johnson to Mr. John T. White, under date of March 31, 1961, which in the State Department files has been marked as X-43.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Is that the document referred to?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, sir, did you draft S-2?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can you tell me the circumstances surrounding your drafting S-2?

Mr. SEELEY. This particular item I do have a recollection of because there was a discussion between Mr. Johnson and myself concerning the propriety of sending the passport through the mail as had been proposed.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was that discussion?

Mr. SEELEY. We were opposed to this action on several grounds.

Mr. COLEMAN. What were they?

Mr. SEELEY. One was the fact that I think we already had information that Mrs. Oswald, the mother, had not been able to get in touch with her son.

Mr. COLEMAN. You are talking about Oswald's mother?

Mr. SEELEY. The mother; yes. And we felt that the mails shouldn't be trusted for a U.S. passport which we know has a value outside the United States.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, you also indicated in the memorandum that, "We should not be bound by the opinion he expressed in paragraph 2 of his letter set out in Moscow Despatch No. 985 of February 28, 1961."

Mr. SEELEY. May I get that? It is No. 585. The paragraph that we are referring to reads: "I desire to return to the United States, that is if we could come to some agreement concerning the dropping of any legal proceedings against me. If so, then I would be free to ask the Russian authorities to allow me to leave. If I could show them my American passport, I am of the opinion they would give me an exit visa."

The item in the memorandum concerns itself mainly with his request for agreement concerning the dropping of any legal proceedings against him.

Mr. COLEMAN. You indicated that the Department ought not to give such agreement.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Johnson with respect to this March 31, 1961, memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. I don't have a complete recollection of it, but I do know that I did discuss this particular item, particularly the mailing of the passport, with Mr. Johnson.

Mr. COLEMAN. And do you recall what Mr. Johnson said?

Mr. SEELEY. I think Mr. Johnson was the one that instructed me to draft this so that we would not send this through the mail, so that the passport would not be sent through the mail.

Mr. COLEMAN. After the memorandum of March 31, 1961, and this discussion you had with Mr. Johnson, what did you do?

Mr. SEELEY. I am sorry?

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft the instructions in the form that they actually went forward?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with that?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; except I think there is a clearance, but I am not sure about that. I think we cleared it.

Mr. COLEMAN. And the instructions that actually went forward did indicate that they ought not to return the passport by mail?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was the date of that instruction?

Mr. SEELEY. The instruction that went forward?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. SEELEY. That was AE-173, of April 13, 1961. It is Department X-38.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will the record show that that document has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 971 before the Commission. You say that you read Commission Exhibit No. 971 and cleared it before it went forward?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Exhibit No. 971 which you referred to as X-38 shows on the left-hand side that there is a notation that a copy of the instructions was sent to the CIA.

Mr. SEELEY. Was furnished to the CIA.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was that done at the same time the instructions went forward?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with sending it to the CIA?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have a recollection on this. I would imagine what happened is that there was a request by the CIA for a copy of this, and that I authorized them to be furnished a copy on October 5, 1961.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it you actually read the instructions which went forward on April 13, 1961.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. My initials are at the bottom.

Mr. COLEMAN. The fact that your initials are at the bottom indicates that you approved them?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was the next occasion on which you had anything to do with the Oswald file or heard the name Oswald?

Mr. SEELEY. I will have to check the file. The next occasion where the record shows that I had something to do with the Oswald file concerns Item X-31. It is a Department of State instruction, W-7, dated July 11, 1961, drafted by Mrs. Waterman, and I cleared this particular instruction.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can we note for the record that that instruction has already been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 975?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. You cleared those instructions prior to the time you received word from Mr. Snyder in the Embassy in Moscow that Oswald had appeared at the Embassy on July 8, 10, or 11?

Mr. SEELEY. Of 1961?

Mr. COLEMAN. 1961.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; that is true. I wasn't sure of the time element in there, but that is true. This went out the same day, apparently, that the instruction was drafted and was sent in, or the despatch was drafted and sent in.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, you took that action or you approved that action prior to the time that you knew that Oswald had appeared at the Embassy in Moscow?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it a fair reading of the July 11, 1961, instructions which you approved, that you indicated that Oswald could be given back his passport?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I don't think so. I call your attention to paragraph 5 of the despatch; "It is noted that the Embassy intends to seek the Department's prior advice before granting Mr. Oswald documentation as a United States citizen upon any application he may submit."

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, as of this time it was still open as far as the Department was concerned in Washington whether Oswald had renounced his citizenship and was entitled to a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir. I don't think that the adjudicative proceeding had been completed.

Mr. COLEMAN. When was the adjudicative process completed so far as you were concerned, that the Passport Office in Washington determined that in its opinion, that Mr. Oswald was still a citizen?

Mr. SEELEY. I would say that the operations memorandum of August 18, 1961, from the Department of State to the American Embassy in Moscow which refers to the Embassy Despatch No. 29, the passport renewal application and the questionnaire.

Mr. COLEMAN. You would say that as of that date the Passport Office determined that Oswald was still a citizen?

Mr. SEELEY. I would say at that date that we concurred in the conclusion of the Embassy that he had not expatriated--that we had no information or evidence that he had expatriated himself.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with this decision?

Mr. SEELEY. Not the citizenship decision; no, sir. I had nothing to do with that.

Mr. COLEMAN. You weren't consulted prior to the time the decision was made?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you approve the operations memorandum of August 18?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. 1961; before it was sent forward?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I did. My initials are at the bottom there.

Mr. COLEMAN. If you had disapproved it, at least there would have been further discussion?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; there would have been.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, to that extent, you did have something to do with the decision?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, to that extent, there was no consultation. This was sent up for clearance, and insofar as the citizenship angle was concerned, I agreed with what they had done.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you call for and look at the file prior to the time you initialed the operations memorandum of August 18, 1961?

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume that I had the whole file. Mr. Ehrlich has suggested that I mention that I was not in the citizenship area at the time that I put my concurrence on this operations memorandum, and I was looking at it only from the aspect of my own area.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was your area?

Mr. SEELEY. I was in the Security Branch. I was Chief of the Security Branch of the Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you have to do with the decision?

Mr. SEELEY. In this particular case if you had objected, I am sure that there would have been further discussion on this particular case.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as Seeley Exhibit No. 3--instead of "S" I think we had better call these Seeley exhibits, the operations memorandum dated August 18, 1961, from the Department of State to the American Embassy.

Mr. SEELEY. Fine, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. That is the document that you referred to as X-27, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. X-27, that is correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. If you had felt that there was evidence in the file that Oswald had renounced his citizenship, I take it you would not have approved this memorandum, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I would not have.

Mr. COLEMAN. You would not have approved it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I would not have approved it.

Mr. COLEMAN. There would have been further discussions?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, as far as you were concerned in reviewing the file and what you knew and looking over it, what Miss Waterman had said and what Mr. Snyder had said, that your decision was that you saw no reason why you would disagree with the decision?

Mr. SEELEY. I was in complete agreement with the decision.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you concurred in the operations memorandum of August 18, 1961, what was the next occasion on which you had anything to do with the Oswald file?

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I can determine----

Mr. COLEMAN. The Commission Exhibit No. 979 is the same as I have marked as Seeley Exhibit No. 3.

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I can determine by examination of the file, the next contact I had with the file concerns a slip that is part of State X-19, consisting of a DS-10 reference slip dated 12-29-61.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is attached to a letter from L. A. Mack, to the Director of the Passport Office of the State Department, is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Mr. Coleman, on that particular item, I don't think that that was what it was attached to. I think it was probably attached to X-20.

Mr. COLEMAN. What is that?

Mr. SEELEY. That is a memorandum from Miss Knight to Mr. Boswell.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will you read that memorandum into the record? It is short.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes; the subject is: "Lee Harvey Oswald." It is classified "Confidential."

It states: "We refer to the Office Memorandum of July 27, 1961, from SY, which stated that 'renounced United States citizenship.' Mr. Oswald attempted to renounce United States citizenship but did not in fact renounce United States citizenship. Our determination on the basis of the information and evidence presently of record is that Mr. Oswald did not expatriate himself, and remains a citizen of the United States."

Mr. COLEMAN. You say that your reference slip of 12-29-61 was attached to that memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume it was.

Mr. COLEMAN. Would you look at the letter, the Mack letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of Passports?

Mr. SEELEY. I am looking at it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you see that letter or did you have anything to do with that letter?

Mr. SEELEY. So far as I know, I had nothing to do with that letter. I have seen the letter.

Mr. COLEMAN. By the time you did, the reference slip of 12-29-61--which I would like the reporter to indicate was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 4--what was your job in the State Department?

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 4 for identification.)

Mr. SEELEY. At the time that I--I was still Chief of the Security Branch of the Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. What does PT-L mean?

Mr. SEELEY. PT-L, Passport-Legal, PT-LS, Passport-Legal Security.

To give you an idea about it, the Legal Division is divided into two branches, and we have a short designation for it, PT-LS and PT-LAD.

Mr. COLEMAN. I see.

Mr. SEELEY. I will tell you further if you wish, about this particular item. This was----

Mr. COLEMAN. What is this particular item? You are now talking about the letter?

Mr. SEELEY. The letter; yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. It is the Mack letter?

Mr. SEELEY. State Department File X-19. It was addressed to our Liaison Branch, and I see at the bottom it was reviewed by Mr. Reichman, of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. And I would presume that I did not, that this was not in the file at the time that this DS-10, that it was probably in Liaison, and the file was called for. It was reviewed. The file was then reviewed by Mr. Reichman who answered for his own service.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, sir; what was the next occasion on which you had anything to do with the Oswald file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next occasion concerns Item X-11.

Mr. COLEMAN. We have marked as Seeley Deposition Exhibit No. 5 a memorandum from Robert Owen, to Michael Cieplinski, dated March 23, 1962.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 5 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask you, sir; whether that is the document you refer to.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft Seeley Exhibit No. 5?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. You reviewed it?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; on March 28, 1962.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything to do with Seeley Exhibit No. 5 other than the fact that you just read it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why would you be reading it?

Mr. SEELEY. The item was referred to, a copy of this item was referred to Miss Knight. It was, in turn, referred to the Legal Division, and then in turn referred to the Security Branch of the Legal Division.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you take any action with respect to it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not, other than to note that I had read it and initialed it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did the fact that he had originally stated that he had information as a radar operator in the Marine Corps which he would make available to the Soviet Union--did that in any way raise in your mind a security problem?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I thought that this certainly raised a doubt. He had originally, I think, way back had made some similar type statement. Here he made the statement, "Oswald stated he had never in fact been subjected to any questioning or briefing by the Soviet authorities concerning his life or experiences prior to entering the Soviet Union, and never provided such information to any Soviet organ." I thought that certainly there were two statements by him.

Mr. COLEMAN. I note on the copy you have there is a red check right beside the line which I read. Did you place that red check on there?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't think so, sir. It looks like--I think I had a regular pencil, and I think I would have done it with a pencil.

Mr. COLEMAN. Merely because a person who had attempted to defect now says when he is trying to get back into the country, "I really didn't tell the Soviets anything," that wouldn't completely satisfy you that maybe he hadn't, would it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; but I had no information that he had in fact done so. He had just made a statement that he would. I think that was his original statement.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you didn't do anything other than read Seeley Exhibit No. 5?

Mr. SEELEY. That is right, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. When was the next occasion you had anything to do with the file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next concerns Item X-7, which is a memorandum from Robert D. Johnson to William O. Boswell, dated May 4, 1962.

Mr. COLEMAN. We have marked that as Seeley Exhibit No. 6, and identified as a memorandum from Robert D. Johnson to William O. Boswell, dated May 4, 1962.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 6 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you draft this memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. What did you have to do with it? You just read it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I signed it in Mr. Johnson's stead, to send it on its way to Mr. Boswell.

Mr. COLEMAN. In effect, you said that based upon the evidence and information of record, that Oswald had not expatriated himself under the pertinent laws of the United States?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you review the file before you wrote that memorandum?

Mr. SEELEY. I didn't write the memorandum. Before I signed it?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have any recollection of it. I presume the file was with the memorandum. That is in the normal course of business, that would be the way it was handled.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you don't have any independent recollection of whether you checked through the file to see whether----

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me who wrote the memorandum from looking at the initials?

Mr. SEELEY. I think it was a Mrs. Abboud.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you discuss it with her before?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not. This came from the citizenship area. She is in the citizenship area.

Mr. COLEMAN. If they prepare a memorandum for your signature, just merely because somebody in the citizenship area drafts it doesn't mean that you sign it, does it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; it does not. I would imagine, although I don't have any recollection, that I did look into the file.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it fair to say that you would not just initial it merely because somebody else had drafted it?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. And normally you would look through the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; in the normal course of business I would look at the file--see what my own conclusion was.

Mr. COLEMAN. After you drafted or after you initialed the memorandum which has been marked as Seeley Exhibit No. 6, what was the next occasion you had to look at the Oswald file?

Mr. SEELEY. The next occasion concerned the two items that are identified as X-5.

Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as Seeley Exhibit No. 7 a photostatic copy of an article which appeared in the Washington Post on Saturday, June 9, 1962, and also attached is a reference slip.

(The document referred to was marked Seeley Exhibit No. 7 for identification.)

Mr. COLEMAN. Are they the two items that you refer to?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; they are.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, I take it you just read this and put it in the file.

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume that I cut this article out. I see that it is my printing on the side there where it says "Oswald, Lee Harvey" on the right-hand side.

Mr. COLEMAN. That is your printing?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; and I would presume that I saw the article in the newspaper, cut it out and brought it to be filed with this case.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I show you a sheet which has the word "Refusal" Commission Exhibit No. 962, and ask you whether that hand printing that appears there is your printing, too?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; that is not. I have looked at that. It doesn't look like mine.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after you put this newspaper article in the file, did you have anything else to do with the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes; I sent this item, this is CS, these items to our Special Services, Miss Waters.

Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know what she did?

Mr. SEELEY. No; I don't. I have no recollection. I see that it was as requested. It may have been a telephone request.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have anything else to do with the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. What was that?

Mr. SEELEY. That was on October 22, 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. What occasioned your looking at the file on October 22, 1963?

Mr. SEELEY. I am looking right now at State Department Exhibit X-3.

Mr. COLEMAN. And what occasioned your looking at the file on October 22, 1963?

Mr. SEELEY. It was the transmittal from INR of the Department transmitting a secret--well, I know what it is, a CIA document, telegram, to the Passport Office.

Mr. COLEMAN. Can you recall what the CIA telegram said?

Mr. SEELEY. The telegram said in effect that Lee Oswald had appeared or had contacted, I believe was the word, the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City in October 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, did the telegram also indicate that Oswald was the person who in 1959 had attempted to defect?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Now, when you got the telegram on your desk, did you also get the file with it?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; the passport file.

Mr. COLEMAN. That came to you at the same time, or did you get the telegram and then send for the file?

Mr. SEELEY. I had the whole thing. I am morally certain on this, that I had the whole file. I can tell by the reconstruction on this. Mr. Ritchie and myself have discussed this. We are both sure how this went about.

Do you want me to give this reconstruction?

Mr. COLEMAN. You can, if you wish to; yes.

Mr. SEELEY. I notice that there was a little note. "Mr. Anderson pull previous." "Previous" means to pull the file, whatever file there is. This was on October 17. The file was pulled according to our records in our office on October 17 or 18, I forget the exact date. It was within a day or so thereafter this. And I presume that this was first reviewed by Mr. Ritchie and then reviewed by myself.

Mr. COLEMAN. When you pulled the file which is the State Department file X----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you send for the security file?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why wouldn't you send for the security file if you get a telegram from a security agency saying that the gentleman who was down at the Russian Embassy in Mexico City is the same guy who in 1959 attempted to defect?

Mr. SEELEY. I looked at this report strictly from a passport office point of view. The significance which, of course, might have great intelligence significance, had little or no significance insofar as any action that we would take in the Passport Office is concerned.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why would that be, sir?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, we have to have some basis under our regulations to take any action.

Mr. COLEMAN. I mean why, if you get information which you can immediately realize may have intelligence significance, why wouldn't you look at it from a point of view of intelligence?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, I am working for the Passport Office. Certainly, if I saw something that I could do something about, I would take whatever action I thought was necessary.

Mr. COLEMAN. Why didn't you, for example, write a letter to the FBI saying that this fellow is down in Mexico City, are you interested, or do you want to see the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Well, I would say the probability is that a copy of this was apparently furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you noted that, I take it, at the time of reviewing the file?

Mr. SEELEY. I have no independent recollection that I did.

Mr. COLEMAN. But the fair assumption is that you did?

Mr. SEELEY. I would assume that.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that is also the reason why you didn't notify the CIA, because the telegram had come from the CIA?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes; from the CIA.

Mr. COLEMAN. When you looked at the file, did you know or were you aware after looking at the file that Oswald in June 1963 had been issued a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. I presume I was. The passport is the next item there, and I am sure that I looked at it and saw that he did have a passport.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you after you looked at it say to yourself "can we revoke this passport?"

Mr. SEELEY. I am sure that is why I looked at it. I am sure of that, Mr. Coleman, that I looked at it with that view in mind, if there was any action to be taken of that sort.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that he had defected or attempted to defect in 1959?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that when he attempted to defect that he had indicated that he was going to pass some radar information to the Russians if they gave him citizenship?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you know that the Soviet desk had indicated in 1961 or 1962 that it would be to the interests of the United States to get him out of Russia and back to the United States?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you note in his passport application for his 1963 passport that he indicated that one of the countries that he intended to travel to was Russia?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have an independent recollection of that. I presume I did note that.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you are saying with all that information that you would look at that file, I take it you did it on October 22?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Read it and just put it back and did nothing about it?

Mr. SEELEY. I did nothing about it other than to note the fact that I had read the telegram.

Mr. COLEMAN. All I am saying, just asking for your best recollection----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I realize you did nothing, but wouldn't that cause you to at least do something, to talk to somebody and say, "Can we do something about this?"

Mr. SEELEY. Mr. Ritchie and I undoubtedly talked about this, or at least we both saw it. I was well aware of the file. But there was no particular passport significance to the fact that a man shows up down at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He was married to a Soviet citizen. I think there is an indication somewhere she was supposed to report or something. I don't know what the score was on that.

Mr. COLEMAN. But the problem is, sir, that----

Mr. SEELEY. But even if she was to report, I don't get the significance of an individual appearing at a Soviet Embassy, either here or anywhere else in the world, by itself meaning anything insofar as passports is concerned.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, the problem is, if there is a problem, that on June 24, 1963, when Mr. Oswald applied for his passport, the State Department issued it routinely because under the lookout system there was nothing on Oswald, so, therefore, it went out the next day.

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. And we think, from what we know, that as of June 24 or 25 no one looked at the file, so, therefore, there is no reason why the passport wouldn't go out.

Mr. SEELEY. I would presume from looking at this file, that that is absolutely correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. But our problem is that if on June 24 or June 25 someone had looked at the file, would you have issued the passport based upon what was in the file as of June 24 or 25, or would you have at least talked to people to see whether some action should be taken?

Mr. SEELEY. If I had seen this application on June 24 or 25, before it had been issued, I think I probably would have discussed it. But that would have been the end of it. We have no basis upon which to deny him or hold up his passport. There would have been a discussion.

Mr. COLEMAN. Are you saying, then, it is your opinion that after reviewing the file that if the request for a passport had come in and you had looked at the file before the passport was issued, there was no regulation or legal basis on which you could refuse him a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. That is correct. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. And, therefore, I take it then, that the only additional information you got in the October CIA telegram was that he was in Mexico City, and he had visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City.

Mr. SEELEY. That is correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. And it is your position that he had the right to go back to Russia if he wanted to go anyway; is that correct?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. And so, therefore, there is nothing that you could have done about it?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Did you make any memorandum or any memoranda when you looked at the file in October 1963?

Mr. SEELEY. Aside from this notation which is in my handwriting, which says "Noted CHS 10-22-63" that is the extent of the documentation that I gave to them.

Mr. COLEMAN. But you do say you had some discussions with the other gentlemen that looked at the file?

Mr. SEELEY. I don't have a recollection. I don't know whether Mr. Ritchie does. I don't believe he does either, but the fact that we both had it, he may have passed it to me. You have to get this in context. We have hundreds of these cases. This is one case out of hundreds.

I am surprised that I have got any recollection, but I do have some, as I mentioned before in my testimony here, that I did have some recollection of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. No one called you and said, "Well, look, let him have the passport, don't do anything about it," I take it?

Mr. SEELEY. Oh, no, sir. At the time the passport was issued, it was issued.

Mr. COLEMAN. But I mean when you got the telegram, nobody called you and said, "Look, just skip it. Let him have the passport."

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. "Don't do anything about it"?

Mr. SEELEY. No, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. All the action you took, you took independently?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; as my own independent action.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it if faced with the situation again, knowing only what you knew on October 22, 1963, you would take the same action today?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; that is correct. There is one additional item, and that is under our new regulations we do put a card in on a defector or a person--I think I can give you the definition here.

"Defectors, expatriates and repatriates whose activities or background demand further inquiry prior to issuance of passport facilities."

I presume that under this criteria, in fact I know under this criteria that Oswald would have a card placed against him today.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it your opinion as assistant legal counsel to the Passport Office that you still in the final analysis couldn't deny him the passport?

Mr. SEELEY. That is definite.

Mr. COLEMAN. And you would have to give it to him?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. Has there been any other case of a defector where you have actually issued him another passport?

Mr. SEELEY. We have issued passports to defectors, at least one that I know of, and I think we have furnished a report on that.

Mr. COLEMAN. You say there is a case of another defector?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; in connection with the answer to this question, we did a research job on a list of defectors which had been furnished to the Department of State by the Department of Defense, and our search disclosed that only one of these individuals, a Paul David Wilson, had applied for passport facilities since his return to the United States, and he was issued a passport.

Mr. COLEMAN. To go where, sir?

Mr. SEELEY. To visit Mexico, Colombia, South America, and was uncertain of others.

Mr. COLEMAN. Was that done routinely or was that done after looking at his file?

Mr. SEELEY. My recollection of this, that this was a routine issuance of a passport to a person on whom we had no information.

Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, this was another case where because you didn't have a lookout card----

Mr. SEELEY. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Nobody ever looked at the file?

Mr. SEELEY. Yes, sir; well, there was no file. We have no file on this man other than his name. The Passport Office has no file on this man, Paul David Wilson.

Mr. COLEMAN. But there has been no case where you had a file, you knew he had defected, and then applied for another passport and before you issued the second passport you had to make a decision as to whether you could refuse to issue him a passport?

Mr. SEELEY. None to my knowledge.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have no further questions, unless you have something else you would want to say.

Mr. SEELEY. I have nothing further, Mr. Coleman. I will be glad to help all I can. That is all I can say.

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you for coming over.

AFFIDAVIT OF LOUIS FELDSOTT

The following affidavit was executed by Louis Feldsott on July 23, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of Rockland, ss:

I, Louis Feldsott, being duly sworn say:

1. I am the President of Crescent Firearms, Inc., 2 West 37th Street, New York 18, New York.

2. On November 22, 1963, the F.B.I. contacted me and asked if Crescent Firearms, Inc., had any records concerning the sale of an Italian made 6.5 m/m rifle with the serial number C 2766.

3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963.

4. Further records involving the purchase, sale, and transportation of the weapon have been turned over to the F.B.I.

Signed the 23d day of July 1964.

(S) Louis Feldsott, LOUIS FELDSOTT.

AFFIDAVIT OF J. PHILIP LUX

The following affidavit was executed by J. Philip Lux on July 22, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, J. Philip Lux, being duly sworn say:

1. I am now Store Manager at the H. L. Green Company, 1623 Main Street, Dallas, Texas. I was not employed by the H. L. Green Company in 1963.

2. H. L. Green Company records show that in 1963, the Company had in stock and sold Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were surpluses from World War II.

3. The records also reflect the fact that the H. L. Green Company received its supply of Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company, New York City.

4. A review of the records has failed to reflect any record of a 6.5 mm rifle with Serial No. C2766.

5. As far as I know, the H. L. Green Company is the only company in Dallas handling any quantity of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles.

