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

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

General WALKER. But I don't see how you could take a picture and see less of the house, and it is definitely because of the lighting in the picture and everything dark. The whole house is dark under the light, the way that picture was taken, so that you see very little of the house except the policeman, what he has of the light coming out behind him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Right. Now did you make any sudden movement on or about the time that shot was fired?

General WALKER. None that I was aware of; no. Just moving with a pencil and thoroughly engrossed in my income tax.

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is it from where you were sitting to the fence where we think the shot was fired from? How many feet?

General WALKER. I would say 100 feet. I would say between 100 and 120 feet.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever say in words or substance after this shot was fired at you that the guy must have been a lousy shot? That sounds like something you might say, doesn't it?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember saying that?

General WALKER. But I will tell you what I did think. I think I said that, right. The police asked me to sit down. You want me to tell you?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

General WALKER. The police asked me to sit down when I got there and they went through the motions of lining up the shot from inside and outside.

And one policeman said, "He couldn't have missed you." And one said, a lieutenant I believe it was, said, "It was an attempted assassination."

And I said, "What makes you call it that?" And he said, "Because he definitely was out to get you."

And I said, "Your remark sounds like a natural remark." But as I later was analyzing the thing, he couldn't see either with a scope or without a scope. He couldn't see from his position any of the lattice work either in the windows or in the screens because of the light. It would have looked like one big lighted area, and he could have been a very good shot and just by chance he hit the woodwork.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which he did in fact?

General WALKER. Which he did, and there was enough deflection in it to miss me, except for slivers of the bullet, the casing of the bullet that went into my arm laying on the desk--slivers of the shell jacket.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit No. 2 and ask you if you recognize the scene in that picture?

General WALKER. Yes; I identify this picture looking approximately south down the alley, taken from about the entrance of where the alley enters the church, a few steps short of where the alley enters the church parking area. It is facing approximately south. Shows the back entrance to my back yard and the tree and my garbage can and the lattice fence on the west.

Mr. LIEBELER. The alley that runs down there is the alley that runs directly behind your house, isn't that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct. And the direction we are looking is the direction in which it connects and joins Avondale Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that object in the background that looks like a building maybe under construction?

General WALKER. That is the bigger apartment house down south of me.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit No. 1003, that is a copy of Exhibit No. 1003, and ask you if that larger apartment building shown in the right background of that picture is not in fact the same building that is shown as being under construction in Commission Exhibit No. 2?

General WALKER. As well as I can identify it, it looks like the same building.

Mr. LIEBELER. Looking further at Exhibit No. 1003, there is a house that is circled and indicated by the letter "A." That is, in fact, your house, is it not?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the street marked "E" is Turtle Creek Boulevard?

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of course, the whole picture is an aerial view of the general vicinity of your house and the apartment building, is it not?

General WALKER. That is correct. And "H" would be Avondale.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's right. And "G" is Irving Street?

General WALKER. That I don't know. Probably is. The church alley shows up here going into Turtle Creek.

Mr. LIEBELER. Point that out to me, would you please?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is a little street that runs right between your house and the big building immediately next to your house just outside the circle?

General WALKER. Which is the Mormon Church.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the church, is that correct?

General WALKER. And the car was right here I referred to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Just turning from the church alley?

General WALKER. Just turning here, and turning this direction.

Mr. LIEBELER. Turning left up Turtle Creek?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a document, a picture which is a copy of Commission Exhibit No. 5 and ask you if you recognize the scene portrayed in that picture?

General WALKER. I recognize my house in this picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anything else? Specifically, I draw your attention to the automobile that is shown in there.

General WALKER. I do not recognize the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Charles Klihr?

General WALKER. Would you spell it again?

Mr. LIEBELER. I will spell it right in just a minute. K-l-i-h-r. 2046 Rosebud Street, Irving, Tex. Do you know that man?

General WALKER. Not that spelling. I know a Charles Clyr. As I know the spelling, it is C-l-y-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does he live out in Irving?

General WALKER. I think he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you recognize his address?

General WALKER. I wouldn't recognize his address. I don't recognize that address. That could or couldn't be it.

Mr. LIEBELER. How about that car, do you recognize that as his car?

General WALKER. I don't recognize that car.