Signed the 22d day of July 1964.

(S) J. Philip Lux, J. PHILIP LUX.

AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN

The following affidavit was executed by Howard Leslie Brennan on May 7, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Howard Leslie Brennan, being first duly sworn, do upon oath depose and state:

On or about March 24, 1964, I testified in Washington, D.C., before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. In that connection I testified as to the reasons why I declined on November 22, 1963, to give positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man I saw firing a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963.

Included in these reasons at pages 3629 and 3630 of Volume 28 of the transcript of the Commission proceedings are the following reasons:

"And then I felt that my family could be in danger, and I, myself, might be in danger. And since they already had the man for murder, that he wasn't going to be set free to escape and get out of the country immediately, and I could very easily sooner than the FBI or the Secret Service wanted me, my testimony in, I could very easily get in touch with them, if they didn't get in touch with me, and to see that the man didn't get loose."

"... "Because I had already more or less give a detailed description of the man, and I talked to the Secret Service and gave them my statement, and they had convinced me that it would be strictly confidential and all that. But still I felt like if I was the only eye witness, that anything could happen to me or my family."

I have also been advised that on page 3595 of Volume 28 of the transcript of the Commission proceedings, the following appears:

"Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family, and yourself?

"Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there had been more than one eye witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye witness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe."

I hereby state that this is a court reporter's error and that in truth and in fact my answer to the question was:

"Mr. BRENNAN: I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eye witness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eye witness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe."

Signed the 7th day of May 1964.

(S) Howard Leslie Brennan. HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN.

AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT C. YEARGAN, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by Albert C. Yeargan, Jr., on July 21, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Albert C. Yeargan, Jr., 1922 Mayflower Drive, Dallas, Texas, being duly sworn say:

1. I was the Sporting Goods Department Manager at the H. L. Green Company, 1623 Main Street, Dallas, Texas, from the Summer of 1963 until March 13, 1964. I am now employed by Smitty's Sporting Goods, 111 West Jefferson Avenue, Dallas, Texas.

2. When I worked for the H. L. Green Company, it had in stock and was offering for sale a large number of Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were surpluses from World War II.

3. On November 22, 1963, FBI Agents, Secret Service Agents, and I examined all sales records and receipt records concerning Italian 6.5 mm rifles.

4. The records showed that the H. L. Green Company obtained its supply of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company in New York City.

5. A review of all of the records failed to reflect any record of sale of a 6.5 mm rifle with the Serial Number C2766.

6. As far as I know, the H. L. Green Company was at that time the only Company in Dallas that handled any quantity of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles.

Signed the 21st day of July 1964.

(S) Albert C. Yeargan, Jr., ALBERT C. YEARGAN, Jr.

AFFIDAVIT OF LOUIS WEINSTOCK

The following affidavit was executed by Louis Weinstock on May 20, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of New York, ss:

Louis Weinstock, being duly sworn, says:

1. On or about December 19, 1962, I was General Manager of "The Worker," the address of which is 23 West 26 Street. New York 11, New York. On or about December 19, 1962, I wrote the attached letter on the letterhead of "The Worker" addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, and sent or caused such letter to be sent to Mr. Oswald. I have initialed that letter immediately below the initials "WJL" appearing thereon for the purpose of identifying it as Weinstock Exhibit No. 1.

2. The letter refers to certain "blow ups" which were apparently sent to "The Worker" by Mr. Oswald. I described those "blow ups" in my letter as "poster like blow ups" and indicated that they would be "most useful at newsstands and other public places to call the attention of newspaper readers that 'The Worker' is available."

3. While my recollection is not entirely clear concerning the nature of the "blow ups" which Oswald had apparently sent to "The Worker," it appears from the description of such "blow ups" in my letter that they must have consisted of the item which has been marked as Exhibit 5A in the deposition of Mr. Arnold S. Johnson, which Exhibit, as indicated in Mr. Johnson's testimony, was obtained from the files of "The Worker" and turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by Mr. Johnson's counsel.

4. Aside from the attached letter of December 19, 1962. I know of no other correspondence which I may have written to Lee Harvey Oswald and I do not recall receiving anything from him other than the material described in this affidavit.

Signed the 20th day of May 1964.

(S) Louis Weinstock, LOUIS WEINSTOCK.

AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT T. LEE

The following affidavit was executed by Vincent T. Lee on May 20, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of New York, ss:

Vincent T. Lee, being duly sworn says:

1. My name is Vincent T. Lee. I reside at 37-1/2 St. Mark's Place, New York, New York. I was formerly the National Director for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I make this affidavit to supplement the testimony which I gave to the above Commission on April 17, 1964.

2. I have examined the attached membership card of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and state that it is an authentic membership card of that organization and that it bears my signature.[B]

3. I sent that card or caused it to be sent to Lee Harvey Oswald on or about May 29, 1963.

4. I have initialed the attached card under the initials WJL which appear on the card for the purposes of identification of that card in the record of the proceedings of the above Commission.

Signed the 20th day of May 1964.

(S) Vincent T. Lee, VINCENT T. LEE.

[B] The FPCC membership card referred to in the above affidavit is Commission Exhibit No. 828.

AFFIDAVIT OF FARRELL DOBBS

The following affidavit was executed by Farrell Dobbs on June 4, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of New York, ss:

I, Farrell Dobbs, being duly sworn, depose and say:

1. I have read the twenty-six page transcript of the examination of me in a proceeding of the Commission to Report upon the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, held at New York, N.Y., on April 17, 1964, and find it accurate with the exception of the corrections noted and initialled by me on pages 1, 6, & 7.

2. I have read the original of a letter dated November 5, 1962, to Mr. Lee H. Oswald from Farrell Dobbs, and have initialled it so that it may be substituted as R. Watts Exhibit 11 for the typewritten copy shown me on April 17, 1964.[C] I have no doubt that it is a letter I wrote, and the signature is mine.

3. I have initialled the original of a letter dated December 9, 1962, to Mr. Lee H. Oswald, signed "Bob Chester," so that it may be substituted as R. Watts Exhibit 12 for the typewritten copy shown me on April 17, 1964.

4. As requested on pages 19-20, I have made a further search of our files for the letter and reproductions from Lee H. Oswald referred to in the Bob Chester letter but have found no record of them. Further, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Chester and he advises me that he has had a vague recollection that the reproductions were of headlines from the Militant but has no further recollection of any correspondence with Lee H. Oswald.

5. As requested on page 21, I have made a further search for a copy of R. Watts Exhibit 13 and for the letter and clipping referred to in it as from Lee H. Oswald but have been unable to find any such material in our files.

6. As requested in J. Lee Rankin's letter to Mr. Rowland Watts dated May 20, 1964, I have made inquiry of the Young Socialist Alliance and am advised that its files have been searched and that its representatives have found no record that Lee H. Oswald's name was ever referred to it, nor does it have any record of ever having had anything in its files from, to, or concerning Lee H. Oswald.

7. In pursuance of the information supplied in Mr. Rankin's letter to Mr. Watts dated May 20, 1964, I have made inquiry of The Militant and have had its files further searched. There is no photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, with or without a rifle, in its files (other than a clipping from the daily press after he was taken into custody). I am confident no photograph of him was ever received prior to President Kennedy's assassination.

8. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have submitted to you all of the material in the files of the Socialist Workers Party, The Militant, and Pioneer Publishers, concerning Lee Harvey Oswald, and I have no further material or information concerning him.

Signed the 4th day of June 1964.

(S) Farrell Dobbs, FARRELL DOBBS.

[C] Since all of the Rowland Watts Exhibits have been redesignated as Farrell Dobbs Exhibits, R. Watts Exhibits Nos. 11, 12, and 13 referred to in the above affidavit have been marked Farrell Dobbs Exhibits Nos. 11, 12, and 13, respectively.

AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA GRAY

The following affidavit was executed by Virginia Gray on May 28, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, County of Durham, ss:

Virginia Gray, being duly sworn says:

1. My name is Virginia Gray. I am the Assistant Curator of Manuscripts of the Duke University Library, Durham, North Carolina, (the Library) and the person most familiar with the records of the Socialist Party of America which are now in the possession of the Library.

2. The records of the Library reflect that it purchased the original official records of the Socialist Party of America covering the period from 1900 to 1938 from Leon Kramer, a New York dealer in Leftist literature. Since the time of that original purchase the Library has become the unofficial repository for files of the Socialist Party of America and periodically acquires the inactive records of that organization.

3. On or about January 2, 1959 the Library acquired certain records of the Socialist Party of America from Mr. Stephen Siteman, Executive Secretary of that Party, 112 East 19th Street, New York, New York.

4. A letter dated October 3, 1956 addressed "Dear Sirs" from Lee Oswald and an advertisement coupon of "The Socialist Call", photostatic copies of which are attached to this affidavit, were found in those materials while they were being processed by the Library.[D]

5. The Library has received additional materials from the Socialist Party of America and is presently processing such materials. As of the date of this affidavit, however, the only materials relating to Lee Harvey Oswald which have been found amongst the records of the Socialist Party of America presently in the possession of the Library are those of which photostatic copies are attached.

Signed the 28th day of May 1964.

(S) Virginia Gray, (Mrs.) VIRGINIA GRAY.

[D] The photostatic copies referred to in the above affidavit have been marked Gray Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ALBERT F. STAPLES

The following affidavit was executed by Dr. Albert F. Staples on May 26, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

Dr. Albert F. Staples, being duly sworn says:

1. My name is Albert F. Staples. I reside at 6056 Ellsworth Street, Dallas, Texas. I am a dentist at the Baylor University College of Dentistry and am familiar with the records in possession of the College relating to Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald.

2. I have caused a search of the files of the Baylor University College of Dentistry which reveals a file on Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald. The foregoing file is now in the possession of the deponent. To the best of my knowledge this file contains the only papers relating to Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald in the possession or control of the Baylor University College of Dentistry. Accordingly under my supervision photostatic copies[E] have been made of this entire file, such copies being attached to this affidavit.

3. On information and belief the attached photostatic copies are of the entire file and comprise all the papers relating to Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald in the possession and control of the Baylor University Dental Clinic.

Signed the 26th day of May 1964.

(S) Dr. Albert F. Staples, Dr. ALBERT F. STAPLES.

[E] The photostatic copies referred to in the above affidavit have been marked Staples Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF KATHERINE MALLORY

The following affidavit was executed by Katherine Mallory on July 20, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of Broome, ss:

I, Katherine Mallory, 412 East Main Street, Endicott, New York, being duly sworn say:

1. In 1961 I was a sophomore at the University of Michigan. In March of 1961, I was a member of the University of Michigan band which toured Russia and the Near East.

2. We arrived in Minsk, U.S.S.R. from Moscow on March 10, 1961. While in Minsk, the band gave some concerts at the Minsk Polytechnic Institute. We stayed in a hotel in Minsk. We left Minsk on March 14 and proceeded to Kiev, U.S.S.R.

3. There was an evening in Minsk when members of the band were divided into small groups, each of which was assigned a Russian interpreter, for the purpose of going on a tour of the facilities of the Minsk Polytechnic Institute.

4. Near the conclusion of this tour, at about 10:00 p.m., when the band members were boarding a bus, I became surrounded by Russian students who were asking me questions. Although one student was interpreting I was having difficulty communicating with them.

5. At this point, an American approached and offered to act as an interpreter. I accepted the offer. While I never really had a chance to talk with him, he mentioned that he was an ex-Marine from Texas. Sometimes he spoke with a Texas accent and at other times he spoke with an English accent. Somehow I got the impression that he was working in Russia and that he never intended to return to the United States.

6. This American appeared well dressed. I think he wore a camel hair coat and possibly a tie. He did not indicate if he had been at the concert.

7. After just a few minutes of further questions from the Russian students, with the American interpreting, I boarded the bus. I never again saw nor heard from this individual. I noted in my diary something about the incident, and I wrote that this American seemed to be a crackpot. I did not meet any other Americans in Minsk.

8. I have seen pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspaper, and the individual I saw in Minsk very much resembles Oswald as pictured. I recall that the person I saw seemed to have more hair and was heavier than Lee Harvey Oswald as pictured in the newspapers.

9. Except possibly for this one occasion in Minsk, I never saw nor communicated with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed the 20th day of July 1964.

(S) Katherine Mallory, KATHERINE MALLORY.

AFFIDAVIT OF KATHERINE MALLORY

The following affidavit was executed by Katherine Mallory on July 20, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of Broome, ss:

I, Katherine Mallory, 412 East Main Street, Endicott, New York, being duly sworn say:

Following my telephone interview on July 10, 1964 with Mr. Richard Mosk, I rechecked my diary of the University of Michigan Symphony Band Tour and letters which I sent to my parents. Therefore, I append the following minor corrections of statements in the interest of being as accurate as I can.

Statements 3, 4, and 5. I made no mention of the tour of the Institute and therefore cannot verify the details of the arrangement, i.e., small groups. However, I recall that the tour preceded the talent show. The following is a statement from my diary; "Tonight the students at the Bilo (sic) Russian (White Russian) Polytechnic Institute put on a talent show for us ... (description of performance).... Afterward Jerry Anderson and I missed getting out with our crowd and we were mobbed by the students. I met a boy from Texas (now a Russian citizen) who translated questions and answers for me." In a letter to my parents dated March 17, 1961, "The first night we were there, the students of the Polytechnic Institute gave us a reception and put on a very nice talent show. Afterwards, we all were mobbed by the students. I met a young man probably about 26 who is from Texas but after the war he became a citizen of Minsk. It was rather weird meeting an ex-American but he did come in handy as an interpreter for me and the other students I was talking to."

Statement 7. While I am sure that in conversations about this incident I applied term "crackpot" I did not note it in my diary.

All other statements prepared on the basis of the telephone interview are true.

Signed the 20th day of July 1964.

(S) Katherine Mallory, KATHERINE MALLORY.

AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. MONICA KRAMER

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. Monica Kramer on July 17, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Barbara, ss:

I, Mrs. Monica Kramer, Janin Way, Sunny Acres, Solvang, California, being duly sworn say:

1. In 1961, Miss Rita Naman and I took a trip to Europe which included a visit to the Soviet Union. Miss. Naman had purchased a Singer automobile in Great Britain and we drove through Europe and the Soviet Union.

2. When we were in Moscow staying at the National Hotel, we met Mrs. Marie Hyde, who, to the best of my knowledge, presently resides in Port Angeles, Washington. Mrs. Hyde was desirous of driving with us to Warsaw. Such an arrangement was made.

3. My travel notes indicate that we arrived in Minsk, U.S.S.R., on August 10. After arriving at our hotel, we were asked to take a guided tour of Minsk. We subsequently found out that after we left the hotel, our bags had been searched. Out Intourist Guide's name was Svetlana.

4. We visited the Central Square where we stopped to take some photographs. Kramer Exhibit 1, also labelled Commission No. 859d, is a photograph taken by Miss Naman in Minsk on August 10, 1961. As I recall, it was taken between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The building in the background is the Palace of Culture, and the statue is one of Joseph Stalin. The automobile in the center of the picture is the one that was then owned by Miss Naman. The woman at the far left is the Intourist Guide. She appears to be speaking with me, the woman standing next to her. There are three men to the right of the automobile and a small boy in front of it, all of whom I did not know.

5. On every occasion that we stopped while on the trip through Russia, people would gather around the automobile and look at it. As a result, we became accustomed to this and therefore paid little or no attention to these people.

6. I cannot recall these three men. I never spoke with them. It now appears to me that the man in the middle, wearing dark trousers and a dark, short-sleeved plaid shirt, resembles Lee Harvey Oswald, whose picture I have seen in the newspapers.

7. I recall that Miss Naman spoke with somebody in Minsk who spoke English. They talked about records. I do not recall if this person was Lee Harvey Oswald.

8. We left Minsk on August 11, 1961.

9. Except for possibly on August 10, 1961, I never met nor communicated with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Signed the 17th day of July 1964.

(S) Mrs. Monica Kramer, Mrs. MONICA KRAMER.

AFFIDAVIT OF RITA NAMAN

The following affidavit was executed by Rita Naman on July 17, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Barbara, ss:

I, Rita Naman, Janin Way, Sunny Acres, Solvang, California, being duly sworn say:

1. I am in the real estate business in Santa Ynez, California, and I live with Mrs. Monica Kramer.

2. In 1961, Mrs. Kramer and I took a trip to Europe. I purchased an automobile in England, and we drove it through Europe and the Soviet Union.

3. While in Moscow we stayed at the National Hotel. There we met Mrs. Marie Hyde, who, as far as I know, currently resides in Port Angeles, Washington. We arranged to drive her to Warsaw, Poland.

4. All three of us left Moscow and travelled to Minsk, U. S. S. R. We arrived there on August 10, 1961. After going to our hotel, I was called by the Intourist Office and asked to go there. The official at the Intourist Office wanted to know why I was in Russia. He appeared hostile. I suspect that they were interested in me because in Moscow, I had given a person who claimed to be a student a Newsweek Magazine along with my business card. The official then insisted that Mrs. Kramer, Mrs. Hyde, and I go on a tour of Minsk. When we returned to our room after the tour, we found that our luggage had been searched.

5. Our Intourist guide's name was Svetlana. We visited the Central Square where we stopped to take some photographs. Kramer Exhibit 1, also labelled Commission No. 859 d, is a photograph taken by me at this time. As I recall, it was taken about 8 or 8:30 p.m. The building in the background is the Palace of Culture, and the statue is one of Joseph Stalin. The automobile in the center of the picture was owned by me. The woman at the far left is the Intourist Guide. She appears to be speaking with a woman standing next to her, who is Mrs. Kramer. There are three men to the right of the automobile and a small boy in front of it, all of whom I did not know.

6. Kramer Exhibit No. 2, also labelled Commission No. 859c, is a photograph taken by me at the same place and at about the same time; however, I took this photograph with Mrs. Hyde's camera. In this photograph Mrs. Hyde is at the far left with the Intourist Guide and Mrs. Kramer. Only two men are pictured to the right of the car.

7. I do not remember speaking to any of the men pictured in Kramer Exhibit 1 and in Kramer Exhibit 2. I was so disturbed by the earlier interview with the Intourist Guide official, that I cannot remember much of what happened thereafter.

8. I do recall that after this photograph was taken, I went to a nearby record store. When I left the store, a man spoke to me in an American accent and asked me about my car. He asked how many miles to the gallon it travelled. I do not recall if this man was the same one pictured in Kramer Exhibit 1 and in Kramer Exhibit 2.

9. The man appearing in these photographs, wearing dark trousers and a dark, short-sleeved, check shirt, resembles Lee Harvey Oswald, whose picture I have seen in the newspapers.

10. Except for possibly on August 10, 1961, I never met nor communicated with Lee Harvey Oswald.

11. We left Minsk on August 11, 1961.

Signed the 17th day of July 1964.

(S) Rita Naman, RITA NAMAN.

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN BRYAN McFARLAND AND MERYL McFARLAND

The following affidavit was executed by John Bryan McFarland and Meryl McFarland on May 28, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, _County of Lancaster, City of Liverpool, Consulate of the United States of America, ss_:

Before me Wilfred V. Duke, Consul of the United States of America, duly commissioned and qualified, personally came John Bryan McFarland and Meryl McFarland, of 7a Riversdale Road, Liverpool, 19, England, who being duly sworn, depose and say that:

Q. When and where did you board the bus for Mexico City?

A. We boarded the Continental Trailways bus at Jackson, Mississippi, and traveled via connecting buses to Mexico City where we arrived September 27, 1963.

Q. When and where did you first see the man later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. We changed buses at Houston, Texas, at 2:00 a.m. September 26th and it was probably about 6:00 a.m. after it became light that we first saw him.

Q. What reason did Oswald give for traveling to Mexico?

A. He stated that he was en route to Cuba and that he could not travel there from the United States as it was against the law.

Q. Did you see Oswald speaking to any other persons?

A. Yes. We observed him conversing occasionally with two young Australian women who boarded the bus on the evening of September 26th at Monterrey, Mexico. He also conversed occasionally with an elderly man who sat in the seat next to him for a time.

Q. When did it first occur to you that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man you had met on the bus?

A. When we saw his pictures in the newspapers.

Q. How many suitcases was Oswald carrying when he boarded the bus at Houston, Texas, or any other time?

A. We did not see him carrying any suitcases at any time.

Q. Did Oswald check any luggage with the bus company so it would have been carried underneath the bus in the baggage compartment?

A. We never actually saw him check any luggage in with the bus company, but in the bus station at Mexico City the last we saw of him was waiting at the luggage check-out place obviously to collect some luggage.

Q. What kind of luggage was he carrying?

A. We did not notice but presume he must have been carrying some hand luggage.

Q. Did he check any suitcases or other packages at a place en route to Mexico City or otherwise dispose of them?

A. We never actually saw him check any luggage in with the bus company, but in the bus station at Mexico City the last we saw of him was waiting at the luggage check-out place obviously to collect some luggage.

Q. What kind of clothing was he wearing?

A. As far as we recollect, ordinary slacks and, a more definite recollection, a sort of zipper jerkin.

Q. Did he mention any names or places either in the United States or Mexico, in any connection whatever?

A. Only New Orleans, whence he said he had come. In the course of conversation, we worked out that he must have left New Orleans at about the same time we had left Jackson, Mississippi, i.e. 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 25th, 1963.

Q. Did he show you any documents, such as passport or Fair Play for Cuba Committee Card, or letters, newspaper clippings or other similar material? If so, describe them as fully as possible.

A. We saw no document, but he said he was the secretary of the New Orleans branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Organization, and that he was on his way to Cuba to see Castro if he could. We saw him at the next table to ourselves in the Customs Shed at Laredo, but did not notice his passport or tourist card.

Signed the 28th day of May 1964.

(S) J. B. McFarland, JOHN BRYAN McFARLAND. (S) Meryl McFarland, MERYL McFARLAND.

TESTIMONY OF PAMELA MUMFORD

The testimony of Pamela Mumford was taken at 12:30 p.m., on May 19, 1964, at 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Miss Mumford was accompanied by her attorney, Mr. C. C. Dillavou.

Pamela Mumford, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. BALL. You received a letter, didn't you, from Mr. Rankin, as counsel for the Commission, advising you that we would request you to give your deposition?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; that's right.

Mr. BALL. And you also received a copy of the joint resolution of the Congress, didn't you, authorizing the Commission to proceed to investigate the facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And you willingly give your deposition today, do you not?

Miss MUMFORD. I do.

Mr. BALL. To tell us all the facts that you might know to assist us in this investigation?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. Your name is Pamela Mumford?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. Where do you live?

Miss MUMFORD. 153 North New Hampshire Avenue, Los Angeles 4.

Mr. BALL. What is your occupation?

Miss MUMFORD. Secretary.

Mr. BALL. A legal secretary?

Miss MUMFORD. Legal secretary.

Mr. BALL. And you work for the firm of Dillavou & Cox, do you?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. That is in a building at 6th and Grand, Los Angeles, Calif.?

Miss MUMFORD. Right.

Mr. BALL. Now, because of the fact that you will not appear before the Commission, and the members of the Commission will have to read this deposition, they would like to know something about you: Where you were born, your education. So, just go ahead and tell me all you can about yourself.

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I was born in the Fiji Islands in 1941, and my father was transferred to Australia in 1951. I was brought up and went to school in Australia until 1961.

And then I traveled to England, where I worked for a period of a year. I went to Europe and then I obtained a working visa to come to the United States.

I worked in New York for 8 months and then my friend and I traveled through the United States and Mexico on our way to Los Angeles where we intended to remain.

Mr. BALL. Now, what was your friend's name?

Miss MUMFORD. Patricia Winston.

Mr. BALL. And she left Australia with you, did she?

Miss MUMFORD. She left with me, yes. We had been traveling together for 2 years. And she also made the journey through the States and through Mexico with me. That takes us up to Los Angeles.

Mr. BALL. When did you arrive in Los Angeles?

Miss MUMFORD. In the first week of November 1963.

Mr. BALL. Is Patricia Winston a legal secretary also?

Miss MUMFORD. No; Patricia is an occupational therapist, who was also born in the Fiji Islands and raised in Australia. Our families were friends.

And she was unable to obtain work in California owing to certain California laws. She had to sit for some exam to enable her to work here.

So, finally, she returned home to Australia in January, mid-January. And she is there now.

Mr. BALL. As of 1964?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How old is Patricia Winston?

Miss MUMFORD. She is 23.

Mr. BALL. You took a trip into Mexico last fall, didn't you?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And did you travel from New York to Mexico?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, we traveled by bus on a scheme which allowed us to travel on Trailways buses for a period of 3 months for a certain amount. We just got on and off at various places we wanted to see: For instance, Washington, D.C.; Miami, where we stayed a week; then we went across to New Orleans, down through Texas to Laredo, and from Laredo we crossed the border also by bus and went to Monterrey.

We spent one day in Monterrey and left by bus at 7:30 p.m. at Monterrey, and it was on that bus that we met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BALL. Where did you buy your ticket to Mexico?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, the ticket we had on this deal enabled us only to travel in the States, not in Mexico.

So, we bought the ticket on the bus at Laredo and that enabled us to stop off in Monterrey. But the ticket was from Laredo to Mexico City.

Mr. BALL. And from what company did you buy the ticket?

Miss MUMFORD. As far as I can remember, it was a bus company called Transporter del Norte.

Mr. BALL. And did you buy the bus ticket in Laredo at the Trailways bus depot?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What date did you buy the bus ticket?

Miss MUMFORD. It must have been September 25.

Mr. BALL. And you left Laredo at what time?

Miss MUMFORD. Early September the 26th.

Mr. BALL. Didn't you leave the bus depot at Laredo on September 25th, about 10 o'clock in the morning, or was it September 26?

Miss MUMFORD. September 26. Now, hold on. We had one day in Monterrey and one night in Monterrey. We left Monterrey, I know, on the night of September 26 at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. BALL. And you had come down to Monterrey from Laredo the day before, hadn't you?

Miss MUMFORD. The day before, yes.

Mr. BALL. Now, on the way from Laredo to Monterrey you didn't see Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You saw him on a bus that left Monterrey?

Miss MUMFORD. That left Monterrey. But he had traveled from Laredo on that same bus.

Mr. BALL. How do you know that?

Miss MUMFORD. He told us.

Mr. BALL. Now, you got on the bus at Monterrey on the evening of September 26 at 7:30 p.m., you just told me?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And what was the company that operated that bus, do you know?

Miss MUMFORD. That was also Transporter del Norte.

Mr. BALL. And were there the same accommodations for all travelers?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; there were. There were four seats in the front that were occupied by English-speaking people. But, having got on so late in the journey, we were taken down to the back to sit with the Mexicans. And we were the only English-speaking people at the back of the bus.

Mr. BALL. All others were Mexican-speaking?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Now, who were the English-speaking people that you mentioned? Will you describe them?

Miss MUMFORD. There was a young English couple who were traveling down to the Yucatan to study the Indians and their way of life.

There was an elderly English gentleman in his mid- or late-sixties, I should imagine. He told us during the journey that he had lived on and off in Mexico for 25 years.

Then there was the young Texan, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Patricia and myself.

Mr. BALL. Now, when you first boarded the bus did you speak to the English-speaking people?

Miss MUMFORD. We got on and Oswald heard Patricia and I talking. And we had two heavy overnight bags, and he told us later that he had turned to his companion, who was the middle-aged English gentleman, and said, "I wonder how you say 'How can I help you' in Spanish", which gave us the opinion later that he couldn't speak the language: couldn't speak Spanish.

He took us for two Spanish girls, I guess, and was going to help us with our luggage.

Mr. BALL. Did he help you with your luggage?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You went on to the back of the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You didn't say anything to the four English-speaking people when you first got on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. And they didn't speak to you?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. When did you first speak to any of these four?

Miss MUMFORD. Oswald was the first one we spoke to. He left his seat and came down to the back of the bus to speak to us.

Mr. BALL. That was after the bus had left Monterrey?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And while it was en route?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say to you?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, he said that he had heard us speaking English and wondered where we came from.

He then told us the story of how he had thought we were Mexican and was going to help us if he could speak the language.

Mr. BALL. What did he say? Can you tell me his language as close as you can?

Miss MUMFORD. No, I can't really put it into his words; not at that stage. He then proceeded to tell us about himself.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?

Miss MUMFORD. I will have to refer to notes. Oh, yes; the first thing he told us was that he was from Fort Worth, in Texas. And he wanted to know where we had been, and we told him we were Australians.

He wanted to know the places we had visited. We told him.

And he mentioned that he had been in Japan while he was in the Marines, and that was the closest he had got to Australia and that he would very much like to go to Australia.

He then told us that he had been to Russia and asked whether we had ever been to Russia. We said no, and we told him of a friend of ours, a fellow Australian, who had been to Moscow, and her experiences there.

And we asked him what he was doing in Russia and did he have trouble getting in. He said that he was studying there. He had an apartment in Moscow and was studying. We didn't ask him what he was studying.

At this stage he showed us his passport that had a Russian stamp on it; some sort of a Russian stamp. And he didn't mention his Russian wife at all. But we noticed he had a gold wedding ring on his left hand.

We made about three stops or four stops every 2 or 3 hours, and he didn't speak to us during these stops. We got speaking to the other British people.

Mr. BALL. Did he speak to you again after that time that he first came back?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; oh, about 2 hours before we arrived in Mexico City he asked us whether we had accommodations arranged there. And we said no, we had a vague idea from a book called "Mexico on Five Dollars a Day" where we were going to stay.

And he suggested that on previous trips to Mexico City he had stayed at a place called the Hotel Cuba, and he recommended it for clean and cheap living.

And he then made a crack that he wasn't suggesting the Hotel Cuba because he was going to be there; he just suggested it to help us.

And we decided that we wouldn't take him up on his suggestion; that we would go our own way.

Then we arrived in the Mexico City bus station and he didn't speak to us, attempt to speak to us at all. He was one of the first off the bus and the last I remember seeing him he was standing across the end of the room.

Mr. BALL. At the bus station?

Miss MUMFORD. At the bus station. And we left by taxi.

Mr. BALL. Then you had two conversations with him?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Or more?

Miss MUMFORD. No; two. During the trip I engaged the middle-aged English gentleman in conversation, asking him about the weather, and what it was like usually. And he said, "The young man traveling beside me has traveled to Mexico also. Why don't you talk to him?" And that was all.

Mr. BALL. Where were you when you talked to the English gentleman; the elderly man?

Miss MUMFORD. Just standing outside at one of the rest stops, standing outside waiting to board the bus.

Mr. BALL. Did you talk to any one of these four people as the bus was en route, except Oswald; the four English-speaking people?

Miss MUMFORD. Not on the bus. We did speak to the young English couple for a while, told them where we had lived in London, and they had told us very vaguely, I remember, that they were also traveling through the United States, but their main aim wasn't to go to the tourist resorts in America but to go down to Mexico.

Mr. BALL. Did you get their names? Did they tell you their names?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You didn't ask them their name?

Miss. MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. When did you talk to this elderly English gentleman who was sitting beside Oswald when you first got on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. The only time we talked to him was at one of the rest stops outside the bus. And I just happened to ask him about the weather, and that was the only conversation.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything else to you on the trip except that there was a young man sitting next to him that had been in Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. That's all he said?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. About how many people were on this bus?

Miss MUMFORD. There must have been about 14 rows on both sides, with two people on each. About 50, 55. It was crowded.

Mr. BALL. I have a note here of a statement you made to an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 18th of December in which it was reported that you estimated about 39 passengers.

Do you recall that? Did you ever say that?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, these were conflicting reports, naturally. The FBI questioned Patricia at our apartment and he then questioned me here and, naturally, two people get different ideas on a bus load.

But, it was well crowded. There were a lot of children on the bus. I should imagine there would be--they were long, great big, long, heavy buses.

Mr. BALL. Were there any vacant seats when you got on?

Miss MUMFORD. Quite a few people boarded in Monterrey. And we were a bit frightened that we wouldn't get a seat together. But I think we were one of the few people who got on first.

Mr. BALL. What part of the bus did you sit in?

Miss MUMFORD. In the middle of the bus, more towards the back than the front.

Mr. BALL. Did the English man ever come back while you were being seated and speak in Spanish to any of the Mexican people?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You don't recall that the English man ever came back and asked the Mexican people to make room for you to sit down?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. At the bus stops, you say, you did not talk to Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No. He was the first off the bus and the last back on. He had a meal at every bus stop.

Mr. BALL. Oh, he did?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. He ate at every bus stop?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes. I never saw him ordering. I took it that he didn't speak the language, but he always managed to order himself a large meal, because he never seemed to get it over to them what he wanted.

Mr. BALL. What gave you the impression that he did not speak the language?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, simply that on arriving on the bus he told us--when we had boarded the bus he had told us that he had turned to the English gentleman and asked "I wonder how you say 'Can I help you' in Spanish."

Mr. BALL. You told him when he came back to talk to you that you had had a friend travel in Russia?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And you say you had mentioned her experiences. What did you tell him about that?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, we said that she had come back and told us that Moscow was a beautiful city and she had gathered the impression that they were being taken on a tour and shown only what they wanted to be shown.

She, being a school teacher, asked a lot of questions of their female guide, and the questions just were evaded or not answered.

And she said she got the impression that she was told to say certain things and nothing else.

Mr. BALL. Did Oswald make any remark to that?

Miss MUMFORD. No; the only remark he made on his life in Moscow was that he had had a lot of trouble getting out. That's all he said.

Mr. BALL. Did he make any statement at all concerning his life in the Soviet Union; whether he had enjoyed the stay there or not?

Miss MUMFORD. No; he gave me the impression that he was the average, normal American citizen who had gone over there and had wanted to get out and couldn't get out for some red tape reasons.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything or make any mention of politics?

Miss MUMFORD. No; never.

Mr. BALL. Did he mention anything about communism, socialism, or anything of that sort?

Miss MUMFORD. No; he never said anything about his political views or even mention politics at all.

Mr. BALL. You did see his passport, though?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How did he happen to show you this passport?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I think it was rather to prove that he had been in Russia. I think he was trying to find places that we hadn't been that he had, and he just--in fact, he left us at the seat to go up and take his passport from his traveling bag and bring it down to show us.

Mr. BALL. Had he told you his name before that?

Miss MUMFORD. He never mentioned his name once.

Mr. BALL. He never did?

Miss MUMFORD. He never introduced himself; no.

Mr. BALL. How did you know his name?

Miss MUMFORD. We didn't.

Mr. BALL. Did you notice the name on the passport?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I didn't; no. Pat says it rang a bell when the rest of the business came up, and we recognized him on television. And she said, when the name came through on the television, it did ring a bell with her, but she said even then she couldn't picture that name on the passport.

Mr. BALL. You did see the name on the passport, did you?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, yes, he must have shown it to us. I can't really remember.

Mr. BALL. But you didn't remember the name?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You made no note of it?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Did the elderly Englishman ever make a statement to you as to whether or not the young man sitting next to him on the bus, that is, Oswald, had been to Mexico City before, or been to Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; Oswald must have told him he had been there numerous times, because this Englishman did refer us, or did refer me to Oswald and say "He has been there before. Why don't you ask him?"

Mr. BALL. Did he say he had been to Mexico City or Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. I think we were speaking about Mexico generally, because we had contemplated a trip down to Acapulco, and I was interested in the difference in temperatures.

Mr. BALL. Was that at a bus stop?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes, outside the bus; a rest stop.

Mr. BALL. Now, you gained some impression, didn't you, from talking to the English man, that he had not known Oswald before?

Miss MUMFORD. Only by his reference to Oswald as "the young man sitting next to me." They were talking quite a lot, the four of them.

In the first two seats were the young English couple, and directly behind them were Oswald, sitting on the aisle, and the Englishman, sitting near the window. And we could hear them talking a lot, and laughing, when we were sitting in the back, wondering what was going on.

Mr. BALL. Did you gain the impression from anything else said by the Englishman that he was not traveling in the company of Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Nothing except that he referred to him as the young man----

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; but they never spoke to each other on rest stops. Oswald just went his way completely.

Mr. BALL. When you arrived at Mexico City did the English man get off the bus with Oswald, or at the same time when Oswald did?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember. I remember Oswald was standing completely alone in the bus station.

Mr. BALL. What did the Englishman do?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember what he did at all. We got off the bus and I don't remember seeing him leave the bus even.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you have any conversation with the English couple to indicate that they had never before seen Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't think they made any reference to him at all.

Mr. BALL. The Federal Bureau of Investigation agent that you talked to on the 12th of December stated this: That in talking with the Englishman, the elderly Englishman, he said, and I will quote what he put down, "I gather the young man sitting with me has been to Mexico City before."

Do you remember words like that used by the Englishman?

Miss MUMFORD. That may have been his words. I really don't remember. That was just the general impression I got of what he said to me.

Mr. BALL. Now, also at that time, the agent reported that it was your opinion that "Oswald was traveling alone, and that he had had no previous contact with any of the English-speaking people on the bus prior to that time." Did you tell him that?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; and that is still my opinion.

Mr. BALL. Did you have breakfast on that morning before you got into one of your stops? Did you have a breakfast?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Where? Did you notice the name of the place?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't know the name of the place. It was about 6 a.m. in the morning and we arrived in Mexico City at about 10, so it would have been about 4 hours before we arrived in the city.

Mr. BALL. Did you eat with Oswald at that time; eat breakfast with him?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Did he eat breakfast with anyone?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember at that particular stage. Earlier in the night, twice, I knew he ate alone.

Mr. BALL. In the statement which the agent reported, the agent reported his conversation with you, and he says that, "Oswald always ate alone except for breakfast on the morning of September 27, 1963, when he ate with the English couple." Do you remember whether Oswald ate breakfast with the English couple?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't; no. Pat may have remembered that. I don't remember seeing him at all in that particular restaurant.

Mr. BALL. Did you give this young man a nickname?

Miss MUMFORD. "Texas."

Mr. BALL. Did you call him "Texas" to his face?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You just called him "Texas" when you----

Miss MUMFORD. No; we wrote home from Mexico City describing the awful bus trip, with crying kids, et cetera, and happened to mention that there was a young Texan and we called him "Texas."

Mr. BALL. But you didn't call him "Texas" to his face?

Miss MUMFORD. No, No.

Mr. BALL. How was this boy from Texas dressed?

Miss MUMFORD. He was dressed casually. I don't remember what color trousers he had on. He had on a dark sweater. I know that. It was a wool sweater, a sort of a charcoal gray color.

When we saw him on television, being arrested or being taken down to the Dallas County jail, Patricia was the first to recognize that that was the same sweater. We were reluctant to believe this, of course, at first; that we knew this man. But she said the thinning hair on the top, the thinning, curly, wiry hair, plus the sweater that she recognized right away, and I recognized afterwards, made us almost certain that this was the same man.

Mr. BALL. Did he have a shirt on?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember. In discussing this with Patricia she said that she felt he had some sort of a checked shirt on, just underneath.

Mr. BALL. He didn't have a tie on?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Open?

Miss MUMFORD. Open sport shirt; yes.

Mr. BALL. And did he have on a jersey; pale-green jersey that you noticed?

Miss MUMFORD. No; not pale green.

Mr. BALL. Now, you said he had some luggage. Did you see the luggage?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How much luggage did he have?

Miss MUMFORD. Just one medium sized--I can't remember whether it was an overnight bag or one of these pouch affairs, you know.

Mr. BALL. Was it a zipper bag?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, I thought it was a zipper bag. I am not really certain on that point.

Mr. BALL. What color was it?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Did he have the bag with him in the seat, or near the seat where he was sitting?

Miss MUMFORD. Up on the railing, above him.

Mr. BALL. And when he left the bus in Mexico City did he carry the luggage with him?

Miss MUMFORD. I can't say for sure.

Mr. BALL. When you last saw him standing in the bus depot did he have a piece of luggage in his hand?

Miss MUMFORD. I can't remember that either.

Mr. BALL. Did Oswald tell you where he had boarded the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't think he did.

Mr. BALL. What was the name of the bus depot in Mexico City where you last saw Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. I am not sure of that. I know the name of the bus, or I am fairly certain of the name of the bus. But I am not sure of the bus station.

Mr. BALL. Were there a lot of bus stations?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, that is a point I am not sure of. We took a bus down to Acapulco from Mexico City and I have the feeling that was the busline we took to Acapulco. I know there are about three different buslines situated in different places in Mexico City, and I am not sure just what was the name of the depot we came into.

Mr. BALL. Now, again, on the luggage, did he have one or more pieces of luggage?

Miss MUMFORD. I think it was one.

Mr. BALL. Just one?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And that was a zipper type?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Are you able to tell me what color it was?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You saw Oswald on television after the President had been shot, didn't you?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Now, tell me where you were when you saw the television and who was with you and what you said.

Miss MUMFORD. On the Friday night of the 22d, Pat and I left by bus for Las Vegas for the weekend. Patricia was not working at that time. I am not sure whether she had seen television shots--I think we had both seen television shots before we left for the bus station. I am not familiar with whether we realized at that stage that it was him or not.

I remember in Las Vegas we had a television in our motel room and it was then that we were both very sure that it was the same man.

Mr. BALL. You saw him on television, did you?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And you thought you recognized him then?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. As the man you had met on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. The man you have referred to as "Texas"?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; well, we knew we had seen him somewhere before, and we were sort of going over our travels in our mind, and it hit us that it was on that bus, particularly when they said he was from Fort Worth, or from Texas.

Mr. BALL. Now, can you give me a description of the Englishman; what he looked like? You told me his approximate age.

Miss MUMFORD. He was short. Yes; about 5'8". Quite bald, plump; fat. He was also dressed casually.

Mr. BALL. Did he have a tie on?

Miss MUMFORD. I don't remember. He seemed to me not to be well dressed. He was scruffy. He spoke well. He spoke with a cultured English accent more than a Cockney or a suburbia accent.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you whether or not he had lived in Mexico before?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; Not--he didn't specify Mexico City. He said that he had lived on and off in Mexico for 25 years.

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you his name?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Well, you were shown pictures of a man later on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, were you not?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And they showed you pictures of Oswald, didn't they; Lee Harvey Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You didn't ever see a picture of Oswald?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. But they showed you pictures of a man, did they not?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; they showed us two pictures the first time, one picture I was fairly certain was the same gentleman. The other picture, whom they said was the same man, I couldn't give that description--I couldn't say definitely that it was him or even the same man.

The second time the FBI official showed me a photo was some weeks or months later and I could make a definite--what is the word I want?

Mr. BALL. Identification?

Miss MUMFORD. Identification of that picture.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell the agent?

Miss MUMFORD. Well, that third picture, on the second time he had showed it to me, was, I was certain, the same man.

Mr. BALL. You mean the elderly Englishman?

Miss MUMFORD. The elderly Englishman.

Mr. BALL. That you had seen on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see this Englishman again?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Except this night, or this ride on the bus?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes; that was the only time.

Mr. BALL. Did they tell you that the Englishman's name was John Howard Bowen?

Miss MUMFORD. No; I don't recall ever being told his name.

Mr. BALL. Or that he might have had the name Albert Osborne?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You don't remember either of those?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. Was your friend with you when the agent showed you the pictures?

Miss MUMFORD. The first set of pictures, she was still in this country and she was also shown them. The second set of pictures was shown to me after she had left.

Mr. BALL. When the first set of pictures was shown to your friend Patricia Winston, what did she say?

Miss MUMFORD. If I remember correctly, she felt the same way as I did: that one of the photos was a good likeness, and the other one she couldn't make an identification.

Mr. BALL. Do you have anything else that you would care to say; any impressions that you obtained from this ride on the bus that you think might be of assistance to us?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. You have told us about all you know about that trip, have you, now?

Miss MUMFORD. Yes.

Mr. BALL. This will be written up and submitted to you for your signature, I hope this week.

Mr. DILLAVOU. You mentioned to me, Pam, something about the frugality of this boy in his travels. I don't know if you want that----

Mr. BALL. Yes; we would like that.

Miss MUMFORD. Oh, yes; he did say that the Hotel Cuba was a very cheap place to stay, and I think either Patricia or myself made the comment, "Well, that suits us fine because that is the way we do it, too."

That is the only thing I can remember that he said that referred to his way of travel.

Mr. BALL. Did he say anything about how much money he had, or how much he could spend or would spend?

Miss MUMFORD. No.

Mr. BALL. That's all.

TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER

The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 5:25 p.m., on March 25, 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. Would you please rise, I will swear you 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. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please be seated. 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 by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order No. 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137. The Commission has adopted rules of procedure in conformance with the Executive order and the joint resolution. I understand that Mr. Rankin, the general counsel to the Commission, wrote you a letter last week and told you that I would contact you to take your testimony this week. He sent with that letter, I understand, a copy of that Executive order and joint resolution together with a copy of the rules of procedure adopted by the Commission for the taking of testimony of witnesses. You received that letter?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And copies of the papers I referred to?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Today we want to examine you briefly concerning the possibility that you did some work on a rifle for a man by the name of Oswald who may in fact have been Lee Harvey Oswald. Before we get into that, we would like to have you state your full name for the court reporter.

Mr. RYDER. Dial Duwayne [spelling] R-y-d-e-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. RYDER. 2028 Harvard.

Mr. LIEBELER. What city?

Mr. RYDER. Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where are you employed, Mr. Ryder?

Mr. RYDER. Irving Sports Shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is that?

Mr. RYDER. 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of place is the Irving Sports Shop?

Mr. RYDER. Well, it's a retail sporting goods store.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you do in your work there?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, my capacity is, I guess you could refer to it as service manager. I do all the service work, gun work, outboard motor work, rig boats. I guess you say general flunkie or service man you refer to it as.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are you?

Mr. RYDER. Twenty-five.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you born here in Texas?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I was born in Claremont, Ill.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you move to Texas?

Mr. RYDER. 1945.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1945?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you go to school?

Mr. RYDER. Irving High School; actually, I went all the way through the Irving public school system.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you graduated from the Irving Public High School?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you graduate from high school?

Mr. RYDER. 1957.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you been working for the Irving Sports Shop?

Mr. RYDER. Five years be close enough; it's a little less than 5, but 5 covers it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you married?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have children?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you been married?

Mr. RYDER. Five years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you been in the military service?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What branch were you in?

Mr. RYDER. Went in the National Guard, 49th Armored Division which I am still an active member.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of the National Guard?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you serve on active duty with the U.S. Army?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. For 2 years?

Mr. RYDER. No; actually it was, let's see, I guess you say it was 15 months, 16, something like that. In other words, while I was on 6 months' training, they activated the 49th Armored Division and I was called in to stay 9 extra months on active duty.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you stationed while on active duty?

Mr. RYDER. Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Knox for advanced individual training, and Fort Polk, La., with the 49th.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of training did you receive?

Mr. RYDER. Armored tank training.

Mr. LIEBELER. You served as a tanker at Fort Polk?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your rank in the National Guard?

Mr. RYDER. Now?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. RYDER. Sergeant.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was it at the time you went into active duty?

Mr. RYDER. It was June 11 in 1960 when I reported to Fort Leonard Wood.

Mr. LIEBELER. June what? What was your rank when you went on active duty?

Mr. RYDER. I was just an E-2.

Mr. LIEBELER. E-2?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; or private--beginner--actually, I had 3 months actually, National Guard work which waives your time for E-2, three months' period. Of course, there isn't much difference in pay rate.

Mr. LIEBELER. It appears that there was a newspaper story that appeared in the Dallas Times Herald on November 28, 1963, and apparently a version of that story was carried in the New York Times on November 29, 1963, which mentions you. Do you recall being interviewed by a reporter from a Dallas newspaper?

Mr. RYDER. After the story was out; yes--before, no.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you mean by that?

Mr. RYDER. Well, the deal is the story came out on Thanksgiving and early that morning the telephone rang--I would say roughly 7:30 or 8, something like that--and I answered the phone and a guy introduced himself and I told him I didn't have any comment and hung up.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was a newspaperman?