Mr. LIEBELER. This gentleman that we may be talking about, we may be talking about the same man, is a volunteer worker for you from time to time?

General WALKER. If it is the one I am referring to, he is in and out quite often, right. He and his wife have helped me quite a bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to identify that car as being his?

General WALKER. No; I am not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that car appear to be a 1957 Chevrolet? Or aren't you able to tell by looking?

General WALKER. I am not able to tell. I am not very good on cars.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you indicate that to the very far left of this photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 5, through these bushes there is a window, and that is the window through which the shot was fired, is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the window immediately left of the gasmeter there as you look at the picture?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any doubt that that is the back of your house?

General WALKER. None at all. That is the back of the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never seen that picture before, have you?

General WALKER. No; I haven't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph which is a copy of Commission Exhibit No. 3. The photograph that I refer to is set forth in this copy, and I refer specifically to the one denominated P-1 and ask you if you recognize the scene portrayed therein.

General WALKER. Yes; I recognize that as the back of my house, a portion of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have another photograph I have marked Walker Exhibit No. 3, and I ask you to initial that, if you would, for the purpose of identification.

General WALKER (initials). Can I look at it?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, please. That is a picture of the back of your house too, isn't it?

General WALKER. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have shown you another picture which is Walker Exhibit No. 4, and I ask you to initial that, and ask you if that isn't in fact a picture of the alley behind your house.

General WALKER (initials). Yes; that is a picture of the alley looking south toward the same apartment building we referred to before, down to where the alley connects with Avondale showing the back fence and the entrance into my backyard. I believe the picture is taken at a different date from the other one we referred to, because the fence has been changed behind the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. That apartment is completed in the picture?

General WALKER. That's right. There was work on the fence in the other house and, also, the apartment building is in further advanced stage of construction.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, it looks to be completed in Walker Exhibit No. 4, does it not, the apartment building?

General WALKER. Yes; it does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a series of photographs which are copies of Commission Exhibits Nos. 998, 999, 1000, 1002, and 1004, and ask you if each and every one is not, in fact, an aerial view of the general vicinity of your home and surrounding area, and if the identification of landmarks in those pictures, insofar as you can tell, is correct.

General WALKER. 998 is identification of my home. 1000 would certainly include the area of my home. It is hard to identify the exact house marked "A".

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, that big old apartment building is in there in 1000?

General WALKER. That is correct. So it is bound to include the area of my home; 1002 is the area of my home, and it indicates my house; 1004 certainly includes the area of my home, and it would be very difficult without further study to definitely identify that as my home. They all include the area of my home. My home definitely is in those pictures.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't see any obvious mistakes, at least, as far as the identification and the symbols on the pictures are concerned?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Going back to the record on this Klihr, it does appear, in fact, to be K-l-i-h-r.

General WALKER. Why don't we ring the house and establish that that is correct. LA 1-4415.

(General Watts called on phone and confirmed it was K-l-i-h-r.)

General WALKER. What is it?

General WATTS. K-l-i-h-r.

General WALKER. All right; that is the original spelling you had?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

General WALKER. OK; that is correct. It is Charles Klihr.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Robert Surrey?

General WALKER. Yes, I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Has Mr. Surrey discussed with you the fact that on June 3, 1964, he was interviewed by an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and shown a picture, or a copy of a picture similar to Commission Exhibit No. 5, which showed this automobile behind your house with the license plate obliterated on it? Did he tell you he had been asked about that?

General WALKER. He told me about a picture being shown to him of the back side of my house, and I believe he referred to it showing some automobile or automobiles being behind the house, but I don't remember any reference to that car or the hole in it. There wasn't any reference to that car, if that is a hole in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. I represent to you that Commission Exhibit No. 5 that we have here is a copy of an original photograph, which in fact had a hole torn in there right where the black part is on the car. The original picture itself has a hole right through there.

General WALKER. Then it is not a hole in the car?

Mr. LIEBELER. No; it is a hole in the original photograph, of which this thing I show you now is a copy.

General WALKER. Oh, I see.

Mr. LIEBELER. I thought exactly what you thought the first time I looked at it; that that was a hole in the car. It is not. It is a hole in the picture.

General WALKER. He referred to being shown photographs with the back of the premises and the car or something back there.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you don't remember him telling you that he was able to identify this as Charles Klihr's car?