Mr. RYDER. To tell you the truth, I didn't pay that much attention. I was half asleep because it was a day off. I was going to get some of that extra dozing time, you know, and I just told him I didn't have any comment and hung the phone up and took it off the hook and later on that day, CBS television came out and they were wanting a blownup deal on it to put on television when they found it was opposite which came out in the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. In other words, you were not interviewed as far as you can remember by a newspaper reporter prior to the time the story came out in the Times Herald?

Mr. RYDER. Not as far as I know. I was interviewed by the FBI and Dallas Police Department and I believe a couple Secret Service men came out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which one of those interviewed you first?

Mr. RYDER. The FBI was the first one out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what the date was when the FBI first interviewed you?

Mr. RYDER. It was on Monday, the day of the funeral of President Kennedy.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25. Friday was the 22d, Saturday would be the 23d, Sunday the 24h, Monday the 25th. Do you remember the name of the FBI man?

Mr. RYDER. Mr. Horton.

Mr. LIEBELER. Horton [spelling] E-m-o-r-y E. H-o-r-t-o-n?

Mr. RYDER. I didn't get his first name. His last name stuck with me--well, I don't know why; it just stayed there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did Mr. Horton say to you and what did you say to him, to the best of your recollection?

Mr. RYDER. Of course, we were closed on that Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Irving Sports Shop was closed?

Mr. RYDER. Right, and he came to the house, so, at that time he showed me pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald and pictures of the gun and asked me about it. I said "Well, the face and the body features of Oswald there was real common in this country." I mean, you know, in this area in Texas and that to say that I had him in the shop, actually, this was after a period of time that we boiled it down to. Oh, I told him I had a ticket with the name Oswald, no date, no address, just for drilling and tapping and boresighting--no address, or name; he didn't say he'd like to see the ticket and was looking at the pictures, then I seen the gun. Of course, from the picture I told him as far as I could remember I told him I hadn't mounted that scope, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You based that statement that you had not mounted the scope on your recollection that you had not worked on that particular kind of rifle, is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. Right, on this Italian rifle--I never worked on them. I seen them but as far as doing any physical work, I haven't done none even to this date, I haven't worked on any of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are absolutely sure about that?

Mr. RYDER. I am positive on that, very positive. So, we went up to the Irving Sports Shop and I opened it up and got the ticket and showed him. It was just a little repair ticket actually what it amounted to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it have a number on it?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir; I don't remember the number.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you give the tag to Mr. Horton?

Mr. RYDER. No; he told us to hold on to it, keep it and they would probably get it later on and they did. It seems to me like it was 2 or 3 weeks ago they came and got it now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just 2 or 3 weeks ago?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who came and got it?

Mr. RYDER. I don't know; the boss, Mr. Greener, gave it to him. It was on Saturday, I believe it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did that tag indicate the nature of the work that was to be done?

Mr. RYDER. Well, actually, all it had on it was drill and tapping; it said drill and tap and a price of $4.50, I believe it was and boresight, of course, no charge on that, so by us charging $1.50 a hole--that's what we normally charge for drillin' and tappin'--would on this particular thing, would have been three holes drill and tap, where in the picture of the gun there was only two screws holding the mount of the scope on which is, more or less, made it positive we hadn't mounted it on the gun, so Mr. Horton, so he took it for granted that I hadn't done the work on it and I am sure I haven't because----

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of gun was it?

Mr. RYDER. It was a 6.5 Italian.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the make?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, I have seen several of them but as far as who made the gun, I don't know; probably some Italian gun manufacturer but as far as who it was, I don't know. I can't read Italian.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell from looking at the ticket when this work was done? First of all, the tag was not dated?

Mr. RYDER. The tag was not dated.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you make any estimate of the time by looking at this ticket as to when the work was done?

Mr. RYDER. Well, it was done sometime between the 1st and 15th of November.

Mr. LIEBELER. How could you tell that?

Mr. RYDER. Because the work was done while the Greeners or the Woody Francis Greeners, the owners of the sport shop were on vacation.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know?

Mr. RYDER. They were gone that 2 weeks.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know it was done while they were gone?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, I can't really say too definitely sure but I am quite sure it was because he doesn't remember seeing the gun in the shop while he was there. In other words, before they left, and of course, it was gone when they came back.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say "the gun," what do you mean?

Mr. RYDER. The one I worked on--in other words, he keeps a pretty good watch on my work to make sure I'm getting it out on time and he will check fairly close every day, every other day, and check to make sure I'm getting the work out, that old work isn't laying there to be done. He's pretty sharp on remembering names and he would have remembered that quite surely if----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have much work of this type?

Mr. RYDER. Yes, sir; at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did have quite a lot of work at this time mounting telescopic sights?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; when they left, that's 2 weeks prior to the opening of the deer season here and I guess that 2 weeks I mounted 35, 40, maybe 50 scopes in that week as well as run the business while they was gone which is quite a headache in itself. That's just prior to hunting season, you see. Just like I told everybody all along, I couldn't say specifically if it was by seeing pictures if it was him or another Oswald. In other words, I don't put that close relation to a man's face to a particular item of work.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the deer season open--the 14th or 15th of November?

Mr. RYDER. The 15th, I believe it was this year.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you say you mounted perhaps as many as 50 scopes in the 2 weeks preceding that day?

Mr. RYDER. Very possibly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's go back to the last 2 weeks in October. Did you have a similar number of scopes to mount during that time?

Mr. RYDER. Not quite that many. Lot of these guys like to get their scopes mounted just before they leave. For instance, buying these license plates and getting your car inspected works the same way. They wait until the last minute before they really get ready to go.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any recollection of about how many scopes you might have mounted during the last 2 weeks in October?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I sure wouldn't say specific to remember, sure wouldn't be sure about the number.

Mr. LIEBELER. It would not have been as many as you did the first 2 weeks in November but would it have been more than 10?

Mr. RYDER. Oh, yeah; I'm quite sure. I say roughly 25 scopes. Of course, a lot of these people that buy their scopes wholesale or buy a cheap scope that we don't handle, we handle the better priced and better scopes and they buy these things and mounts and everything somewhere else and have us mount them.

Mr. LIEBELER. The thing I am working toward here is trying to fix the date on which this ticket with the name Oswald on it--when the work was done.

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you mounted, say, 25 scopes or approximately that many during the last 2 weeks of October, isn't it possible that the Oswald scope could have been mounted during that period of time and your boss would not have remembered the name Oswald as being connected with one of those rifles?

Mr. RYDER. Could have, but like I say, he's pretty sharp. He's pretty smart; I mean in keeping up with the business, you know what I mean. In other words, the flow of the work that I had; in other words, he keeps a close watch on it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you stated that the repair tag had a number on it. Are these repair tags taken off a book with tags with consecutive numbers on them?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do these numbers come from?

Mr. RYDER. We buy repair tags, of course, they have a main base of the tag, just a tag you can tear off and you can tear off--say I have number 41626 of the other piece; in other words, have the right tag on the gun. As far as sequence, we don't use any. We have a box and we reach over, get a tag, put a man's name on it. The same tag is used on reels, rods, outboard motors, boats.

Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no possible way in which you could fix the date by observing the sequence of the number on the tag?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you limit it to a period of 2 weeks?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, it would be from the 1st to around the 14th or 15th of November while the Greeners was away.

Mr. LIEBELER. You said before you were quite sure you never worked on a----

Mr. RYDER. The Italian gun.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Italian rifle. Do you have any recollection of the kind of rifle that this Oswald tag referred to?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't. That's another place where we did--in other words, I did so many and I was so rushed that I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to what tag was to have such and such a scope put on. That is where actually our fall-down went on the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. There is no indication on the tag as to what kind of rifle it would be?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you helped at all by the fact that the tag indicates that three holes were drilled? Do you ordinarily drill three holes on all rifles?

Mr. RYDER. We boiled it down to this: That there are two type bases used that have three. The Redfield base and the Buehler base and then, actually, these could go on any gun that you want. In other words, if a man bought a Redfield or Buehler base they can be adapted to any gun with three holes. Now any imported, we couldn't say definitely if it was imported because the Springfield O3A3 requires three holes; the British 303 requires three holes. These are guns they use and that's the only ones we could think of offhand that would require just three holes, so we boiled it down, it was either Buehler, Redfield base or with the Weaver base being on the Springfield O3A3.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or the 303 British rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say you boiled this down in your conversation with Horton from the FBI?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, this was amongst ourselves, I and Mr. Greener. Actually, there was a lady from the Washington press, of course, I don't know, I forgotten which paper she worked with but she was with the Washington press and we discussed this with her quite thoroughly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember her name?

Mr. RYDER. I sure don't. She, in turn, called Klein's and found out the rifle that was used in the assassination had already been drilled and tapped. In other words, he had bought the scope and rifle from Klein's and they were shipped together and all he had to do was attach it to this particular gun. In other words, the one he used in the assassination. Of course, they order by serial number.

Mr. LIEBELER. You also testified you did not mount any scope on an Italian rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say, that when you mount a scope you do not charge for the process of boresighting, is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, it's hard to say, really. At that time we were not charging if we drilled and tapped one, we didn't do it. Now we do charge extra, $1.50 bore sighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall if there was an extra $1.50 for boresighting indicated on the ticket in question?

Mr. RYDER. I don't even remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing that point with Agent Horton?

Mr. RYDER. Yeah; we talked maybe we did charge $1.50 for the boresighting. As a matter of fact, I did because $6--or was it $4.50--I don't even remember that now.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't now remember whether the ticket was for $4.50 or $6?

Mr. RYDER. That's right, right now, I don't. It seems like to me it was for $4.50 for drill, tapping, and bore sighting. I believe it was for $4.50. In other words, I didn't charge for boresighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you do when you bore sight a rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Well, I use a sight-a-line. That's actually three different things but, what it is, it's an optic deal made by this manufacturing company that has a little cross hair in it just like a scope. It lays like such instead of like such [illustrating]. By taking a little sprig that fits different caliber rifles, fits in the rifle, you look through the scope and line the four cross hairs together to the center point of the cross hairs. It doesn't zero a gun by any means. It just gets you--oh, better where you can tell where you're hitting.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, you can't really zero a gun any by just boresighting it?

Mr. RYDER. No; actually, it lines your bore and your sight at one point or close to one point where you can get your point from there without wasting ammunition. If I were to anchor a barrel or piece of pipe in a vise and pick out a spot over there on that building [indicating] somewhere; say, draw a circle and I line this with that and aline the sight, I have a scope or open sight either one, over to that point, I go to shoot at it offhand and there's a different way I hold that gun. This breaks it down to a fine deal where you understand the difference between boresighting and zero. If you been in the army, you know the difference. In other words, this method I was just describing say, to the building, is the way we use the bore sight.

Mr. LIEBELER. But now you have a little machine that does that?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; we have this little optical instrument we use now which makes it simple and faster.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever worked with any rifles that came from Klein's in Chicago or mail-order rifles that came with scopes mounted on it?

Mr. RYDER. You can't tell unless a man tells you. In other words, to look at one you can't tell any difference in workmanship.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as how the scope was mounted, you mean?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any way of knowing whether these scopes are boresighted when mounted by a mail-order house or not?

Mr. RYDER. Most likely they are. Now, I don't know how they operate, if they do boresight any there or not. I do know for a fact if you boresight or zero a boresight on a Redfield base or any base except Bausch and Lomb, other than those, other than the Bausch and Lomb, if you take the scope off and put it back on you have to rezero. In other words, if they did boresight it and take it back off and ship it, it's going to be entirely different when the man receives the gun. It might be close enough for a man to shoot one in but won't be near as close.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that a rifle would have to be zeroed in any event after it had been shipped from a mail-order house before it could be used to shoot accurately?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; take for example, I have a Model 70 Winchester .30-06 caliber with a K-4 Weaver scope; nearly every season prior to deer season I will shoot it in and I have found several times it has been off just by riding in the back of the car. Taking it in and out of a gun case, things like that will make them off. In other words, they are not built so rigid that a little something here and there can get bumped loose so it would be like I say, he would have to have it zeroed after he received it from the mail-order house, most definitely.

Mr. LIEBELER. If I were to tell you that this particular rifle had been carried to New Orleans and back in a station wagon and had laid in a garage in Irving for 2 months prior to the assassination and had been moved around in the garage, would that lead you to believe it might be out of sight at that time?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; it could be very possible.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think it would be probable or do you have any experience to make a judgment like that?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, of course, I take proper good care of the gun I got and I have to readjust it quite often when I shoot it in. Of course, then again, too, later on, from one season to the next I might change from the way I held my gun which is another thing to make a lot of difference in the way I shoot but one to be carried that far, unless it was really taken care of can very, very easily be knocked out of alinement or out of adjustment. Another thing, too, on just looking at this picture----

Mr. LIEBELER. The picture of the rifle?

Mr. RYDER. The picture of the rifle that Mr. Horton had; this was a real cheap, common, real flimsy looking--of course, I couldn't tell by just looking at the picture say the type of material it was made of, but to me it looked rather cheap. It would be very easily knocked out of adjustment.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never been shown the actual rifle itself, is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I haven't. I would like to see which mount it is, see whose make it is, but I haven't seen it yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember being interviewed by an agent of the Secret Service?

Mr. RYDER. They came out and talked to Mr. Greener rather than myself. Well, I talked with them, too; we had a triangular, circular conversation--Mr. Greener, myself, and the agent.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the agent's name?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it refresh your recollection if I said his name was Elmer W. Moore?

Mr. RYDER. Doesn't ring a bell.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the Secret Service agent that you were certain after viewing photographs of Oswald that you had never done any work for him; in fact had never seen him?

Mr. RYDER. Not actually in that tone; like I say, like I told all of them that interviewed me, even the reporter, that his features are very common, I say, for the working class in the Dallas and Fort Worth area and he could have been in the shop, sport shop, I might ought to say, and be easily mistaken for another person or another person similar to his features could have been in, but I couldn't say specific if he had been in the shop or not, I mean, that's something I won't draw a conclusion on because like I say his features, face and all is common with the working class here and he could easily be mistaken one way or the other either for him or for another person.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as far as outside of the shop is concerned, you see, I'm troubled to some extent because I have before me a report of the agent from the Secret Service and a report from the agent of the FBI. One report says you are quite sure you have seen and talked to Oswald and the other one says you are quite sure you have not seen him. I am puzzled by those statements.

Mr. RYDER. Like I continue to say all the way through on their investigation, both that Secret Service man and from the FBI that he could have been in the shop; I could have talked to him but to say I had definitely, I couldn't say I have really talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you say you definitely have ever seen him outside of the shop anyplace?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't believe I have. I mean I couldn't say specific because back again to the common features, so on and so forth, but, actually, we have drawn a conclusion, of course, that is, I and the boys and people concerned at the sport shop there that it was either this Oswald with another gun or another Oswald with another gun. We know definitely that it was another gun. We know that for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have already carefully considered the possibility of identifying that other gun but you are not able to do it?

Mr. RYDER. Right; Mr. Greener called all the other Oswalds listed in the Dallas and Irving directories.

Mr. LIEBELER. He did that?

Mr. RYDER. Right, with no avail; in other words, nothing turned up.

Mr. LIEBELER. Whose handwriting does the name Oswald appear to be written in?

Mr. RYDER. It's mine.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is your own handwriting?

Mr. RYDER. It is my own handwriting; the whole thing was written up by me.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first discover this tag?

Mr. RYDER. Well, it's kind of funny, actually, how I found the tag. My workbench generally is cluttered up, you know how tools get scattered around and I was--I had been to the Evinrude Service School----

Mr. LIEBELER. Here in Dallas?

Mr. RYDER. Yeah, at the Marriott over here and we were talking about it that evening and, of course, by the time I got back from the service clinic was just about time to close and we left and that Saturday afternoon I started cleaning off the workbench and I found the ticket of which I didn't say anything to anybody else there and when Mr. Horton came out on Monday, well, then I told him we had a tag. I didn't want to keep anything back but after he showed me the picture and everything I apparently drew my conclusions of not working on that particular gun anyway.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did Horton know to come out to the sports shop?

Mr. RYDER. Actually, I don't know. He evidently was checking all of the----

Mr. LIEBELER. Gunshops?

Mr. RYDER. Gunshops and hit us on Monday, well, let's see, it was, oh, it was about 10:30 or 11 that morning whenever he first came out.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not familiar with this particular kind of rifle, are you? You have not worked on any similar rifles?

Mr. RYDER. Well, there's quite a few similar but this particular one is a real oddity. It's an odd job and I have never worked on any. I have seen several.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever broken one down?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; never have. As a matter of fact, the only thing I can remember doing is just pulling the bolt back on it and closing it back up. That, to me, is common; I always make sure there's no shells or anything before I look at one. That's the first thing if you hand me a pistol, I kick the cylinder out or spin it through to make sure it's unloaded but this gun is real odd, I mean it's a crude-built gun.

Mr. LIEBELER. When a gun is broken down, by that, I am sure you understand that I mean you remove the action and the barrel from the stock. The rifle then is, generally speaking, in two shorter pieces.

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. The two pieces you have are shorter than the gun is when put together?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is generally true because the stock of the rifle doesn't ordinarily extend to the end of the barrel?

Mr. RYDER. Right; now on some military rifles they do extend all the way to the end of the barrel or close to the end, put it that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you note in connection with the picture that you observed of this rifle they found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you note whether or not on that rifle the stock went very close to the end of the barrel or didn't come out so far?

Mr. RYDER. As far as I remember it had been cut off, or, in other words, it didn't go to the end of the barrel, as far as I remember, I don't. I am quite sure it didn't. It went a little over half way in the picture that I saw.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned that sometimes in the military rifles the stock goes quite far along the barrel?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that not a common type of construction in a domestic rifle or nonmilitary rifle?

Mr. RYDER. Right; or nonmilitary or what we call a sporter rifle your stock goes half way to the end of the barrel leaving the end of the barrel to wiggle as it may. A military rifle, M-1, Garand, O3A3, 303, they all are of wood and completely encased around the barrel. In other words, you had a piece run all the way on the bottom of it; piece that filled in on the top side. Lot of people use military rifles or use sporter rifles that some cut the stock off at a slight angle, say, a little above half way of the barrel. Others go ahead and spend and buy the sporter-type stock they can fit their gun to, but as far as I remember, this stock on the picture didn't go all the way to the end of the barrel.

Mr. LIEBELER. Unless you can think of anything else that you want to add at this point I just tell you for the record that my present inclination is to close the deposition at this point. I may wish to question you again and possibly bring the rifle down here so you can look at it. Unless you can think of anything else you want to add at this time that you think might be helpful, we will terminate. Can you think of anything else?

Mr. RYDER. No; I can't think of anything right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to ask one or two more questions. You mentioned you were interviewed by the Dallas police force about this. Do you remember the name of the man or men who talked to you on the Dallas police force?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't. Actually, I say Dallas Police Department, it was the sheriff's department rather than the Dallas Police Department, really. Of course, I connect the two together but they're two separate organizations; I know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. In view of my former statement, I would like to thank you at this time. If we decide to continue with this, we will advise you in the future.

TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER RESUMED

The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 12:45 p.m., on April 1, 1964, at the Irving Sports Shop, 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the continued deposition of Dial Duwayne Ryder. The witness having been previously sworn, we will continue with the examination.

First of all, Mr. Ryder, I want to show you a picture that has been marked Exhibit No. 1, on Mr. Greener's deposition. I ask you if that is a picture of the repair tag that you found here in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that is the one right there.

Mr. LIEBELER. It has the name Oswald on it and the words drill and tap $4.50; bore sight, $1.50; total $6.

Mr. RYDER. That is the one we was thinking about the other day. Did it have the $6 tag or the $4.50 tag, because we sometimes charge for the boresight and sometimes don't, depending on the type work we do or what we actually do on the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the exact details under which you found the tag in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Well, we talked about this thing on Saturday morning and like I said before, like you saw the workbench up there today, that it is cluttered up, and on Saturday evening I was cleaning it off and found the tag laying back on the workbench.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Saturday following the assassination?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You found the tag there yourself?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the FBI been out here prior to that time?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had not?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out?

Mr. RYDER. On Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right?

Mr. RYDER. He told us to hold onto it, and then they later came by and got the tag.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to the newspaper reporter about this?

Mr. RYDER. There were several out here after the FBI had been out, and we told them the same thing that we told the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't talk to any newspaper reporter before the FBI came out here?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite sure about that?

Mr. RYDER. I am positive about that.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was your impression at the time the FBI came that they were making a routine check of all guns?

Mr. RYDER. That is my opinion. That is the idea I had.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't know of any special reason why they came to this particular gun shop?

Mr. RYDER. No; he didn't give any specific reason. He was just checking us out. Like I say, probably just routine like he checked all others.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now I show you two pictures that have been marked Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 on Mr. Greener's deposition. They are pictures of a rifle, and I ask you if you have ever seen a rifle like that or ever worked on one here in your shop?

Mr. RYDER. I have seen them but never have worked on one of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you seen them before the assassination?

Mr. RYDER. This is what I was talking about the other day. This is not as plain a picture as Mr. Horton had. Evidently that is a reprint, but there are two screws, one here and one here, where on the tag I have charged for three holes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are indicating the screws on Exhibit No. 3, that hold the scope mount to the rifle; is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. Mr. Horton, the FBI man, on the rifle he had it was real plain and you could see these two screws, and this was a hole, but there wasn't any screws. There was just two screws in the mount.

Mr. LIEBELER. The mount had three holes but only two screws?

Mr. RYDER. That is apparently in the picture you have here, and this is what I was referring to as a cheap mount. This looked to me like even in this picture it was real thin gage metal. I can show you something like that, that we use on a .22 scope, and that is all we use.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in your opinion it is too light a mount?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; it is too easy to get jarred off on a high-powered rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would throw the accuracy of the rifle off, wouldn't it?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is all I have, Mr. Ryder. I just wanted you to look at the pictures, and I thank you very much.

Mr. RYDER. I don't know which one it was, but it looked--it looks like a copy of the one the FBI man had, except it's been copied over and over. This is not as plain as the one he had.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you if the FBI or anybody that ever talked to you ever showed you any pictures of a man and asked you if you could identify that man as Oswald?

Mr. RYDER. He showed me a picture of Oswald, but like I told him, I couldn't say definitely if I knew him or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some other pictures that we have. The first five pictures have previously been marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 451 and 453 through 456, and I will ask you if you can recognize the man or men described in these pictures. Have you ever seen them anywhere, as far as you can recall? And second, if you have ever seen him in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. No; they don't look like--too familiar to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do they appear to be pictures of the same man to you, or a different man?

Mr. RYDER. They look actually to me like they are different men. These two look real close.

Mr. LIEBELER. Referring to Commission Exhibits Nos. 456 and 451?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; they look real similar in their hairline. Actually, I guess this looks about the same, too.

Mr. LIEBELER. Referring to Commission Exhibit No. 455. But the other two pictures look a little different?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The other two being Commission Exhibits Nos. 453 and 454? Now I show you a picture that has been marked previously as Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A. I ask you to look at all the individuals in that picture and tell me if you recognize any of them.

There are two individuals that have been marked by a green mark, but don't confine your attention to them.

Mr. RYDER. This one I know is Oswald, as the pictures in the paper, but as far as seeing the guy personally, I don't think I ever have. I could have, but being in business here, it would be hard to say. Any of the others, I don't believe I have seen any of the others, but this one, like I say, just by picture----

Mr. LIEBELER. You are referring to the man that has been marked with an "X"?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or with two lines as opposed to one straight line on Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A. I now will show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture? There is a man marked with a green mark in the left-hand corner of the picture.

Mr. RYDER. This would be the only one. Like I say, seeing him on television and in the paper, that is as far as I could go.

Mr. LIEBELER. The man marked with the green line, is that right?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Here is another picture which has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C. Do you recognize him?

Mr. RYDER. This is the same picture that the FBI had of Oswald, the same picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember seeing this man in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Like I say, as many people as we have in here, it would be hard to distinguish one from another unless they come in quite frequently and you begin to know them. Then you would know what he looks like and kind of put a name with a face. There are several people that come in here that have been coming in for several years, but I can't make this old ticker work up there as to their names.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you aren't able to say whether this man was in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. He may have or may not have been. I couldn't say for sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you, Mr. Ryder. We appreciate your cooperation The Commission wants to thank you very much for the cooperation that you have given us.

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER RESUMED

The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 7:40 p.m., on July 23, 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. Will you stand and raise your right hand, please.

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. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe this is the third time that we have met and I have advised you previously of the nature of the Commission's work and you are familiar with the kind of problems that we have?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are aware of your rights to have an attorney if you want to--we have already discussed that previously, as I recall, and you know who I am, and, of course, you are Dial Ryder and you work at the Irving Sports Shop, and we have had previous testimony concerning the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald may have had some work done on his rifle in your sports shop.

When I talked to you previously, I asked you if I recall correctly about any conversations that you might have had with a newspaper reporter from The Dallas Times Herald; do you recall me asking you about that?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. And my recollection is that you told me that you had not talked to any newspaper reporters from The Dallas Times Herald in connection with the story that appeared in that newspaper on November 28, 1963?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And specifically you had said that you had not talked to a newspaper reporter on the morning of November 28, 1963, although you did say that on that morning, sometime around about 7:30 a newspaper reporter did call you from The Dallas Times Herald and told you that he wanted to talk to you about this whole situation and you refused to talk to him?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you hung up the telephone and as I recall, you testified that you then took the receiver off the hook, making it impossible for any other calls to come into your telephone; is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you were interviewed by the FBI again on May 18, 1964, and you told them that same story; is that correct?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that in fact correct?

Mr. RYDER. That's right. It sure is.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to advise you of the fact that we have located the newspaper reporter who supposedly talked to you that morning and his name is Hunter Schmidt, Jr., and that he has testified that he came to work at The Dallas Times Herald that morning and had a lead on this story that he had gotten from an anonymous telephone call that some woman made to the FBI and one was made to a television station here in Dallas telling them that Oswald had had some work done in your sports shop and I think I previously asked you about this and you said you didn't have anything to do with those anonymous telephone calls; is that right?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Schmidt says that he started looking for your name which he got from somewhere, apparently in connection with the Dallas Police Department and tracked you down at your home and called you between 7:30 and 8 o'clock on the morning of November 28, 1963, and that apparently your wife answered the telephone as you were still asleep and you came to the telephone and you appeared to be sleepy and that he talked to you for an extended period of time, and that you gave him the information that subsequently appeared in the newspaper article on November 28, 1963, in The Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. Schmidt was advised when he testified that you had denied giving him this story, although you had admitted that some reporter had called you on the telephone that morning. Is the name Hunter Schmidt familiar to you at all?

Mr. RYDER. No; it's not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether or not that was the particular newspaper reporter that called you that morning?

Mr. RYDER. I couldn't say definitely for sure--like I said--I told them I had no comment on it and hung the thing up.

Mr. LIEBELER. In addition to the fact that Mr. Schmidt has so testified, I have been advised that one of Mr. Schmidt's associates was sitting right there in the office at the time Schmidt called you and heard the entire conversation between Schmidt and yourself and he said that Schmidt did talk to you for an extended period of time, or to a person by the name of Dial Ryder, who gave him this information about the gun work being done at the Irving Sports Shop and he said he heard the whole conversation.

Mr. Schmidt has, during the course of his testimony, volunteered to take a polygraph examination on this whole question as to whether or not he talked to you that morning and as to whether or not you gave him the information about the gun ticket and about the three holes that were drilled in the rifle and all the other information that appeared in that newspaper story. I am not here to say myself who is telling the truth, because I don't know, but it is perfectly obvious that one of you is not telling the truth, either Mr. Schmidt or you. I don't know what reasons you would have for not telling the truth, and I don't know what reasons Mr. Schmidt would have for not telling the truth, but I wonder if on reflection and in view of the statements that I have just made to you, if you can ponder this whole question and perhaps refresh your recollection. I don't know whether you talked to this newspaper reporter or not, but in view of the fact that we have this other testimony, I wonder if it would in some way refresh your recollection that in fact you did talk to this man?

Mr. RYDER. No; like I said, the only people I talked to were Mr. Horton with the FBI and then the Dallas Police Department or the sheriff's department--is the only ones I talked to about this, until, like I told you--the CBS reporters came out and we made the television deal after radios and everything got the thing and then we thought we had it straightened out with them, but as far as that morning, I didn't talk to anybody over the phone about it except I said I had no comment and hung up the receiver and then took the receiver back off of the hook and went on about my business of sleeping on this Sunday morning.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a woman by the name of Edith Whitworth?

Mr. RYDER. Let's see--there was a lady from the Washington Press.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; this is a woman who used to run a furniture shop in Irving, which is down on Irving Boulevard.

Mr. RYDER. No; I don't know her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether Mr. Greener knows her?

Mr. RYDER. Now, he might--I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know any woman by the name of Mrs. Gertrude Hunter who also lives in Irving and is a friend of Mrs. Whitworth's?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir; I don't know them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you aware of the fact that just down Irving Boulevard from the Irving Sports Shop, a block and a half or so west, there used to be another gunshop where a man carried guns?

Mr. RYDER. Well, there was a little place down there where he handled guns--I don't know whether--if he was able to work on them or not, but it was about two blocks down the street or a block and a half or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Toward the west?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you know that there used to be a used furniture shop that was there?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; it's still there.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't know the people that ran it?

Mr. RYDER. No; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Schmidt is sitting out here in the front office and I'm going to ask him to come in and have you two gentlemen discuss this problem, see if there is some way we can resolve this story on this telephone conversation.

(At this point Mr. Hunter Schmidt, Jr., entered the room.)

Mr. LIEBELER. I have brought Mr. Hunter Schmidt, Jr., into the room and Mr. Schmidt has previously been sworn as a witness and testified yesterday on this question. I introduce you to Mr. Dial Ryder.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Ryder, how do you do?

Mr. LIEBELER. As I have indicated to Mr. Ryder, Mr. Schmidt testified yesterday that on the morning of November 28, 1963, you came to work in your office at the Dallas Times Herald and received information of some sort that possibly Lee Oswald had had some work done on a rifle, on his rifle or a rifle, in some sports shops or gunshop in the outlying areas of Dallas. Would you tell us briefly what happened after that, Mr. Schmidt?

Mr. SCHMIDT. After I got the tip, I traced it down and thought it was Garland first and I looked it up in the phonebook--the city directory--and the usual sources that we go through--I looked through and this Ryder was the only one that I could find, or apparently he was the one that said what I was looking for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you get Ryder's name in the first place; do you know?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was from a tip around the police station. Now, I don't remember. I have been trying to remember where--who specifically it came from, but it was one of the many we were getting at that time. As I said before, we had several different leads on different stories and that they were coming in pretty thick, so I don't really remember where I got the Ryder name, but it came from around the police station, one of our boys covering this angle of the assassination, called in from down there that a Ryder was supposed to have mounted a scope on a rifle for a customer named Oswald, so I started checking from there, and like I said yesterday, I thought at first it was Garland and I had to do it by a process of elimination.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you went through the city directory and you finally found it in the phone book?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe I used the phonebooks and I found this Ryder and I called him up.

Mr. LIEBELER. About what time in the morning?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Oh, 7:30 or 8--something like that. I come in at 7 o'clock and it may be a little after 8, but I estimate it was between 7:30 or 8, but it was early, and I called the Ryder and there was a woman answered the phone.

Then, apparently the Ryder I talked to, and I guess it's this same Dial Ryder, I'm not sure, but the Ryder I talked to apparently had to get out of bed, there was a little interval, and come to the phone, and the person I talked to sounded sleepy. He gave me the information I got and it was very matter of fact and I believe you used the term "cordial" yesterday. I guess--that would be it--he was not antagonistic, but he was very--just very conversational in the question and answer session and explanation, and he said he had a ticket with the name Oswald on it and that it could have been the Oswald. He said he didn't remember for sure what the face looked like with the Oswald ticket, but he understands--he said he understood that this Oswald had a very common face for this area and I asked about buying ammunition or how many time he came in. I think he was sort of vague on that--he wasn't sure how many times he had been in, and besides talking about the sighting the rifle and the boring of the holes, that was in essence what it was, what we had in the paper. I believe I explained to you about the boresighting bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. There was some conversation between you about that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. He mentioned the boresighting and I don't think I understood it fully and that might have been a little incorrect in the paper, but that was the only thing that this technicality bit about the boresighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Ryder, you have been sitting here watching Mr. Schmidt and listening to his voice; does his voice seem at all familiar to you?

Mr. RYDER. Sure doesn't--not to me at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what your recollection is of what happened on that morning?

Mr. RYDER. Well, like I have said before, and it is in my testimony--the FBI has the same thing--the phone rang. It was roughly 7:30, I would say it was closer to 7:30 than it was 8, and the reporter asked me had I mounted the scope on the Oswald gun and I told him I had no comment and I hung up, I mean, I took the receiver off the hook and that's all I done and all I said here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Schmidt, after listening to Mr. Ryder's voice, can you identify it as the voice you say you spoke to on the telephone that day, or are you unable to do it?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; I couldn't honestly identify him by voice now. It was 6 or 7 months ago and I only talked to Ryder once.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Ryder, do you know of any other Ryders out there in the area who would have any knowledge of this gun ticket at the Irving Sports Shop?

Mr. RYDER. Not that I know of--not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as I indicated to you, Mr. Schmidt has volunteered and requested a polygraph examination to try to clear this matter up, and I wonder if you have any suggestion that you think of as to how it might be done?

Mr. RYDER. Well, I'll take the thing if you want me to take it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I don't want to ask you to do it, but if you want to request it and assist the Commission in clearing this matter up, I think we could make arrangements to have a polygraph examination administered to both of you.

Mr. RYDER. Well, I'm not one to volunteer for anything.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am perfectly willing to, because I stand beside that story. I don't know this man personally, if this is the Ryder of the gun shop, the Irving Sports Shop, and the same one that identified himself that morning--that was the information I got from him and I don't have any reason to lie about it, you know, I get the same amount of pay, I don't get any extra money for that story and I didn't even get a byline for the story. I knew that it would be just part of a story. So, I feel like I am a professional with my business and I just don't like to be doubted.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether or not there was anybody else in your office at the time you heard this conversation that you had with Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. There were several men around there but I'm not sure whether they recall this conversation or not or whether they were even paying any attention. There are a couple of men that sit right to my left and a couple to my right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the Commission has followed the practice of due regard for the civil rights of the people who have been involved in this thing and it is not requesting anybody to take a polygraph examination, and it is not prepared to make an exception in this case for you, Mr. Ryder. If you want to volunteer to do so, the Commission will take it under advisement and decide what it wants to do, but it is not going to request you to do so, and I cannot even put myself in the position of even asking you to or urging you to or suggesting that you do so. That's entirely up to you.

Mr. RYDER. Well, like I said, I will take the thing if it boils down to that. Like I say, and I have contended all along, that I did not talk to anybody on Thanksgiving Day, that morning. I didn't talk to anybody. That was my day off.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any conversations with any other newspaper reporters--that afternoon, but of course, that day--which you said you wanted to enjoy as your day off, but you did go over to the shop that afternoon and meet the television people, did you not?

Mr. RYDER. Right, that's after the story broke over the radio.

Mr. LIEBELER. And in the newspaper?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; and in the newspaper, and then we got with the CBS boys and made the little film that they wanted.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember talking to any newspaper reporters at any time the next day or the day after that about this whole story?

Mr. RYDER. Well, they were all over the place the next day--on Friday--Friday and Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you still take the position that you had nothing to do with the original story that came out and you never talked to the newspaper reporters prior to the time the story came out in The Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea where they got the story?

Mr. RYDER. I still don't know--I kind of felt like where they got it was over the radio--originally--I don't know. The CBS boys said that they got it off of the Associated Press wires, is how they got it, or over the AP.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, it is not the ordinary practice, of course, for the Commission to advise witnesses what kind of an investigation it has made in connection with this thing, at least, not until the report comes out, but I think you ought to know that as a result of the existence of this gun ticket and the story that you told the FBI and the Commission, the FBI has attempted to find every Oswald in the whole Dallas and Fort Worth area and the surrounding area and it has found many of them and it has questioned all of them, some of whom have moved out of Dallas and Fort Worth, as to whether or not they ever had any work done in that gunshop, and you should know that none of them ever did, and you should also know, and I think you probably do by now, that Lee Oswald could not have had any scope mounted on the rifle that he used to assassinate the President in your shop, and in fact, I don't think you claim you did mount that particular scope?

Mr. RYDER. That's right. We have claimed that it wasn't that one. On the Monday after, well, it was the Monday of the funeral of President Kennedy, that Mr. Horton came out and I thought at that time I had it cleared with him that I hadn't mounted the scope on the gun he used to assassinate the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That you had not?

Mr. RYDER. That we had not.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you weren't able to remember Lee Harvey Oswald's face as being the face of the man who had previously been in that shop; isn't that right?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you couldn't associate any specific gun or any specific man with that particular work ticket; isn't that right?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any possible suggestions as to where that work ticket could have come from if it appears, and it certainly does appear, that no other Oswald came in there and there is no evidence of any sort to indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald ever had any other rifle than the one he used to assassinate the President, and he never brought that one in the sports shop?

Mr. RYDER. All I know is that we had the ticket laying on the workbench back there and I had written it up and completed the work on it and the gun had been picked up. Now, as to whether it was Lee Oswald, I couldn't positively identify him or if there was another one out there right now I could not identify anybody if they said they did bring it in.

Mr. LIEBELER. And to the best of your recollection, you wrote that gun ticket sometime in the early part of November; is that right?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are certain that you wrote it up before November 22?

Mr. RYDER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you are not able to associate that particular ticket with any particular gun in your own mind?

Mr. RYDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. I also recall that when I asked you questions about this before, you indicated that possibly we could fix the date on which this ticket had been written because you had written it with a pencil and you said you remembered you had gone to Dallas on that particular day, and that you used a pencil to get some materials from a wholesale shop. Of course, the FBI, as you now know, has gone and has found out every day that you ever went to Dallas to get gun materials and asked you if you could identify the time and the date by reviewing this list of materials that you got from the wholesale house in Dallas and you weren't able to associate it with any particular day you used a pencil.

Mr. RYDER. Right; he had 2 or 3 days there that he showed me some copies--actually, he gave me some dates that I came to town and signed and there were 2 or 3 days there in that period that I had signed with a pencil, and it could have been that some of those days I had a pencil laying handy and I just picked it up rather than taking my pen out of my shirt.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you be surprised if the Commission concluded, after this investigation that the FBI conducted and the questioning that we have done, that there was never any man in there by the name of Oswald with any gun at all?

Mr. RYDER. Yeah--like I said--all I've got is that ticket with his name on it and the work being done.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, at this point I think we might as well conclude the deposition. The Commission will take under advisement Mr. Schmidt's request to have a polygraph examination administered to him, and I am advised by one of the U.S. attorneys here that one of the other reporters over at the newspaper does remember the conversation and we will take his deposition tomorrow. If you want to have a polygraph examination administered to you, after reflecting on this, or if you have anything further to say about the whole thing, contact Miss Stroud here at the U.S. attorneys' office, if you want to.

Mr. RYDER. Okay. Is that all?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's all. Thanks a lot, Mr. Ryder.

TESTIMONY OF HUNTER SCHMIDT, JR.

The testimony of Hunter Schmidt, Jr., was taken at 4:20 p.m., on July 22, 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. Would you rise and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Will you please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137. Under the Commission's rules of procedure, you are entitled to have an attorney present should you wish to have one. And you are entitled to 3 days' notice of the hearing, should you wish to insist upon it. And you are entitled to all privileges in terms of not answering questions that you would have in any other proceeding. I assume that you are prepared to proceed at this point without an attorney, since you don't have one here?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't think that it would be necessary.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Hunter Schmidt, Jr.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. SCHMIDT. 1118 Osceola Trail, Carrollton, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born?

Mr. SCHMIDT. September 12, 1933.

Mr. LIEBELER. Give us your educational background.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Tyler High School, Tyler Junior College; I have a B.A. from Lamar Tech, and I am working on my masters at SMU.

Mr. LIEBELER. In what? In journalism?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; in government. Two courses and a thesis away.

Mr. LIEBELER. I understand that you are presently employed by the Dallas Times Herald, is that correct?

Mr. SCHMIDT. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you work for them in the capacity of?

Mr. SCHMIDT. County editor.

Mr. LIEBELER. County editor. What do you do as county editor?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I cover, or well you might say my beat is everything in Dallas County outside of the city of Dallas, and parts of Eastern Tarrant County. That is roughly some surrounding towns, and I take care of the general news coverage in that area.

Mr. LIEBELER. At the request of the President's Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted certain investigations into the facts surrounding a story that appeared in the November 28, 1963, edition of the Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Thanksgiving Day; that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. The story related to the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald had had a telescopic sight mounted on a rifle at a sports shop in Irving, Tex.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding from reviewing the FBI report, that you were the reporter that wrote that story?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I gathered facts for the story and gave the facts to the rewrite man who wrote the actual story, but they were from the facts that I gathered. We were checking out several, running down all clues and all possible reports at that time. Anything that might be a lead to the story, we checked out. We checked out many many things of that nature, and that was just one of the tips that I checked out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you first get information that Oswald had had a scope mounted on his rifle at this Irving sport shop?

Mr. SCHMIDT. We heard of it, I think it was around the police station somewhere. I don't remember where that exact tip came from. We heard that a gunsight had been mounted by a man named Ryder, and they thought at first it was Garland.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean Garland, Tex.?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Garland, Tex.; that's right. Since that was my beat, well, they gave me the tip to check it and I checked it in Garland and found out that there wasn't any Ryder listed in the city directory and so forth, so I did it by process of elimination and checked several towns, and I found, well, I came to rest on Irving, because I found the Ryder there listed as the sports shop man, and I just took it that that was the gunsmith.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether Ryder, when you checked the city directory, that Ryder was listed as being associated with a gunshop, or did you just find the name Ryder and call him?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't remember exactly what I found in the city directory then. It was a process of elimination, and apparently that looked like the only one in Irving, so I checked that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did there come a time when you called Mr. Ryder on the telephone?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; this was Thanksgiving morning. In fact, that is the same morning I got the tip. After the process of elimination, I called Ryder and it was early that morning. I called out there, and a woman answered the phone, and he apparently had gotten out of bed, from the time it took. He sounded sleepy on the phone and so forth. So I talked to him then on the phone and asked him about the information I got for the story.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you talk to him on the phone about that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Oh, I am just guessing. I would estimate 15 minutes or roughly thereabouts.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he tell you?

Mr. SCHMIDT. He told me--I asked if he had a customer--now this is a tip we got, that this Ryder mounted a scope for a customer, and the customer's name on the ticket with the gun was Oswald. And he confirmed on the phone that morning. And the reason I took it as the truth was because I didn't think a fellow would get out of bed early and make up a story half asleep and fabricate a story that early in the morning, and get out of bed on a holiday. He told me that he had a ticket with the name Oswald on it, that it was a foreign-made rifle, that he did put the scope, bored the holes and sighted it in. I asked him if he bought any ammunition, and he said no; he didn't. I think he said he didn't remember him buying any ammunition. He then gave me the prices for the mounting of the scope, $1.50. I think he said he bored three at $1.50 a sight, and $4.50 for the boresighting--I mean for the hole drilling. And $1.50 for the sighting in of the rifle. And let's see, after he gave me the prices and everything, I just took it as pretty authoritative, because I didn't know that much about rifles.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you say that Ryder told you that he believed that the rifle was a foreign make; is that right?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; I asked him what kind it was. He said he didn't remember for sure, but he said he believed it was a foreign-made rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Ryder say anything about the fact that he was sleepy and had not slept well the night before?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, I don't believe he mentioned that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of that? Did Ryder tell you what boresighting was, or did you know about that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; I might have gotten that mixed up in the story. Some of the people who know more about rifles than I do said that wasn't exactly correct. The boresighting was explained in the story, but I did the best I could with the information I had there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any conversation with Ryder about the significance of the term boresighting?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Not that I remember. This boresighting thing came up--there is a fellow down there that knows something about rifles, and I mentioned boresighting, and then there was a conversation with the rewrite man that took the facts I had and added to the story. The top of the story is the story I got from Ryder, and the other part of the story were some other tips that had been run down and other parts of the story we pieced together about the general investigation and so forth.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was Ryder's attitude when he talked to you on the phone that morning?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was just a man giving information, as far as I was concerned. He wasn't antagonistic or anything. It was just a matter of facts, I would say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI about this?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Petrocas from Oklahoma; an FBI agent?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am not sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling him that Ryder was cordial and invited you to get in touch with him again?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes; he did. I think he said get in touch with him again if I wanted to, I am not too sure, but it was that type conversation. He wasn't antagonistic. As a matter of fact, it was like you would get a story from anybody. Nothing apparently controversial about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI report that I have also indicates that the agent says that you told him that Ryder did explain to you in detail the significance of the term "boresighting." Do you recall telling the agent that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't remember for sure. That was back, I guess, in May. I don't remember any detail about the boresighting, but I remember him mentioning boresighting.

Mr. LIEBELER. This FBI report indicates that on the evening of November 28, 1963, which was the same day that you had talked to Ryder, you saw a taped television interview?

Mr. SCHMIDT. A denial. He denied the story that he had given me that morning. But the thing that, immediately after I saw that, I called one of the fellows on the paper. I think it was Charlie Dameron or Ken Smart or one of my immediate superiors, and told him I thought the story had something behind it because they didn't mention the ticket, they didn't mention about the name Oswald on it, in the denial, and they didn't mention the cost of doing this.

Mr. LIEBELER. It did not?

Mr. SCHMIDT. It did not, as best I remember, mention the cost of doing that, and didn't mention the ticket. It just said he denied the report that he put the sight on the rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, according to this report that I have, and it says, "Schmidt advised that while at his address the evening of November 28, 1963, he observed a taped television interview on a 10 o'clock news of CBS television, in which Ryder denied furnishing any of the information to a Dallas Times Herald reporter as set forth in the article which had appeared in the newspaper that day."

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right. About that 10 o'clock, I was guessing that that was the 10 o'clock news. I did see a television denial of that, and I am just guessing that it was the 10 o'clock news. It was CBS, because I know I remember it was. It had to be CBS because I believe, and I am not sure about that 10 o'clock, because the best I can remember, it was Walter Cronkite reading the denial, and if it was Walter Cronkite, it couldn't have been the 10 o'clock news, because I don't think he was on then. In any event, I did see the television denial of it, and I am pretty sure it was CBS.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Ryder actually appeared on the television taped program, at that time; did he?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am trying to remember that. I just remember the denial clearly on television. I wouldn't swear to Ryder being on the television tape.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember for sure that Ryder denied furnishing any information to a Dallas Times Herald reporter?

Mr. SCHMIDT. In that interview he denied having done, having mounted a scope on the rifle, and he denied the story in the Times Herald, is what he was doing in essence. And he said he just didn't do it, is what he said on that, or what the story on the television said.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether or not he specifically denied having told that story to a Dallas Times Herald reporter?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; I don't remember if he specifically said that in essence. I remember the denial being credited to Ryder. As best I can recall now, the denial being credited to Ryder.

He said he denied the story in the Times Herald, that he did thus and so, that he mounted the scope. Now I am trying to remember back from what I saw on that television, because now I understand he has denied to his boss later on.

His boss had talked to our people at the Herald. He denied to his boss later on, and his boss talked to us and said that he denied to him talking to anybody from the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to Greener (Ryder's boss) about this?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. SCHMIDT. On the phone.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. SCHMIDT. He called. He was very cordial. He called in and he said that--this is after he had talked to somebody else, as I understand it.