General WALKER. No; I don't remember that he identified the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I understand that Mr. Surrey saw two men in the vicinity of your house shortly before April 10, 1963, acting in a manner that he regarded as suspicious. Did he report that to you at or about that time?

General WALKER. He has reported that to me, and I don't remember the date on which he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it prior to the time that the shot was fired at you?

General WALKER. I can't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of the fact, if it is a fact, that Surrey had seen two men out there in an automobile that didn't have any license plate on it?

General WALKER. Yes; I do. I knew. He told me that he had come toward my house and noticed a car, as I remember, parked on Avondale, and he went on by or backed up or something and got out and came behind the car and saw two men moving around in the area somewhere in the alley in the back part of my house. Then he followed that car. They went down to the center of town, and he lost them. I would suspect that he told me that the next morning, if not that night.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether or not you reported that to the police?

General WALKER. Yes; that was called in to the police. As I recall, that was. I believe there is a report at the house that it was called in to the police. As I recall, it was, and I told them what we knew about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you reflect on that event, do you recall it was called in to the police prior to the time the shot was fired?

General WALKER. As I reflect, it must have been called in either that night or the next morning. I don't recall the exact time, but the police record will show it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make the call yourself, or did someone else do that, if you remember?

General WALKER. As I recall, I made it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what kind of response you got from the Dallas Police Department?

General WALKER. Seemed normal. Wasn't upset about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, subsequent to April 10, 1963, of course, the Dallas Police Department conducted an investigation of the attack on you; is that not right?

General WALKER. Will you repeat that?

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department investigated this attack on you that occurred on April 10, 1963? They sent men out there and talked to you and took some pictures?

General WALKER. Oh, subsequent to it; yes. Subsequent, right; they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they discuss with you any possible suspects that they might have come up with, any leads they had on it as to who might have been involved?

General WALKER. I don't recall that they did. They may have, and I may have told them who had been in and about around the house, or who had worked for me. I don't recall this definitely, but the records will probably show.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any records like that here?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald come up in connection with this investigation in any way at that time?

General WALKER. No; it didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know William Duff?

General WALKER. I know who William Duff is under that name; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he lived in your house for a while and worked for you as a batman?

General WALKER. Yes; that is what he calls himself; right.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first make the acquaintance of Mr. Duff?

General WALKER. He walked in the house late one evening and said he was out of a job and out of a place to sleep, and I put him up and put him to work. The date I would have to get for you; I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, was it sometime prior to April 10, 1963, in any event?

General WALKER. Yes; it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Duff living in your house at the time of the attack on you?

General WALKER. No; he wasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. About how long had he been gone; can you remember?

General WALKER. As general figures, I would say he worked about 3 months for me, and he had been gone a month or two. I would have to verify these.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the fact is that you suspected, possibly, that Duff might have been involved in this attack on your life, didn't you?

General WALKER. I suspected that he might be involved.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you conducted an investigation of that possibility, did you not?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. In connection with that investigation, two detectives from General Watts' office, one, Kester, and one, Roberts, came down to Dallas and engaged in an investigation, did they not?

General WALKER. They did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us about that, please?

General WALKER. They were in and out, as I remember, in the investigation, and in contact with my house from time to time during it, and even drove Duff around in a car, finally, and he explained how he would have shot at me if he had intended to, or if he had any such intentions.

General WATTS. I got a call--I don't remember the exact date--but I do have a record of it. I got a call from Mrs. Kenecht in General Walker's office to the effect that an anonymous telephone call came in from some lady who advised Mrs. Kenecht that this boy Duff had been going with the lady's daughter and had bragged to the daughter that he had been in on the shooting at General Walker.

So I sent these two investigators whose names were just mentioned, connected with our office. They are ex-detectives or policemen from the Oklahoma City Police Department and do freelance investigating. I sent them down here with a tape recorder to verify as much as they could from Duff, because we were very apprehensive that he might take another shot at Walker.

We couldn't get Duff to admit that he actually fired the shot, but he professed to readiness to stage another attempt if someone would raise $5,000. It is my recollection that the tape recording was turned over to the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask: Were you, General Walker, generally familiar with the events at the time, and reports were made to you about the progress?