Either he called in, or I called him. We got together on the phone, and I told him that I talked to the man Thanksgiving morning and got those facts from him. And he said that the guy denied the story, and that was in essence what was said. I told him I didn't know why he denied it or anything, unless he figured that it might not go over very well with the public.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Greener know about this work that had supposedly been done on Oswald's rifle, when you called him?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I don't remember discussing that, whether he knew about the work or not. But I remember pointing out the fact that in the denial that I heard on television, that the ticket and the cost and all that wasn't mentioned. And as I have said, I didn't know that much about rifles, and I told the man I couldn't make up that much about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember Greener telling you that he was completely unaware of any of the information that was set forth in the article that appeared in the paper on November 28, 1963, until after he had been contacted by a CBS television reporter that afternoon, and that was the first time that he read it? That he, Greener, had learned any of the facts about this whole thing?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe he said something to that in essence.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ask Greener why Ryder had denied talking to you and giving you the information?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Did I ask Greener why Ryder denied it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; as I understand, the sequence went something like this. You talked to Ryder on Thanksgiving morning, and he gave you all the information and you wrote the story that came out in the paper.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that night you saw on television a program on which Ryder in general denied ever talking to you, or denied the story that was printed in the paper?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And I understand shortly after that time you called Greener?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe it was the next day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You said to Greener, what is going on. Did you ask him why Ryder denied the story that he had previously given you? That is my question now.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I could have very well. I do remember talking to Greener and telling him that, I am sure, I got the story from Ryder that Thanksgiving morning, and I told him the reasons I thought that it was a factual story because, as I said before, about getting up early on a holiday, and the ticket with the name Oswald on it, and the cost and everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did Greener ever tell you that Ryder had told him, Greener, that he had never talked to a reporter from the Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I believe Greener said that Ryder said that he hadn't talked to anybody, as best I can remember. I think he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever talked to Ryder at any other time except on the morning of Thanksgiving, November 28, 1963?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, sir; I wouldn't know him if he walked in this room now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you had any other possible source of information for this story? Did you talk to anybody in the Dallas Police Department about it?

Mr. SCHMIDT. About the mounting; no, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about the FBI?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, sir; I got all those facts from Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. You got those facts from Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir; nowhere else did I get any information. I thought that was getting it from the horse's mouth. If I thought there was anything phony about it, I would have told the city editor about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you given consideration to the reason for Ryder denying having talked to you? He denied talking to you, he denied it to the television reporter, and furthermore, he has denied it to me under oath.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, he would have to deny it under oath, but like I say, I wouldn't have any reason to fabricate the story. I didn't get any extra compensation for it. I got paid the same thing if I hadn't gotten the story, if it had been a complete hoax.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I think you got the information for the story somewhere. I don't think there is any question about that. But isn't it a possibility that you might have gotten the information from some other place, a confidential source of information that you would rather not disclose? Wouldn't that be a sufficient reason to say you got the story from Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No, sir; I had no reason to fabricate anything about Mr. Ryder. I don't know the man. I have nothing against him. I just have a story, and I will stick by that story we had in the paper. But the only thing possible that I would be willing to retract any part would be some details of how you do the boresighting. But I don't know that much about rifles as to why he would deny it, except that he possibly could have thought that wouldn't go over too well with the public, "Here I mounted a sight on the gun that killed the President." Many people would think--he never told me that this was the gun that Lee Harvey Oswald used on the President. He said a customer with a ticket on it that said Oswald, and I believe I asked him what Oswald looked like, and I don't think he could put the face with the ticket, if I remember correctly.

I believe I asked him that, but I wouldn't have any reason to fabricate anything. And the man I was looking for was the man who mounted the scope. After I got that with these other bits of evidence behind it, or evidence in my mind, probably circumstantial, but to me it seemed like human nature.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was enough evidence to justify writing a newspaper article?

Mr. SCHMIDT. I think so, and we try to be factual. I think we have tried to be very factual and very honest on this thing.

At this time you see we were getting things that were hoaxes that was full of holes, and I wouldn't have any reason specifically to inflate this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you are absolutely firm in your position that on the morning of Thanksgiving you did call Ryder and you did talk to him and did get from him the basic facts about the gun, ticket, and the boresighting and the drilling of the hole?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Absolutely. Like I say about the boresighting. I got the boresighting statement and details that I didn't know about. But I did get the cost. I got the ticket with the name Oswald on it, that he mentioned in the story, the statement about the ammunition. He didn't buy any ammunition that he could remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me say this to you. We are faced with a situation where Ryder has denied under oath the statement that you have just affirmed under oath. It is perfectly clear that somebody is not telling us the truth.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Obviously.

Mr. LIEBELER. What I would like to do in order to try to determine who is telling the truth about this question is have you come in here tomorrow evening at about 7:30 or so when Mr. Ryder is going to be here again to testify before the Commission. After I discuss this with Mr. Ryder, by myself, for a while, I would like to bring you into the room and I would like to have you and Mr. Ryder see if you can't iron out this apparent inconsistency in the two stories.

Mr. SCHMIDT. It is perfectly fine with me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you are willing to do that?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. At this point, we will suspend Mr. Schmidt's deposition until such time as we resume tomorrow in the presence of Mr. Ryder. And needless to say, of course, you will hold in complete confidence the request that I have made of you now until after we have our meeting with Mr. Ryder?

Mr. SCHMIDT. That will be fine with me.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would be very unhappy if I found it in the newspaper before Ryder gets here.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Is it free knowledge after that, though?

Mr. LIEBELER. That is something that is entirely up to you, I suppose. I don't know if the Commission would request you not to write a story about it. I would like to talk to Washington, and even if we request you not to write a story, that is all we can do.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, we have tried all the time to cooperate with people. If there is anything other than that you want me to do, if you have a polygraph test, I will be perfectly willing to submit to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have I mentioned a polygraph test?

Mr. SCHMIDT. No; but I would be perfectly willing to submit to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is something that we will take under advisement after we see what happens with regard to Mr. Ryder tomorrow.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Perfectly fine with me.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES W. GREENER

The testimony of Charles W. Greener was taken at 12:15 p.m., on April 1, 1964, at the Irving Sports Shop, 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would like to swear you as a witness and she will take this all down. Would you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. GREENER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think that Mr. Sanders' office called you previously and told you that we would be out here?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have advised you that I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission. I want to ask you about some of the background concerning the possibility that Lee Oswald or some other Oswald had a rifle in the shop here and had some work done on it?

Would you state your name?

Mr. GREENER. Charles W. Greener.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you the owner and operator of the Irving Sports Shop located at 221 East Irving Boulevard in Irving?

Mr. GREENER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is Dial D. Ryder one of your employees?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you known Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Approximately 6 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has he been employed by you here at the shop practically all that time?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. We have a repair tag that has the number 18374 on it and the name Oswald, indicating some repairs were to be made to a rifle. We will mark this picture as Exhibit No. 1, on your deposition. I show you a picture of this tag and ask you if that is a tag of the type that you use here in this shop?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen that tag before?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the first time that you ever saw it?

Mr. GREENER. Approximately a week or less after the assassination was the first time I had seen it. That was on Thanksgiving Day, I guess, because they called me at home and I was eating and I met some of the news media to go through this Thanksgiving.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had there been anything in the newspaper about this tag, or about Oswald having any work done here before you saw the tag?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; it had come out in the news, and this was Walter Cronkite was to run a retraction on it, or at least clarify the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of retraction?

Mr. GREENER. Well, they tried to clarify the thing to say that we had a tag showing a certain amount of work for an Oswald, but as far as relating to that particular gun or that particular man, we had no real knowledge of the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the FBI been out there at the shop before this thing came out in the newspaper?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't think so. They came out after all the news stories.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did the newspaper get hold of this, do you know?

Mr. GREENER. I couldn't tell you that.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are pretty clear that it was in the press before the FBI ever talked to you?

Mr. GREENER. I am pretty sure it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know whether the FBI could have talked to Ryder or anybody else at the shop?

Mr. GREENER. That I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are the owner of the shop, are you not?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you here at the shop during the period after the assassination and prior to the time that the FBI came here for the first time?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. If the FBI had come here to talk to anybody about Oswald having been here, they would probably have talked to you, isn't that right?

Mr. GREENER. It is possible. Now I do know that one newsman came in and he wasn't going to consult me in any way, so I don't know whether it would have been the case with the FBI or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the newsman come in?

Mr. GREENER. That was on a--I believe that was on a Monday--following Monday, as I remember it.

No; wait a minute. No; it wasn't a Monday. That holiday, it's got me mixed up. It must have been on a Friday after the Thanksgiving holiday.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was after the story had already been out in the newspaper, is that right?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. This reporter came in and wanted to talk to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Right. The paper stated the owner of the Irving Sports Shop, and he apparently figured that was the correct information.

Of course, all the newspapers, they didn't check out any stories; they just run to their office and sent it in, as you well know. No one checked out anything. Anything they could get hold of, they put in print, and some of the information they got a hold, I don't know where it came from.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any reason to believe that any reporter talked to Ryder prior to the time the FBI came to your shop?

Mr. GREENER. One told me he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that reporter's name?

Mr. GREENER. No; he was with the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. GREENER. I couldn't swear.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you he talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Ryder told me he hadn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ryder told you the reporter had not talked to him?

Mr. GREENER. Had not talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the reporter tell you when he had talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. He told me that he talked to him earlier in the morning. I don't know when that was. I am inclined to believe, to the best of my knowledge, it was Thanksgiving Day. Now I could be wrong on that. My recollection is that this story first came out--I am thinking it came out on Thanksgiving Day.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have here a clipping from the New York Times of November 29, 1963, which appears to be one of the first times that this story was released in the New York papers at any rate, November 29, 1963.

Mr. GREENER. What was Thanksgiving Day?

Mr. LIEBELER. Thanksgiving Day was on a Thursday, was it not?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 28, so that the 29th would have been the day that it came out in the New York papers, and it very likely could have come out in the Dallas paper on Thanksgiving Day.

Mr. GREENER. I think it was Thanksgiving Day when it came out in the paper, because I hadn't heard anything of it, and I remember we were playing dominoes when the paper came, and we quit and read the paper, and then also they had come by to check on this story, and we came up to the shop and went through that for Walter Cronkite's program.

Mr. LIEBELER. The reporter had come out to check out the story?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that the newspaper clipping that I previously referred to is from the New York Times of November 29, 1963, and the story is entitled, "Gunsmith Attached Sight for Man Named Oswald," and it is a story written by Mr. John Herbers, and it has been marked as Exhibit No. 2, on Mr. Greener's deposition.

Now do you have a feeling or do you have the thought based on what this reporter from the Dallas News told you that the reporter had talked to Ryder prior to the time that the FBI ever came here to the shop?

Mr. GREENER. You are going to have to go through that again. I am not sure that I was following you all the way. I was thinking a little bit while you were talking.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers?

Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he came here because they saw the story in the paper?

Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did this reporter from the Dallas paper, whose name you don't remember, tell you that Ryder had called him?

Mr. GREENER. No; he told me that he called him, called Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how he got the idea to call Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. No; he didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you didn't ask him?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss this question with Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; I did. And he said he had not talked to a newspaper reporter about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. At all?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you never had any opportunity or occasion to ask Ryder whether a reporter or, or whether Ryder contacted a reporter, because he simply denied talking to a reporter?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when you asked Ryder about this?

Mr. GREENER. Must have been on Friday, because I was a little bit aggravated at the whole setup. They got me out of bed a time or two at night, and I believe that I had called the Times Herald to talk to this reporter to see where he was supposed to have been getting his information. I'm sure that after I talked to them that day was when I questioned Ryder. So I feel pretty sure it was Friday or Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. The 29th or 30th of November?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Ryder ever indicate to you that he had talked to a newspaper reporter about this?

Mr. GREENER. No; he did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any recollection at all of the name of this reporter from the Dallas newspaper?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't have the slightest idea about talking with reporters until this bunch that was going to run the program on Walter Cronkite's program had contacted me, and he called me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember his name?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't remember any of the boys with the television program at all. They had called me and wanted to come down and take some pictures, and he called me, Ryder did.

Mr. LIEBELER. The television men had called Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. That was after the newspaper article had appeared in the newspapers.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Ryder called you and talked to you about it, whether these men could come down?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; and I came down and met with them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what Ryder told them?

Mr. GREENER. To the best of my knowledge, he told them that we had the ticket, but he didn't remember the name, didn't remember the gun, or the person, because actually here is the thing about this tag here. We have tried to keep a little better record. We get busy, you know, and get a little lax, just like you and everybody else does, and if we got two or three waiting, why, at that time we were not going to dally about what the name is or date or address or telephone number or anything. We felt like we didn't have time.

Mr. LIEBELER. This was just before the deer season?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; I guess the deer season opened November 16 in Texas, and our workload was pretty heavy, and we were working short handed, too, which would be one reason for no more information on the tag or several other tags.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you fix the date?

Mr. GREENER. No; no way in the world. In the first place, I wasn't here. I feel sure I wasn't here at the time this went on. I was gone from--I don't remember what day I left. I started hunting in South Dakota on November 2, and we came back somewhere between the 12th and 14th.

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you feel that you weren't here at the time this tag was made up?

Mr. GREENER. Well, in checking around, I feel like possibly that I would have noticed it on the gunrack. I would--I don't know whether I would or not, because I do some of the repair work myself, and a lot of times I go through the guns on the rack to be repaired, and if it is something I can do, I take care of it. If he is busy, then I take care of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ryder, you mean?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you have no recollection of this tag?

Mr. GREENER. None whatsoever, until, I believe, it was the day on Thanksgiving when they came down here. Now, I believe--this has been a long time and we are going into phases of this I hadn't thought of in a long time--it seems to me that the FBI got ahold of him and they come down scouring through the place. That was very possible after the newspaper report broke. It could have been before, but it seems to me that that is when the tag appeared. I believe it was an FBI man who was out here checking.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, if that is true, then the tag would have had to have been found and the FBI man would have had to have been here before the story broke in the newspaper?

Mr. GREENER. No; I said it could possibly be after the newspaper story appeared, but I believe when the tag was found lying on the desk somewhere, that the FBI man was here when it was found.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the best recollection that you have?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who found the tag; do you remember?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't know. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, because like I said, you are going into things that hadn't entered my mind since November 22, along in there, and it seems to me that he had contacted Ryder and they had come down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI?

Mr. GREENER. Yes, and they found the tag on the workbench somewhere.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found?

Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. As we discussed briefly off the record before we started, it appears that there are three possibilities concerning this tag. One, in view of the fact that Mr. Ryder is quite clear in his own mind that he never worked on an Italian rifle similar to the one that was found in the Texas School Book Depository, we can conclude either that the Oswald on the tag was Lee Oswald and he brought a different rifle in here, or it was a different Oswald who brought another rifle in here, or that the tag is not a genuine tag, and that there never was a man who came in here with any gun at all. Can you think of any other possibilities?

Mr. GREENER. That about covers the situation, it looks to me like.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any opinion as to what the real situation is?

Mr. GREENER. Nothing more than I have confidence in the boy, or I wouldn't have him working for me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think he would make this tag up to cause a lot of commotion?

Mr. GREENER. I don't think so. He doesn't seem like that type boy. I have lots of confidence in him or I wouldn't have him working for me and handling money. Especially times I am going off. He--if he wasn't the right kind of boy, and he pretty well proved he is by dependability and in all the relations that we have together, and I just don't figure that is possible. Now I say I don't figure that. Of course, there is always possibilities of everything, but I don't feel that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't feel Ryder would do that?

Mr. GREENER. Not at all; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. When we look at this tag, it appears in the photograph that it is in two parts. There is a top part entitled "Repair Tag," on which writing appears, reading "Oswald, drill and tap, $4.50. Boresight, $1.50." Or a total of $6. And it appears at the lower part of the tag; it is in the form of a claim check; isn't that correct?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The tag number, as I have indicated, is 18374. Would I be correct in assuming that if this tag had been made up when a customer came in and left their rifle, that the part of the tag entitled "Claim Check" would ordinarily have been torn off and given to the customer?

Mr. GREENER. No; you are wrong in assuming that. Because I believe 19 out of 20 would not ask for a claim check. In the first place, 18 out of that 20 would lose the claim check before they got back, so if you are going to give them a claim check and stick to the thing, not letting them have the merchandise if they don't have the claim check----

Mr. LIEBELER. You are running into a lot of trouble from a business point of view?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; when they come back for the merchandise, I ask them what the name is, and if we have a gun to go by the name----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you ordinarily tear off the claim check?

Mr. GREENER. No. If you look at the rack, you won't find one on the whole rack that has a claim check that has been torn off.

Mr. LIEBELER. There isn't any way you can tell from the number when the check was issued?

Mr. GREENER. No, because we got the tags dumped into a box, and we reach in and get a tag and tie it onto the merchandise and fill it out.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to show you some pictures that have previously been marked in another part of these proceedings as Commission Exhibits Nos. 451, 453, 454, 455, and 456, and ask you if you recall ever seeing the person or persons depicted in these pictures?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't believe I could identify him as ever having any dealings. Now there is a familiarity there, but I couldn't tie it with anything or anybody.

Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn't figure out in your mind why you think there is a familiarity to those pictures?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you ever seen those pictures before?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has the FBI or Dallas Police Department ever shown you pictures and asked you to identify them?

Mr. GREENER. No; they haven't shown me pictures of anyone for identification.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to show you another picture which is a photograph that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, a photograph of an individual on a street, and one of them has been indicated by a green mark on the picture, and ask you to examine that picture and tell me if you have ever seen that man before?

Mr. GREENER. Not that I can recall now.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another photograph of a street scene which has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A, and ask you if you recognize any of the people in that photograph? Two of them have been marked with a green marker, but don't confine your attention entirely to those two individuals. Tell me if you recognize any of the people in that picture?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Particularly I call your attention to the man who was standing immediately to the left of the man who is marked with the "X," rather than the line, not immediately, to the left of him, then, but the second man to the left. He is standing there with a tie and he has some papers in his hand. Does he look familiar to you at all?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another picture that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C, and ask you if you can recall ever having seen that man?

Mr. GREENER. I don't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that man in the picture?

Mr. GREENER. According to the other pictures in the paper, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who does it look like to you?

Mr. GREENER. It looks like Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't ever remember having seen him?

Mr. GREENER. No; my mental pictures are not hardly as good as it used to be. You take fooling with people day in and day out, without some reason to recognize them, the next time you see them--there is a reason for it, you don't make a mental picture of every person that comes in. If he was 6'6" and weighed 300 pounds, or gave you some trouble when he comes for his merchandise, then it is likely you would remember, but a guy just comes in and tells you what he wants done, and comes back, and gets his merchandise and doesn't give you any trouble, then you don't remember. Usually I never forget a face. Now, the first picture you showed me, there was something there, but I couldn't pin it to anything, though.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am marking two photographs of a rifle as Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, on the deposition of Mr. Greener. I have initialed both photographs for the purpose of identification, and I would like to have you initial them, too, so we don't get confused as to which picture we are looking at.

Mr. GREENER. Both of them?

Mr. LIEBELER. Both of them, please. These are pictures of a rifle. I would like to have you examine it and tell me whether you have ever seen that rifle or one similar to it.

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't remember this rifle at all. The first Italian rifle that I remember seeing was in Worland, Wyo. A friend pulled his out, and that is the first Italian rifle that I ever recall having seen.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that subsequent to the assassination?

Mr. GREENER. That was while we were on the trip.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember ever having seen a rifle like this in the shop here?

Mr. GREENER. No; I sure don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have taken the first two exhibits and marked them Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, on your deposition, and I have initialed both of them and I would like to have you initial them also for the purpose of identification.

Mr. GREENER. [Initials.]

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you made any attempt on your own part to try to figure out how this tag came to be in your shop?

Mr. GREENER. No; really I haven't inquired any at all on that. I inquired about the reporter deal, but I didn't inquire into anything at all about the tag, because I just assumed it was all open and above board and didn't go into it at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now we have talked previously about the three possibilities that could possibly explain this tag, and you have told us that you don't think that Ryder is the kind of guy who would write the tag up after the fact just to cause a commotion.

There are two other possibilities. One, was that Lee Oswald had a different rifle in here. And the other is that there is a different Oswald involved. Do you have any opinion as to which of those possibilities might be correct?

Mr. GREENER. No; it would just be a----

Mr. LIEBELER. Wild speculation?

Mr. GREENER. Very wild. Very wild speculation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you told me before that you had been interviewed several times by the FBI and by the Dallas police force. Can you think of any questions that they asked you or things they discussed with you that we haven't covered here?

Mr. GREENER. No; I can't. It seems that we have gone into it far deeper than they ever did, the Dallas police or the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of anything else that I should have asked you or that you can add that would help clear this situation up?

Mr. GREENER. No; sure can't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no further questions at this point, Mr. Greener. If you can't think of anything else that you think is appropriate to add to the record, I think we will terminate the deposition at this point. I want to thank you very much for the time you have given and the cooperation you have shown. I know you have been talked to about this a lot of times. I appreciate the cooperation you have shown the Commission, and I thank you very much.

Mr. GREENER. We have tried to cooperate with them all the way through. When they continued to come back and ask the same questions and get me out of bed and all at 11 or 12 o'clock at night and get a tag they had looked at three or four times, I began to get a little bit aggravated.

Mr. Ryder and I have always been interested in helping them in any way we could with any information we could give. I don't feel that he is the type boy to do that. Of course, that again is people are involved.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you have known the boy a long time and you should be in a position to make that kind of judgment?

Mr. GREENER. That is what he is. He has been a mighty fine boy and he is just an extraordinary boy. There is not many like him, and I would trust him with anything that I have to be done, and it just never struck me as him being that kind of boy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you a couple of other questions about rifles and sights. I know you do have a meeting at 12:30.

Mr. GREENER. No; it was 12.

Mr. LIEBELER. I thought it was 12:30. I am sorry you are not going to make the meeting. You may have read in the newspapers that Oswald purchased this Italian rifle, or was supposed to have purchased it from a mail-order house in Chicago, with the telescopic sight mounted on the rifle at that time?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In your opinion, based on your experience in this field, do you think that a rifle that had been purchased from a mail-order house that is shipped through the mails with a scope mounted on it would be in a condition to fire accurately at that point without any further sighting in of the rifle by firing it?

Mr. GREENER. The possibility of it being, especially with this frail mount is, I am sure that that mount, according to what little information I have, the possibility of it being real accurate would be pretty small, I think.

I think the gun would be--I think even a fellow that was going to go deer hunting would want to take the gun out and shoot it before he went hunting, and I think that holds very true with this case, regardless of whether we mounted the scope or who mounted it or it come mounted. I think the man would fire it before using it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You feel that because you don't think that a rifle would be able to be fired accurately unless it had been sighted?

Mr. GREENER. The possibility would be small that it would be real accurate; and you talk to most any of the fellows that go hunting, regardless of how expensive a mount they may have on the gun, he is going to take it and fire it before he goes hunting. That holds true in 99 percent of the cases.

The only reason not to would be the fact the man was in a real big hurry, he picked it up late in the afternoon and he was going to Colorado and was getting there after the season and he was going to shoot and just take his chances. Otherwise, he would take the gun out and fire it, 99 out of 100, and fire it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would that be true even if it had been boresighted?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; because actually the boresighting with the tools that we use, the accuracy of the thing on the windage part of it is very accurate, but as far as distance, different guns will travel a flatter trajectory than other guns will, and there is no calibration on the sighting tools that tell us that you can sight the gun in on target, that it is on 60 or 140 or 270 or 308. There is no calibration for that.

Mr. LIEBELER. No calibration for the boresighting machine?

Mr. GREENER. No; you have the crosshairs and you line the two of them up, and that is approximately 100 or 125 yards range, but different guns will vary as to the trajectory, and one might hit the target and one be a little high and another a little low, so that is the reason the man takes his gun and shoots it in as far as the elevation is concerned. He can zero it in to what distance he wants to shoot it at.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have to be done, as you have indicated, even if the rifle had been boresighted?

Mr. GREENER. That's right. It would be accurate as far as elevation. The windage part is usually right on target, but the elevation has to do with caliber.

As far as your 6.5 Italian gun is concerned, there is only two types. One is the hand load, and one is the military ammunition. Because there is none of the major ammunition manufacturers that builds a sporting load for that gun, so it either has to be a hand load or old Italian or military ammunition, and the hand load has to do with what size bullet and the power you get, and it would be more important on that gun to shoot it than it would any other caliber or of an American make that you get your larger manufacturers of ammunition loading for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any 6.5 ammunition in your shop?

Mr. GREENER. Not 6.5 Italian.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever had?

Mr. GREENER. We have a 6.5 Swedish and 6.5 Jap, and I believe that is all of these 6.5's.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you do reloading of casings?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The fellow has to do that himself?

Mr. GREENER. We sell the components and the loading equipment but we don't do any loading. The only one that I have been able to find out so far that hand loads 6.5 Italian--I don't think this is a possibility, but Ray Acker with Bell Telephone is the only one I know that does any hand loading on 6.5 Italians.

Mr. LIEBELER. He works for Bell Telephone Co.?

Mr. GREENER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He does this as a part-time occupation?

Mr. GREENER. Hobby; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you talked to him about this case at all?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't guess I have ever called him. How I came to know that he reloads, and I don't know to what extent that he reloads, but I called one of my suppliers as to the availability of 6.5 Italian, and he gave me his name, so that is the reason but I can't say, but as far as I know, he is the only one that loads 6.5. There may be others that buy their own dies and hand loading, more especially since there are more guns coming out, but that would be, oh, a year and a half ago when I was told that he hand loaded 6.5 Italians.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you need a particular kind of equipment to reload shells?

Mr. GREENER. Very definitely.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does the equipment vary with the caliber of the shell?

Mr. GREENER. Very definitely. The presses usually will accept all the different calibers, and then you have to have your die sets.

Mr. LIEBELER. To pour it?

Mr. GREENER. You've got to have your shell holders, and your die holder that resizes the brass and inserts the bullet into it, the bullet seating and there is only one caliber that one set of dies will load. If you load a 6.5 die, you have to have 6.5 dies. If you load .30-06, you have to have .30-06, and you can't have any part of the two on the different calibers of ammunition.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, thank you again, and we appreciate your cooperation.

TESTIMONY OF GERTRUDE HUNTER

The testimony of Gertrude Hunter, was taken at 5:50 p.m., on July 22, 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. Mrs. Hunter, would you stand please and take the oath.

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?

Mrs. HUNTER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

Pursuant to the rules governing the taking of testimony by the Commission, you are entitled to have an attorney here if you wish and you are entitled to 3-days' notice of the hearing. You are not required to answer at this time any questions that you think might be incriminating or involve some other privilege, of course. Most of the witnesses don't have an attorney and I see you don't have one here so I assume you want to proceed with the questioning without an attorney being present, is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name for the record, please?

Mrs. HUNTER. Gertrude Hunter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. 141 South Hastings, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you lived in Irving?

Mrs. HUNTER. I think it was 2 years the 14th of July--right at--between the 8th and 14th--I don't know the exact dates, but it was 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you married, Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any children?

Mrs. HUNTER. Four girls.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are they?

Mrs. HUNTER. Twenty-five, twenty-one, nineteen, and sixteen.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where were you born?

Mrs. HUNTER. Jacksonville, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have lived most of your life in Texas?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, yes; all my life.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Mrs. Edith Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you known her?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, ever since I came to Irving. We are football fans together.

Mr. LIEBELER. You came to Irving about 2 years ago?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; in July.

Mr. LIEBELER. It appears from information that has been provided to us by the FBI that you were in a store operated by Mrs. Whitworth sometime in 1963--that was formerly operated by Mrs. Whitworth--at which time people who you now believe to be Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife and children came into the store, is that correct?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us all the circumstances surrounding that event as best you can remember them?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it was after 2 o'clock and I had went down to talk to her--we were planning on a football trip and we were just sitting there in the store talking, discussing football games, and who was going with who and all, and this man drove up out in front of the store and he got out and he come in and he asked for a gunsmith.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the car drive up?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see who was driving it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this man driving it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many people were in the car?

Mrs. HUNTER. Just him and a woman and two children.

Mr. LIEBELER. Nobody else?

Mrs. HUNTER. No one else.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are quite sure about that?

Mrs. HUNTER. I'm positive, because I was sitting right there--I was sitting this way and the door was right here [indicating], and he drove cater-cornered up.

Mr. LIEBELER. And there are glass windows in the front of the store so that you could see right out into the street?

Mrs. HUNTER. It is a solid glass there and the door was standing open there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know about what kind of car it was?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, the reason I'm definite about the car--a friend of mine in Houston--I was looking for them up and they had a car just like this and I had left a note on my mailbox that I would be at this place--telling them if anyone come I would be at this place and when they drove up I thought that was them and it was a two-tone blue Ford.

Mr. LIEBELER. What year?

Mrs. HUNTER. 1957 or 1958--I won't be positive about that, but I would rather say it was about a 1957, I think.

Mr. LIEBELER. From which direction did this car drive up?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, where the car come from--I don't know whether it come up Jefferson or down Irving Boulevard, but I know that it did park into the front of the store where I was sitting, you know, I was talking and I wasn't paying any attention to which way the car came from. The only thing I seen is the driver, when he drove up, and I seen the color of the car, I started to get up because I thought it was my friends from Houston, and I looked and seen that it wasn't and he just got out and come in. She didn't get out at that time. He come in and asked for the gunsmith, and to the best of my knowledge, I'm not positive, but it seems to me like, because I was thinking that so many different times that they would come in--whether he had something in his hand or whether he didn't, but I know he went back to the car, and if he did, he put it in the car and when he come back in, she got out and followed him in, but he didn't help her out of the car, he didn't help her with the kids or nothing. She just followed him in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is the furniture store that Mrs. Whitworth operated at that time at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Irving Boulevard, is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; you come right in to Jefferson and Irving Boulevard. It used to be the bus station--the Continental Bus Station.

Mr. LIEBELER. And they had diagonal parking on that street? Is that the way you parked?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, you see, it was where the buses used to park clean off the street to get out of the way of the traffic, you see, and you just come up with the nose right up and you would be out of the traffic.

Mr. LIEBELER. Out of the main street?

Mrs. HUNTER. Just like this here was the store [indicating], well, it was over this way and he just kind of cater-cornered up this way.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, he parked his car diagonally in front of the store and got out and came in?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened after he went back out and they came back into the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, he just come in and she was over when her desk was there and he asked her about some furniture or something and they walked and went back to the back and this woman, she followed them and this young baby and the new baby.

Mr. LIEBELER. This man asked Mrs. Whitworth about some furniture?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Mrs. Whitworth and this man walked toward the back of the store and the woman and the children followed them; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but she wasn't--now, listen, she didn't pay any attention and this lady had had a new grandbaby.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Mrs. Whitworth's daughter and she says, "Let me trade you a boy for this girl and we will both have a boy and girl." Well, they didn't offer to show the baby or nothing and she didn't say anything. We thought it was very funny and we discussed it after she walked out--about her not being interested in showing her new baby, and, of course, I didn't say anything to them, only I did see the little girl and so forth. I didn't put my hands on her or nothing and I didn't pay any attention to what they were saying at the back. All I know is that they were looking at some furniture there, back there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this man Oswald say anything about how old the little baby was?

Mrs. HUNTER. He said something to her but he was back far enough that what he said to her--I don't know--it was about 2 weeks old or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is Mrs. Whitworth you are talking about now, or Oswald?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oswald; and she asked Oswald something about the babies and I don't remember just what he said to her, but it was something about the baby, you know, and he didn't seem too enthused about that either.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't hear Oswald say anything to Mrs. Whitworth about how old the baby was?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I won't be positive--it's been so long--just what he answered her, but just not looking for nothing--I didn't say too much about it, but we just thought it was a coincidence about him not being interested in us seeing the new baby. I think he did tell her when it was born; I'm not positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you fix for us the date on which this occurred?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, no; not right offhand. All I know is that it was before the football game--I believe the Richland Hills football game and it was on a Wednesday or a Thursday--I won't say positive which one.

Mr. LIEBELER. How can you say it was on a Wednesday or Thursday?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I never did go down to the store only on Wednesdays or Thursdays afternoons---only the days that we had charters, and I went down on Friday afternoon.

Mr. LIEBELER. On the days you had charters; what do you mean by that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Charter buses to go.

Mr. LIEBELER. To go to the football game?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a charter bus to go to the football game at Richland Hills?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; we went in cars that night and that night I would always wait until my daughter calls at 2 o'clock. When she would call, then I would go down to the store and that's the reason I definitely know it was after 2 o'clock.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which daughter is this that you are talking about?

Mrs. HUNTER. Glenda.

Mr. LIEBELER. And what is her last name?

Mrs. HUNTER. Hunter.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old is she?

Mrs. HUNTER. She's 19.

Mr. LIEBELER. And does she live with you at home?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How does it come that she calls you at 2 o'clock?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, her lunch break--she gets her lunch break from 1 until 2 and she would always call me just a minute or two before she goes back to work--just a few seconds--every day before she goes to work.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does she work here in Dallas?

Mrs. HUNTER. At Commercial Title.

Mr. LIEBELER. She always calls you at about 2 o'clock; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Between--she has to be back at her desk at 2. She will call me anywhere, you know, when it's handy--if she comes up in town to eat, it may be about 10 minutes until 2. If she takes her lunch and eats there, it may be 15 minutes to 2, but I would always wait--I would give her a chance to call me before I would leave and I never would leave before 2 o'clock.

Mr. LIEBELER. How late in the afternoon could it have been, you think, that these people did come?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I would say between 2:30 and 3:30, because I never did stay gone past 4 o'clock. My daughter comes in from school and she didn't have any way to get in the house. I locked the house and she would get to the house before 4 and I would try to be back at the house before 4 and there was just one or two evenings that I didn't get to the house before she come in.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say you would always try to get back home by 4 o'clock?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; so I could unlock the door.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear the conversation between Mrs. Whitworth and this man who came in about the gun?

Mrs. HUNTER. He just asked for the gunsmith and she told him the gunsmith had moved down the street and she went out in front and pointed down to where to go and told him where to go and showed him where it was at. I didn't go out the door. I was just sitting in a platform rocker and he thanked her and he just went back to the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. And after he went back to the car, then, they all came back again and went in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. He came back in and then her and the children got out and followed him in.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether Mrs. Whitworth told him where the gunshop that used to be in the furniture store had moved or did she direct him to another gunshop?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; she told him that this man had gone and she thought he was down in those sport shops or some kind of a shop down the street, or that there was one down there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with where it is?

Mrs. HUNTER. She was over at the front and I was back here, but I heard the conversation, you know, what he was asking for and all that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether he had anything in his hands when he came in?

Mrs. HUNTER. It seems to me like--I'm not positive--that he had something and it come to me that it was wrapped in brown paper. Now, I'm not positive about that, but it was just something like you handle--he didn't have it up in his arms--he just had it in his hands.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea how long the package was, or do you remember that clearly?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I just remember there was something in his hands.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where the Irving Sport Shop is located?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I sure don't--I have never been there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Mr. Woodrow Greener?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Dial Ryder?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I don't know too many people, I guess, you would call me selfish, but I don't know too many people in Irving--period. There are just a very few that I know--just the grocery store where we trade and the man that runs the bus station and Mrs. Whitworth and one or two I met going to the football games--I have been there 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else in the store during the time these people were there?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; just me and her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mrs. Oswald say anything while she was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. I never did hear her open her mouth.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did the little girl, the 2-year-old, behave? Was she well behaved?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; she just went along holding her her mother's dresstail. He didn't help her with either one of the babies and she was walking along. You know, she is kind of shy and it was in a strange place and she was kind of holding to her mother's coattail when they were up there where I was at--where the table went around and I don't know--I just--they was kind of dressed bummy or something--I don't know what you would call it. She was kind of clean. He looked pretty nice. I just thought--why was she dressed like that--you know how you will notice that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear the little girl say anything at all to her mother or her father?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I didn't hear her say anything. Now, when they went down the aisle, nearly to where Mrs. Whitworth and this man was, she looked down at her and said something, but I didn't understand what she said. She kind of whispered it to her. Now, I don't know what she said or--she said shhh--or something like that to her--I didn't understand, but she did look down.

Mr. LIEBELER. The mother did look down to the little girl?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long were these people in the store altogether--the family in the store altogether?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, I don't know--I would be scared to say about that, because, not expecting anything--they come and went so much in there--I didn't pay no attention to about how long they was in there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you along with them when they were looking at the furniture?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I was sitting in the platform rocker.

Mr. LIEBELER. But the woman went back and looked at furniture with her husband?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; she didn't--that's what I say--she just walked along there and she didn't pay that furniture any mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any feeling that there was any argument going on between them or hostility between them or anything like that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, I just think to myself--what is he looking at that for, she isn't interested. That's just the opinion that I got.

Mr. LIEBELER. You thought he seemed to be much more interested in the furniture than she did?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it seem strange to you that these people were in the store there for the period of time that they were and there was not a single word exchanged between this man and woman?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I didn't think nothing about that. I don't know--I don't pay too much attention to anything like that, because while they were back there, I got up and got out of my chair before they went back to the car and walked to the door, and was standing looking out the door up toward the bus that comes in for people to get off of, and I didn't pay them any more mind until they went out to get in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, they went out and got in the car and what happened then?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, when they got in the car--he said something to her, but I couldn't hear that because I was standing in the door and he turned like he was going to go back down that way and I said, "Don't go that way, it's a one-way street, you'll have to go through the red light and turn left." And he looked at me and he didn't say thank you or nothing and he just backed out and went on down and I watched him--he turned at the red light--turned down Main Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. He drove east down Irving Boulevard; is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. He was going down toward Plymouth Park, I believe it was west--it's a one-way street and you have to go out and come down south.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which way does Irving Boulevard run--it runs east and west, doesn't it?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; I would say that it did.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it's a one-way street, and it's a one-way street running toward the west; is it not?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, that he got into the car----

Mrs. HUNTER. He got in the car and backed out here and he acted like he was going to turn this way and I said, "Uh-uh, don't go back that way, that's a one-way street and you will have to go down here to the red light and turn to the left," and he went down and turned down Main Street to the left.

Mr. LIEBELER. He went down the street against the traffic, going the wrong direction?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; he went down with the traffic, down toward Plymouth Park. I would say he drove west with the one-way traffic. He was going to go back opposite, and he went on down to the red light on Main Street and turned to the left. Now, where he went to from there, I don't know. I didn't pay him any mind because I was standing there watching some women coming down the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say he was going to go back there--you mean in the direction of Dallas, don't you?

Mrs. HUNTER. That's what I would figure, because he would have to turn, unless he thought he was going to turn and go back down Jefferson, if he come in Jefferson, but I don't know that he come in Jefferson. He couldn't have done that--he would have gotten a ticket for that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, let's see if we can establish it between ourselves here, first, for this discussion, which way Irving Boulevard runs. When you come toward Irving from Dallas, it runs--Irving Boulevard runs in the direction away from Dallas, doesn't it, toward the west?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the man got in the car and he drove west in the direction of the traffic down Irving Boulevard?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And turned at the red light on Main Street?

Mrs. HUNTER. He turned left.

Mr. LIEBELER. He turned left at the intersection of Main and Irving Boulevard?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that's the last you saw of the car?

Mrs. HUNTER. That's the last I seen of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this man seem to have any difficulty driving the car as far as you could tell?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; not that I could tell.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have discussed this whole question, I am sure, with Mrs. Whitworth from time to time since it happened, haven't you?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, not too much. When they come on television and we noticed who it was--I don't know--let me see if I can remember the first time I seen him on television--I wasn't watching it when the President got killed and I didn't know anything about it until way after it happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first get the idea that those people that had been in the store were the Oswalds?

Mrs. HUNTER. When I seen them on television, and I just says to whatever was sitting there, I said, "That man was down in the furniture store the other day."

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was it in the room?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it was just one of the kids I don't know--I forgot now which one of them it was, but we were sitting in the house and I said, "That man on television was down at the furniture store the other day," and it was after he got killed that they showed her, I believe, and I recognized her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you recognize these people as soon as you saw them and prior to the time you discussed it with Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, I don't know just how soon--I couldn't be positive just how quick now--I done forgot--that I talked to her after that, but it was after I seen him on television that we discussed it a little bit and all, because after they fixed her up, she was pretty and we did discuss that--the difference she looks now and her down there in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mean she does--you think she does look different now?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, yes; she's pretty now. She looked awful down there in that store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think you would recognize her as the same person if you saw her again?

Mrs. HUNTER. I doubt it--very seriously.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think you would recognize her?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I sure don't, not from the way she looked in that store that day and the way she looks now. Now, that's how much difference there was and I generally notice anyone by their eyes quicker than anything else.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you notice that she looked different?

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh--it was----

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that when you saw her on television after the assassination?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; the first time I seen her, she looked just common, just like she did down there at the store that day, and I guess it was when they fixed her up--it must have been after the funeral and she was meeting with these people or something, because it was quite a discussion about how pretty she was and why she let herself go before, because we had discussed it that maybe he didn't want her to fix up or something.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long was it after the assassination that you noticed this difference between Marina Oswald as she appeared on television and in the paper?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, you may think I'm funny, but I didn't pay no attention at all to that television--my television wasn't on when he got killed or the parade or nothing. I was sitting at the table and after it happened, I wouldn't watch the television--I didn't watch none of the burial procedures or anything--any of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. But at some point you noticed that Marina Oswald looked different than she had the day she was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. My question is, when did you first notice that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it was undoubtedly quite a few days or several days after Oswald--after Jack Ruby killed Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. As much as a week after that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well--it was just after that--I wouldn't say just definite what time it was, because, you don't notice anything like that. Naturally, it's going to pop in your mind when you do notice something like that, but just as soon as I seen her fixed up on TV, I just noticed it was quite a difference of how she looked then and before.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think it was within a week after the time Ruby shot Oswald, is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. I wouldn't say--not now, it has been too long ago.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you now do have some doubt in your mind after having seen her as to whether you would even recognize her as the same person that was in the store, is that right?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, with the way her features looked on television now and the way I seen her in the store--yes; because she dresses nice and she's real cute. She dresses cute and she was sloppy in the store that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. Her face hasn't changed any, has it, she has the same face.

Mrs. HUNTER. Oh, her hair makes a difference now. I might recognize her--I wouldn't say I wouldn't or I would, but I don't know--I've made the remark two or three times that she doesn't look like she did the day I seen her in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you still don't have any doubt in your mind that it actually was she that was in the store the day you saw her?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I will say this, that the one I seen in the store and the first time I seen her on television the first time was the same woman--let's put it that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever tell anybody that Oswald actually turned down Irving Boulevard and went against the traffic when he came out of the store and went against the traffic?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, no; I didn't tell them that he went east. I told them he started to turn east and I told him he was going the wrong direction and he would have to turn back. Now, that woman from England that came here--

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there that day she came?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; she come to my house that night.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what you told her about that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, just the same thing--about the same thing I have told you, because that's about all I know. I might have remembered a few different little points then that have slipped my mind now, but that's just like what I told you, I guess a few little ends and odds have slipped, but that's just about all I know, because I wasn't expecting that and I wasn't looking for nothing like that and I just didn't think too much about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mrs. Whitworth see these people get in the car and drive away, do you know?

Mrs. HUNTER. I don't know, because she was on that side where they come out and I was on this--at a door standing in the door.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were closer to the door than Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I was closer to the car than she was. She was back down here where they generally went into the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. She was further away from the front door where the car was parked than you were?

Mrs. HUNTER. Now, I don't know whether she was in the door or not. I have never discussed it with her.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have never told Mrs. Whitworth that this man got in the car and drove the wrong way down the street?

Mrs. HUNTER. The only thing that--I says, "He started to go back down Irving Boulevard." I did say that to her one day because it was a one-way street and he was going the wrong way then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think if we have Mrs. Oswald come in here next Friday morning and you come in and look at her and the children too, do you think you would be able to come here and tell us if they were the people that were in that store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, I wouldn't say--I just wouldn't say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, we have asked Mrs. Whitworth to come in--to come back Friday morning at 9 o'clock and we will have Mrs. Oswald and the babies come in and we would like for you to come back to see if they were the people in the store. Would you be willing to do that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; I will be willing to do it, but now, it's like I say--I wouldn't say I would recognize her now because she is pretty now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think she would recognize you, do you think she would remember being in the store if she had really been in there?

Mrs. HUNTER. I wouldn't know that--that's her--I don't know because I never did interfere with the people that come in there to do business with her or I I never did say anything to them and I never did answer her telephone or nothing at that business. I was just sitting in there talking to her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me suspend with the questioning now, Mrs. Hunter, until Friday morning.

Mrs. HUNTER. This Friday morning?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; day after tomorrow. You and Mrs. Whitworth can come back at that time and we will bring Mrs. Oswald here.

Mrs. HUNTER. That's all right. She is pretty now but she wasn't then.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before you go, I want to show you some pictures here and ask you if you recognize any of the people in them. I show you Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A and ask if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, just not offhand--not, no; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I will ask you the same question with regard to Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B.

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The same question with respect to Bringuier Exhibit No. 1.

Mrs. HUNTER. No; not dressed like that--I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 177 and ask if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing to a woman that's holding a child.

Mrs. HUNTER. I don't know what she's holding--I can't tell that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Anyway, there is a woman sitting there in a chair?

Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. As we face the picture, it's on the farthest left, is that right, and who is that?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, that looks like her a little bit--but she's got her hair fixed still different than she had it in the store that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about the man sitting right next to her, does he look like the man that was in the store that day?

Mrs. HUNTER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think he resembles the man that was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; that's not him, and that's Mrs. Oswald. That may be a brother, but that's not him. I never did see his brother because I didn't watch none of that. I just didn't want to live with it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that looks like anybody you have ever seen before.

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, now, looking from up this way it could be--from here up--it could be.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that that resembles the man who was in the store somewhat?

Mrs. HUNTER. I would say he's kind of built that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C, does that look like the man who was in the store?

Mrs. HUNTER. Well, it could look like him some, but he was not dressed that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not sure that that was him?

Mrs. HUNTER. No; I wouldn't say it was with him dressed that way because I didn't have that much hankering to really tell what he really looked like and it has been so long since I've seen it on the television that I wouldn't guarantee that--not looking for nothing.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you very much. We will see you on Friday.

TESTIMONY OF EDITH WHITWORTH

The testimony of Edith Whitworth was taken at 5 p.m., on July 22, 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. Would you stand and take the oath, please?

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?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and by joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

Under the Commission's rules relating to the taking of testimony by the Commission, you are entitled to have an attorney present at this or any other hearing at which you may appear before the Commission and you are entitled to 3-days' notice of your appearance here. You are also entitled to exercise the usual privileges with regard to self incrimination and so forth as far as not answering questions is concerned. I assume that since you are here without an attorney, that you do not wish to have your attorney present at the session. In fact, very few witnesses do have their attorneys present. Am I correct in that understanding?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I assume that--I don't see any use of me having one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name for the record?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. My name is Edith Whitworth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I live at 315 South Jefferson, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are married; is that correct?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many children do you have?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I have two.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately how old are they?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. My daughter is 24 years old and my son 19 years old.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were they born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. My daughter was born May 13, 1940, and my son was born May 20, 1945.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your daughter is also married, is she not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she is.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is her married name?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Her married name--her husband's name is Bobby Gene Hollaway, and her name is Joyce.

Mr. LIEBELER. It's spelled [spelling] H-o-l-l-a-w-a-y, is that correct?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do they have any children?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They have two children.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are they, and when were they born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The first one--Bryan will be 3 years old the 20th of October, I think I'm right on that; and the other one was born the 10th day of last October--he will be 1 year old.

Mr. LIEBELER. The youngest one was born when?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Wait--I said the 20th of October--I believe that oldest one is the 28th of October--I am sorry.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the name of the older child?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Bryan Douglas.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say he was born on what date?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I believe it was October 28.

Mr. LIEBELER. What year?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. And he will be 3 years old this October--he was 2 last year--that will be 1961, wouldn't it?

Mr. LIEBELER. The other child's name is what?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Jeffery Lynn. He was born October 10, 1963. You got me on those birthdays--I have forgotten them. I believe October 28 is right--I'm not just real sure.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that you formerly operated a used furniture store in Irving, Tex.; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I did until about the 25th day of January of this year.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the name of that store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Furniture Mart.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where was it located?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. 149 East Irving Boulevard.