General WALKER. I was familiar with the progress of the investigation and got a final copy of it. I thought it solved nothing, but Duff was telling his usual lies.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Watts' description of these events is accurate, to the best of your knowledge; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct, except that I do not agree with General Watts' statement that Duff had implicated himself in the attack on me by statements to the daughter of this woman who called Mrs. Kenecht. My information is only to the effect that the girl's mother was upset about her daughter's friendship with Duff. As far as I know, she never said that Duff admitted being involved in the attack on me that occurred on April 10, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Watts, you indicated you had some additional information on Mr. Duff.

General WATTS. Yes; one Friday evening--I could get the exact date--I was dictating in my bedroom at home, and I looked up and there stood Duff whom I hadn't seen since he had worked at General Walker's, but whom we had investigated, and he told me a rather weird story.

He had gone to the Army and was stationed at Fort Sill, and immediately after the assassination he was interrogated by personnel from the Justice Department and was charged with fraudulent enlistment, according to him. He had failed to enter on his enlistment papers that he had worked for General Walker, and when it became known that he had worked for General Walker, he was charged with fraudulent enlistment along in December 1963, and his pay cut off.

He professed to me that he had been living at Fort Sill, although not under arrest, but without pay since the previous December, and had no funds, and was about to be discharged. So in order to keep tab on him, I arranged for him to get a job with a friend, Paul Blakeley, for whom he worked for a short time, and later got him another job with a contractor, W. H. Thompson, for whom he is, as far as I know, still working. And after things get quieted down, I fully intend to see what information I can get out of Duff, if you can depend on what he says, and if he knows anything, he has never told anybody up to this date.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, the inference to be drawn is that Duff is an extremely unreliable individual, so far as telling the truth?

General WALKER. I wouldn't believe anything the boy would say unless it was verified.

General WATTS. I did call Fort Sill and talk to the judge advocate, who raised considerable question as to the accuracy of the story Duff told me. And frankly, I wouldn't believe a word the boy would say unless I have absolute verification of it. But I am at least suspicious that he knows something that he has never told.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as the attempt on General Walker is concerned?

General WATTS. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, what makes you think that he does know something about that?

Let me say this. Since this is almost a friendly, if I may say so, session, I assume that we can take it that the remarks that you are making will be under oath, is that correct? And you will swear to that?

General WATTS. Yes.

General WALKER. They should be identified as that of my attorney because they don't necessarily agree with my opinion.

General WATTS. My opinion and General Walker's don't frequently jibe.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let us swear you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you have given and you will give throughout the rest of this deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

General WATTS. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you indicated that you had some belief that Duff might know something about the attempt on General Walker that he hasn't told you. Do you have any basis for that?

General WATTS. My only basis is suspicion. First; his generally unreliable nature. Second; I have never fully satisfied myself as to the accuracy of the investigation these boys made where Duff undoubtedly had made some kind of an alarming statement to this unknown woman who called in. We have never been able to locate or identify her. I have never reconciled his tape recorder statement that he had not shot at Walker, but would do so for $5,000, with the apparent statement to this unidentified woman's daughter that he had actually fired at Walker. In other words, we could never verify that by our investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Walker, were you satisfied, or did you reach a conclusion as a result of these investigations or any other way, as to Duff's involvement in the attack made on you on April 10. Do you think he knows anything about it that he hasn't told us, or do you think he was involved in it in any way? Do you have any evidence to indicate that he was?

General WALKER. I also know that I wouldn't believe 90 percent of what Duff said about anything. I have come to no conclusion even after the investigation that he was even involved. Knowing Duff; I felt that if the investigators were a little bit naive, they got tricked more than Duff got tricked.

Mr. LIEBELER. But these investigators weren't able to develop anything that led you to think that Duff had been involved in the attack on you made on April 10, 1963, isn't that right?

General WALKER. It led me to believe what?

Mr. LIEBELER. That Duff had been involved in the attack on you.

General WALKER. According to his fantastic stories, it might lead to the belief that he had been involved, like my attorney says, but Duff is so fantastic that I don't believe a word he says.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence other than the statement that Duff is alleged to have made to his girl friend that would indicate that he was involved in the attack on you? Do you have any indication that he was involved in it at all?

General WALKER. None; other than, as I remember what he has stated, and there is something else. And based on Duff's nature.