Mr. LIEBELER. Irving Boulevard runs east and west, does it not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which side of the street is the furniture store on?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That would be on the right-hand side going west.

Mr. LIEBELER. Going away from Dallas or toward Dallas?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Going west.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would be the north side?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. The north side; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI has advised us that you have told them that some time during 1963, you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was in your furniture store; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell me all the circumstances surrounding that event, to the best of your recollection?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, as far as the date, I couldn't, you know, say that it was any day--any special day, but it was along the first of November. We had, you know, a discussion about the babies--that's the reason you have that there about my baby--my grandchildren, and their children. They had the baby with them at that time. We had at one time had a gun shop in there. We had a gunsmith sign out in front and I presume he had came up and saw that sign there and he stopped and came in. We have two doors in this place of business--one was on the west side and the west end, and one on the east end. He had pulled up there at the front as well as I remember and he walked around his car and came into the west door.

Mr. LIEBELER. You saw him drive up in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; because it was all glass in front and I was sitting at the--well, it's the cash stand--we call it there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which direction was he driving the car at that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He was driving west on a one-way street--that's a one way there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Running from east to west?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. East to west.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of a car did he have, Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, as far as I can remember--I wouldn't be--I wouldn't say for sure. All I can say is that I believe, you know, not paying a lot of attention to the car and the car not meaning anything at that time, that it was a two-tone blue and white. It was either a Ford or a Plymouth. Now, I wouldn't swear to that, but it was either one--the car didn't mean anything to me at that time. Anyway, he came in and he stood----

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask you some questions about the car first--how many people were in the car when you saw it drive up?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't pay any attention to it--just really when it drove up out there. When I did pay attention to it was when he got back in it, you know, and it was faintly, you know. As to them getting back in it, I wouldn't say that there was anyone else in it--I wouldn't say that they were the only ones that was in it. They were the only ones that come in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you notice specifically that Oswald was driving?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't say that he was, and I wouldn't say that he drove off in the car. I wouldn't say that, because, like I say, it didn't mean anything to me at that time, just faintly, I would say that that car was blue and white, two-tone, and that it was either a Ford or a Plymouth--now, I wouldn't swear to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, he drove up in front of the store and he got out of the car and came in--which door--did he come in?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He came in the west door.

Mr. LIEBELER. He came in the west door?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. West door; he came in and he stood right in front of me there, and I arose up out of my chair and asked him, you know, if I could help him and he asked for something for a gun, and he had whatever this was wrapped up and it was about so long, as well as I can remember, not paying too much attention to it at that time, but we didn't have the gunshop in there then. It had gone out of business and I told him, no, I didn't have anything there, and whatever he was looking for--that I didn't have it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you say, "so long," you held your hands up and how many inches was that--would you hold your hands up again?

Mrs. WHITWORTH [indicating]. I would say it was about like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many inches do you think that is?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I would say about 15 inches.

Mr. LIEBELER. About 15 inches?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's what I would say. You know, just judging it. It could have been longer and it could have been shorter, but it was wrapped up, I know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't have occasion to open it up for you while he was in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did he ask you about a specific part for it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he did. But I don't know what it was because I didn't pay any attention to it because it was something, you know, for a gun and I couldn't help him, so I didn't pay any attention to it, you know, because I never worked in a gunshop anyway and I know nothing about guns whatever.

Mr. LIEBELER. How come he came into this used furniture shop looking for a gun part?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I had a sign--I mean, I had had a gun shop in there, a man had leased part of my store and he had a gunshop in there, one part of it, but he had been moved for quite a while, but the sign hadn't been taken down.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, there was still a sign on the front of the building saying that there was a gunshop there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead and tell me what are the other circumstances?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. And when I told him that I didn't have anything--I didn't have what he was looking for, but I probably told him where he could go get it. I don't remember that I did, but I usually would tell someone where they could go to get such a thing and he turned around and he looked and he realized, I guess, that it was a furniture store and he said, "You have furniture in here?" I said, "Yes, I do." He says, "I'm going to need some in a couple of weeks or so," and I said, "Well, I'll be glad to show you what I have." I had new and used furniture and he wanted bedroom furniture, he told me that, and he turned--he went back to the car and came back in and when he came back in his wife followed him in with the young baby and the little girl and we walked straight to the back of the building where I had the bedroom suites and I showed him the bedroom suites and I told him about the bedroom suites and I noticed that he would look over to her and she would never--she never uttered a word and I thought she didn't like what I had and was uninterested, because I didn't, you know, high pressure them to sell them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were they interested in new furniture or used furniture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I never did get that far along to find out, you know, what they wanted, because she acted like she wasn't interested, you know, and I couldn't talk to him and he was the only one saying anything, and then we got talking about the babies.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was that conversation about?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, we was comparing the birthdays of the children and my grandchildren had birthdays kind of similar to theirs, you know, and so it went even so far as to--I said, "Well, we wanted a little girl. We wanted one of ours to be a little girl." He said, he wanted one of his to be a little boy and just jokingly, I said, "Well, let's just swap then." And, he kind of smiled but she still didn't say anything, didn't even offer to show us the baby. We didn't know then, you know, that she couldn't even speak, or probably couldn't understand what we said, so she walked clear away from us and we walked back toward the front of the building there and she walked out ahead of him--the little girl was right in front of her, you know, and this was the older little girl, and they went on to the car and the little girl was kind of whining and at one time I thought--well, I'll offer her a piece of candy. I had candy in there, you know, but I never did, I never did offer them any candy and they went on off, but it was them just as sure as I'm sitting here--I'm sure it was him and her too.

Mr. LIEBELER. In this conversation about the babies, did they tell you--did this man tell you when his little baby had been born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was 2 weeks old.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was 2 weeks old at that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he told you it was 2 weeks old?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you the date on which the baby was born?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He probably did at that time, but I don't know--the date on that kind of corresponded with the date of the birthday of my oldest grandson there.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection as to whether or not he told you the date or not; is that correct? Or you just don't remember the date--do you remember whether he told you or not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I'm sure that he told me. I just don't remember the date.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you by saying, "Well, the baby is 2 weeks old," or did he tell you specifically that the baby was born on such and such a date; do you remember?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I wouldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure he told me the date at that time but the baby was 2 weeks old and I judge that he would have been in the store around the 4th, 5th, or 6th of November, because we were fixing to go to a ball game, this lady and I, and I have a son that plays football for Irving High School and we were going on to the football game and that's how come this lady to be in there. You know, we were planning to go together or get tickets to the football game and it had to be along in there--the first week in November.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you remember a specific football game that you were going to see; is that how you fixed the date as early in November?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us what ball game that would have been?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It probably was Richland Hills that we were going to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Richland Hills was going to play who?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Irving, and we were going to Richland Hills--that's a Fort Worth team.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you made any efforts, since this question came up, to find out the exact date on which the Richland Hills team played the Irving team, did you go back and look it up?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably did at one time, but I couldn't tell you what the date was now, except that it was a Friday night. It was going to be on Friday and it was before that Friday. Now, Mrs. Hunter might be able to tell you that. I didn't go back and try to review anything before I come over here. At that time, you know, I knew what game it was, but I haven't reviewed it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did I understand you to say correctly that there was a friend of yours that was in the store at the time they were there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was Mrs. Hunter?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; Mrs. Hunter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did I also understand you to say correctly that Mrs. Hunter was there for the purpose of getting tickets to go to the football game?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. We were planning a trip, you know, to this football game.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does Mrs. Hunter ordinarily come into the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she did--I had just begun to know her, you know, and it all come about through school doings and all, and I usually got her tickets or she got my tickets when we were going to travel to a game or so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you fix a day of the week any more specifically than you have as to when this might have occurred?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I couldn't--no; I couldn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Mrs. Hunter come in usually on a particular day or did she just come in from time to time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, she said she did--for some reason why or other, but to me, I couldn't fix any certain day, you know, working in the public like I did and all that. I couldn't, you know, not meaning anything at that time--I couldn't put a date on it, you know, what day she come or anything. Usually, the tickets would go on sale on a Tuesday or Wednesday, if they were going to travel to play, and I have my tickets to the home games, you know, and she could say what day it was, but I couldn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this particular ball game going to be played at Richland Hills; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you were talking about getting the tickets and were going on over to Richland Hills?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. To this game.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you said Lee Oswald--the Oswalds were in your store on the weekend preceding the game?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It wasn't the weekend.

Mr. LIEBELER. During the week?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. During the week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right; during the week preceding the weekend on which Richland Hills played Irving.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember being interviewed by two agents of the FBI about the middle of December on this whole question?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. On a Saturday; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; Saturday, December 14, 1963.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I do remember; it was a Saturday that they came out.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you remember the names of the agents?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I don't. They were just two tall fellows and I don't even know the names--I didn't take them down and I didn't think it was that important.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling those two men specifically that when this man's wife came in, when Oswald's wife came in, that Oswald told you that his youngest child had been born on October 20, 1963?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Probably so--somewhere, you know, it was along that time, but you know it has been so long now that I have forgotten the dates.

Mr. LIEBELER. And do you remember telling the FBI agents specifically the date October 20, 1963?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I believe so. Now, like I say, I wouldn't swear to that but if I told them, that's what he had told me. I haven't reviewed this, like I say, before I come over here, so I'm just telling you what I think absolutely is true--the truth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right; and I want to try and find the state of your recollection as to just what this man told you about the date of birth of this young child, and if you remember specifically that he told you that the child was born October 20, 1963, I want you to tell me that, and if you can't remember that, I want you just to say that and it is very important that you give me the exact state of your recollection on that.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Now, I'm not going to say that I remember him telling me that because it has been too long ago, you know, it has been too long back to say it was October 20--like when I come over here and you asked me my grandson's birthday that I had forgotten and there is too much that goes through my mind in that length of time. We talked about it and I'm sure he told me the birthdays of the babies, but it has been too long now and I wouldn't say that he told me October 20, but the baby was 2 weeks old when he was in the store and it was the first week in November that he was in the store and I don't know what date that would have been that he was in the store.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else in the store besides you and Mrs. Hunter and this man Oswald and the wife and the two little children during this time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I don't believe there was. There was someone out in front of the store, you know, there always was. I remember something about that, but I wouldn't swear that there was anyone out there in front, any particular person out in front, but there usually was two or three men that kind of hung around there because that was on the corner and had been the bus station and, you know, people just walk in and walk out there, you know, and they ask for information for first one thing and another, you know, in my store and I was always real good about giving them information and like I probably told him where he could go get the gun part he was looking for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether you directed him to another gunshop or not?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Just to be sure about it, I don't know now, but I'm just almost sure that I did if he asked me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember where you told him to go?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. If I directed him, it would have been east of me, probably at the Irving Sports Shop or even down on the highway at some pawnshop or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the man who owns the Irving Sports Shop?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; Woodrow Greener.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you known him?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Oh, I have known Woodrow for about 20 years, I guess.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a good friend of his or close to him at all?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I wouldn't say real close--I just knew him. He had been in and out of business there for a number of years and I have lived in Irving all of my life, so I wouldn't say I was a real close friend to him--I just know him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a young man by the name of Dial Ryder?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't know Dial Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Ryder now; have you met him since that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I haven't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever discussed this series of events with Mr. Greener?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I did discuss it with Mr. Greener over the telephone and Woodrow Greener was out of town. He said at that time he probably was, but he was gone deer hunting, you know, he hunts, and he and his wife were out of town at that time because we talked about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you talk to Mr. Greener about this; do you remember?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. When the FBI men came out there and talked to me on the Saturday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On that same Saturday?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never had any discussion with Mr. Greener at any time about this at all prior to the time in November when the FBI talked to you; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Not until the FBI talked to me, you know, I didn't talk to him or anything, but I called Woodrow on the telephone and told him and the FBI men were in his store at that time when I called him and that was the only time he told me, but I don't think I was even in town at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you read the newspaper, generally speaking?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which newspapers do you read?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I take them all--I read them all. I take the Dallas Morning News and I take the Times Herald out of Dallas and then I have the Irving papers too and I read them all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that shortly after the assassination, around Thanksgiving time, as a matter of fact, there was a story in the Dallas Times Herald to the effect that Oswald had had some work done on his rifle in the Irving Sports Shop?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I read that and I also saw it on television.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw that, it was also reported on television; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it sure did. As well as I can remember it, it showed this Ryder, or whatever his name was, working around there and talking to the men.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was the first person you ever discussed Oswald's presence in your store with?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I never discussed it until I saw him on television and also his wife. First, when I saw him on television I told my husband, but my husband didn't work in the store, then, he worked at another furniture store on down on the east end of the road, you know, and I told him, I said, "Why, I have seen the fellow somewhere before," and it didn't dawn on me at that minute where. He says, "Well, you have probably seen him in the store." Just like that. I mean, anybody would come through Irving and be looking for anything like that would more than likely stop in my store quicker than they would any other place.

Mr. LIEBELER. Looking for furniture, you mean?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, if he was looking for a gun or anything like that he would stop in there because this sign was a real good sign, you know, it was and out there, and also it was a good furniture location. So he said "You probably have," and we didn't discuss it any more until we saw her on television, Mrs. Oswald, and she was leaving the jail or something, with her mother-in-law and had these two babies. I said, "Oh, yes, I remember them real well," and I discussed it again with him and I told him about this and I said that those kids are about the age of Bryan and Jeff and we discussed it again and then I knew definitely he had been in there and I knew that he was the fellow that I talked to, and I said, "Well, he seemed to be such a nice man." He even thanked me for my time when he walked out--you know, he thanked me for the time I had spent with him, more so than anyone else. I mean, very few people will thank anyone for their time in a store like that, you know, but he did. He thanked me for his time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Isn't it a fact that a newspaper reporter came into your store one day and talked to you about this?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. A lady.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She was before the FBI men came and talked to me and I don't have her name, but one of the FBI men called me and asked me if I remembered her name and I don't. The only thing, she came in a little foreign car and another gentleman was driving the car for her and she showed me her credentials, just who she was, and she told me she was a White House correspondent.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember her name if I suggested it to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know whether I would or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about Coleman, does that seem familiar to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Might have been.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when she came by, was that after you had seen Ryder on television telling about Oswald?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; that was before.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was before?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; it was before.

Mr. LIEBELER. And did you tell this lady reporter the same story you told us--exactly?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; and she took it down at that time and this gentleman that was with her, he had a tape recorder and he took down everything that I said.

Mr. LIEBELER. They took it down on a tape recorder?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he sure did, and she wrote it down in a little notebook, you know, but she accidentally stopped in the store. I had never told anyone, you know, had ever made the statement to anybody that he was in there. Of course, it was discussed, I'm sure, to people that I knew, you know, I said, "Well, I had seen him," but there are a lot of people in Irving I'm sure that had seen him and his wife both.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did it occur to you after you became aware of the fact that Oswald had been in your store asking for some repairs about a gun that you should call the FBI or the Dallas Police Department and tell them about this?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; it really didn't. I just figured I would wait and see if anybody got to looking for him. I didn't contact anyone. I waited until they contacted me. I didn't know where I could be any help to them at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, the Oswalds walked out of the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then you said Mrs. Oswald, I believe, and the children went out first; is that right?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They were ahead of him.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long was Oswald in the store--how long did he stay in the store after they left?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, he followed them right on out, but they were in line. She started out before he did, with the children, and the little girl--the little 2-year-old, you know, was ahead of all of them and I had a little stepoff there and the mother kind of waited until she stepped off of that, but Oswald himself never did help her with the children or anything like that while she was in the store, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER. And during the time they were in the store she didn't say one word?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She never uttered one word that I knew about. I caught him at one time looking at her and I kind of felt like they were exchanging glances or something like that, you know, but she never uttered one word, either whether she liked it or whether she didn't like it, and I made the remark after they left, after we talked about trading the children, you know, jokingly, and I said to Mrs. Hunter, "Well, I don't think she liked what I said about trading those children," and she didn't offer to show us the baby.

Mr. LIEBELER. You made quite a fuss over the children, I presume?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; I am a great hand to notice children. I just really am, you know, and I always felt like it was one way to get in touch with the customer--is to brag on the children, you know. The closer you get to them the better off you are when you are trying to sell them something, and really, I was, you know, interested in selling him furniture when he told me he needed it.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about this little 3-year-old girl, did she seem to be an ordinarily developed girl---she could walk around and everything?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she was pretty.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she say anything at all?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She mumbled--as she went out of the store she was about halfway crying, not really crying, but mumbling something. I couldn't understand her or anything, and that's the reason that at one time I thought--well, I'll hand her a piece of candy, but then I didn't because a lot of people don't like you to give their children candy and the woman hadn't been friendly enough with me to make me really want to, but I really would have liked to have given the little girl some candy. She was a beautiful little child.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the little girl say anything you could understand at all?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; she just kind of whined like, you know, it might have been that she was a little cowed or something--I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as they walked out of the store, did you see them get in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably did, but I didn't pay much attention to them--to remember how they did--I didn't--it was just like anybody else walking out of the store, you know, I didn't see them get in the car. I'm sure they got in a car and I just faintly remember that maybe that that car was a two-tone car and that they got in there and drove off and like I say, I don't know how they got into the car, because I didn't pay too much attention to them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see where they went when they got in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't pay too much attention. Mrs. Hunter said they went back the wrong way down the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't see that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I probably saw it but I didn't--I wouldn't say that they did because I don't know. So many people pull that stunt anyway and it was just everyday, you know, people make mistakes on that street all the time about going the wrong way and I had seen numbers of them going the wrong way and if they did go, the wrong way, you know, I don't remember it.

Mr. LIEBELER. It wasn't such an extraordinary thing to have that happen?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; but what was, you know, out of the ordinary person--not talking. I'm friendly--I'm just a real friendly person and going on over the babies--I would have liked to have looked at the baby and all. That was what stuck with me more than anything else, you know, the way she acted and him too. He was nothing out of the ordinary except that he thanked me for his time, you know, that he had taken, and I suggested furniture to him and tried to find out what kind they were looking for and they weren't quite ready for it and it was going to be a couple of weeks before they moved out and he told me that they were living in an apartment.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he tell you about that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I asked him. So many people would come in the store, you know, to buy furniture you know, and try to get it as cheap as they could because they were living in a furnished apartment, so I usually asked them if they were in apartments or something, and he told me they were and I know they wanted bedroom furniture, because I took them back there and showed them bedroom furniture. They also had to have living room furniture and I asked him what type of furniture and I said, "So many people are using Early American or Danish Modern." I mean, young people were using a lot of that Danish Modern and I couldn't get anything out of her even after suggesting that and I thought if I suggested that that they would tell me what they were looking for, but I never did find out.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say where they lived?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he said they were living in an apartment?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. They were living in an apartment--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did you hear subsequent to that time on television that Oswald and his wife weren't living together?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I heard, yes; you know--after the assassination, I mean, but even at that time I never asked him his name or anything like that. If I had carried out what I usually do, I would have gotten his name, because if they are looking for anything that I don't have--didn't have in the store, I would suggest that they let me give them a card, you know, to go to the wholesale house. Had I given them a card to the wholesale house, he would have had to give me his name. You see, I didn't get that far along on it. I mean, you know, and I just didn't--I wished I had now, but she sure was with him, whether she knew where she was going or what she was doing or anything, but she certainly was with him. Even, you know, her dress and all--as far as telling you what color she had on--I could tell you just about how she was dressed. She looked clean but she looked like she was a person that had gotten in the car to come up to town for something and she probably come out of the house with just the dress she had on and a short coat, and the little girl had on some kind of a short coat. It wasn't really cold--it wasn't real cold then and he had on slacks. He didn't have on what I call really work clothes--he wasn't dressed--but he had on a pair of slacks.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of shirt did he have on?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. It was a sport coat, I think, with the collar turned back and he had on a sweater, you know, deal. They weren't dressed, you know, really dressed, but they were dressed good enough to go out, you know, to kind of casual shop or something like that--that kind of shopping.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you absolutely sure that they drove up at first in an automobile and that they went back out and got into an automobile and drove away?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. The report that I have of the interview you had with the FBI agents in December indicates that you told them that they went out of the store and got into the car and made a =U=-turn and drove off east down Irving Boulevard.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling them that?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, where I got that--I wouldn't swear that they really went down, you know, turned their car there--Mrs. Hunter told me that they did, you know, and kind of reviewed me at that time, but so many people did that anyway that they went back down the wrong way.

It has been so long now I have, you know, really forgotten whether they did or not, but you know, the color of the car and the make of the car stands out more to me than anything. There was only one correct way for them to go and that was west.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't at any time see anybody else with them?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I wouldn't swear to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't see anybody?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't see anyone--no. They didn't get out of the car, let me put it that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the car close enough at any time to see whether there was anybody else sitting in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I could have seen it, but I didn't pay any attention to it. They could have had a driver--I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are sure it wasn't a station wagon that was sitting out there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I'm not sure--I'm really not, but it does not seem like it was. Had I known all this was coming up I would have took it all down, but you know, people--when you are in business, you don't pay a lot of attention to that, but there are incidents that happen that will, you know, be clear in your mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A, and I ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't--no; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another photograph that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know this one either.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize anybody in there either?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; not as far as I see it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, what about Bringuier Exhibit No. 1, do you see anybody in there that looks familiar?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I couldn't identify anyone in there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, what about Garner Exhibit No. 1, does that person look familiar to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. That one does?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And is that the same man that came in the store that day?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; he looked younger in the store than he does there. Of course, there's the shadow that's on him there that causes him to look that way, but he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like the man that came in the store--do you have any doubt about it?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't have a doubt in the world but what it wasn't him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I will show you this one--Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Now, that looks more like him--he was more pleasant looking in the store than he is in these pictures here.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a picture that has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 171, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Huh.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who do you recognize there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Mrs. Oswald is there, I mean, his wife.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that's the woman that was in the store that day?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; but of course she's not dressed there like she was, but that's her and that's the little girl and the little girl wasn't dressed like that either.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I will show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit No. 177 and I ask you if you recognize anybody in there?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, that's his wife there, isn't it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like the woman that was in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; she was attractive even then, I mean, she was a pretty girl then, of course, when she came in the store she wore her hair just right back and had it in a pony tail back that way.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she have short hair or long hair?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. She had long hair and had enough that she could tie it back here.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about that man sitting in the middle there of Commission Exhibit No. 177, does he look familiar to you?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, yes; he kind of resembles him--yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look something like the man that was in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; the one sitting there with her?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; here is another picture that has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 172, and I ask you if you recognize any of the people in that picture?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's Mrs. Oswald there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about the man? Does that man look like the man that was there in the store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, it resembles him. Of course, if I could see him right in the face, you know, like I looked at him--the features are---like him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; and in Exhibit No. 177, of course, he does present a full face.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. That looks more like him there, you know, it really does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, the testimony that you have given to us about this event is of considerable importance to the Commission for many reasons that are not, I'm sure, even clear to you at the moment.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you be willing to come back again on Friday morning and meet with Marina Oswald and the children to see if those really were the people that were in your store?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. This Friday morning?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I like you to put it up early enough--I go to work at 12 on Friday and if you would make it real early, and I have another appointment real early Friday morning that I could put off, I guess, or maybe do it in the morning. I have an appointment to get my hair fixed on Friday and I have that every Friday morning and I go to work at 12 and I would like for this not to interfere any more than is possible, you know, with my job. I work for J. C. Penney's there in Plymouth Park and they are real nice. They have given me time off because they had to, you know, but I would rather it not interfere with that.

Mr. LIEBELER. What time would be convenient for you on Friday morning--about 9 o'clock?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. I would like to meet with her--that would be all right. Really, I would like to meet with her one time, you know, to--of course, I have only seen her on television and I saw her there at the store and I would like for her to tell me that she went into that store. I believe she would if she's telling what she did--she might not recognize me now, you know, out of the store, but I believe that woman would tell you that she went in that store if she saw that store. I believe she would--that little girl, the oldest one, isn't she a dark headed girl, and at that time she wore--she had her bangs cut.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know; I have never seen the little girl.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us