Mr. LIEBELER. You wouldn't believe what he said?

General WALKER. He never appeared a vicious fellow, and I rather liked the guy for what he was supposed to do at the time I had him, until I realized that nothing was truthful that he said, and I felt that he had left feeling friendly, actually, except that he left by having been ushered to the door while I was gone and told not to come back.

General WATTS. He truly professes to feeling very friendly to General Walker. I have never confronted him with the fact that the investigators have a tape recording that he was anxious to get a shot at Walker for $5,000, but I am still suspicious that Duff knows something that he hasn't told.

General WALKER. It is certainly true, to further my counsel's statement, that Duff certainly lived in the area of night clubs and beer joints and so forth, and he could still know something and not be involved himself.

General WATTS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, have you any information of any kind that would indicate or suggest who actually took that shot at you?

General WALKER. None; other than the indications that have been brought up here with respect to Duff. He did appear back in my house at one time after this, just walked in. Which I don't bring up now as an idea that that gave further indication that he did. I can't seem to recall exactly what the purpose of his visit was, but I wasn't very warm toward him and he was soon out the door after talking to him maybe 5 or 10 minutes.

Other than Duff and what we have covered here, the only indications of anybody that might have taken a shot at me is what has been said and expressed by other people regarding Oswald's connection in the case of shooting at me.

Mr. LIEBELER. So aside from Duff and aside from what has been made public as regards Oswald's involvement, you have no other leads or conclusions or ideas as to who might have taken the shot at you on April 10, 1963?

General WALKER. No; I am pretty well blocked by you all and the fact that--not particularly you, as the FBI having taken the information on the case from the city police, and it is difficult to find who is now responsible for an open case, and also the lack of contact with my counsel at any time regarding Oswald's position in this from the time the shot was fired or even after the events of November 22, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, of course, all that information will be made public eventually, and aside from that, the basic thrust of my question at this moment is, you don't have any other information other than what we have already covered here that would give us any ideas as to who might have done that, is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any basis for believing that there was any connection between Duff and Oswald?

General WALKER. None at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald?

General WALKER. Only with respect to what we have passed over with regard to what we have said about Duff, and we have heard said about Oswald. I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the assassination?

General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22. More specifically, no knowledge or no reference of any indication that Duff was in any way connected with Oswald. I still think that the information that Kirk Coleman gave is very relevant to this case, and I would like to say as far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked.

I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to talk to these witnesses freely and that you or the FBI give a release on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, has your counsel attempted to talk to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Coleman refused to talk to him? So far as I know, this Commission----

General WATTS. I never tried to talk to Coleman.

General WALKER. The word we got is, the boy has been told not to say anything. That may not be the direct information, but I think you will find it about what the situation is.

General WATTS. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. The last question was, has your counsel attempted to talk to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Coleman refused to talk to him?

General WALKER. No; I have no knowledge of my counsel trying to speak to him, but I was told by others that tried to get to him that he has been advised and wasn't talking, and that he had been advised not to talk.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that, General Walker, do you remember?

General WALKER. Oh, it's been at least 3 or 4 months ago.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who told him he wasn't supposed to talk to anybody?

General WALKER. No; I don't. It is my understanding some law enforcement agency in some echelon. But the important thing we would like to find out is who is responsible for the open case, if it is back in the hands of the city police or if it is still held under advisement, and as soon as it got back into their hands, we can go to dealing with them. Until it does, under your requirements, if there are such requirements, the question becomes when can we get into this further?

Mr. LIEBELER. I want the record to indicate that the Commission, to my knowledge at least, and I think I would know about it, has never told anybody not to talk to you about the attack on you in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and has no intention of doing so. That is point 1.

Point 2 is that the Commission is conducting its own investigation into this matter, and has requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation into the matter, which it has done at the request of the Commission, and the report will include a finding one way or the other as to whether Oswald was the man who was involved in this attack on you.

General WALKER. It will have such a finding?

Mr. LIEBELER. It certainly will, and will be a complete disclosure.

General WALKER. Then it must be handling the case, because we have information that the city police turned all the information over to the FBI and there was nothing for us to deal with them about.

My counsel went to the city police on this. Then the FBI definitely said that they had turned it over to the Commission, and then they were under whatever wraps there were, but wraps that kept them from carrying on any development of the cases.

Mr. LIEBELER. No activity of this Commission has ever foreclosed any other law enforcement agency from doing anything that they saw fit to do. The FBI conducts its investigation in any way it sees fit, and the Dallas Police Department does the same thing.

General WALKER. I think we should have a round robin discussion with the city police, FBI, and yourself, if you all have what you have stated, so that we will understand this too, and place this case and the Warren Reynolds case back where they should be. I would think that we should get together to establish who is responsible for the open cases in the city of Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the President's Commission on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy is certainly not responsible for open cases in the city of Dallas. That your counsel will tell you. That is perfectly obvious.

General WALKER. Then I want to go on the record that the city police has misused the Commission and also the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no knowledge of that.

General WALKER. I think it is--I can't straighten it out and neither can my counsel. I think it is perfectly obvious that somebody is misusing somebody, the fact that we have no starting point and this is an open case, and this is true with Warren Reynolds as well as myself.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am glad you brought that subject up. Tell us what you know about that.

General WALKER. I certainly will.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before you do, I think I did hear the witness come in out here.

Go ahead.

General WALKER. I would prefer you to question me on which way you want me to discuss this case and I will answer what is necessary.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Warren Reynolds?

General WALKER. I do know Warren Reynolds.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet him?

General WALKER. My first contact with Warren Reynolds was by telephone, I would say sometime in the area of 8 or 10 days after he was shot through the temple. I thought I had the date of that, or the press release, but I didn't seem to bring it with me. But you probably have that date.

It doesn't make much difference. I would say sometime I saw a notice in the paper when it came out to the effect that Warren Reynolds had been shot in the head and a Latin type was seen running away.

I left on a trip and came back to the house, and I was curious about Warren Reynolds and I asked somebody in the house to call and see about Reynolds, and was told to call the hospital.

I found out that day finally after calling out to his place of business, found out he was out walking around that afternoon. I think we found out he had just been released from the hospital that day. I would say that was about 10 days from the time he was fired at.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have the date of that?

General WALKER. That was approximately January 23 or January 24, 1964, and within a day or two I had a telephone conversation over there.

I talked to Warren Reynolds finally and he said he wanted to talk to me or said he would talk to me, and I asked him the circumstances of what had happened to him.

Within a day or two I would say--I said, "If you want to see me, you can." And he came to the house and discussed what had happened to him with regard to being shot through the head, how it all happened, and I have been quite interested in his case.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, am I correct in understanding that you initiated the contact with Mr. Reynolds?

General WALKER. I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you seen him?

General WALKER. Sir?

Mr. LIEBELER. When was the first time you actually saw him in person, if you ever did, and I believe that you did.

General WALKER. I don't remember the exact date, but a week after the first telephone conversation, within a week or so after the first telephone conversation, I believe he dropped by the house with his brother.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you seen him in person altogether?

General WALKER. I believe he has been in the house twice.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have also had various telephone conversations with him, isn't that right, General Walker?

General WALKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, you talked on the telephone with him yesterday noon, didn't you?

General WALKER. Very likely.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether you did?

General WALKER. I talked to him yesterday, yes. I don't remember the exact time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us the substance, the general substance of your conversation with him over this period that you have been in contact with him.

General WALKER. I was very much interested in his case and why they would have, why there would have been an attempt on his life, since, according to his story, you might say he was the last one to see Oswald in the domestic state after he had killed Police Officer Tippit.

I have had these conversations with him to get all the details I could regarding why he thought he was shot at or who shot at him and what the police were doing about it, and how he felt about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he indicate to you the first time that he talked to you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him and his observation of Oswald?

General WALKER. Pardon?

Mr. LIEBELER. Following the time that Oswald shot Officer Tippit?

General WALKER. Will you repeat the question?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Reynolds tell you that he thought there was some connection between the attack on him and Oswald killing Tippit?

General WALKER. We discussed that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he thought there was a connection between the two?

General WALKER. He seemed to think there might be.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think there is?

General WALKER. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?

General WALKER. I think there is a definite--I don't know that you could call it evidence--but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas. And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at the time after November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?

General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of what he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths shut.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is pure speculation on your part?

General WALKER. Yes, but everything is speculation until you prove it or disprove it.

Mr. LIEBELER. But my basic problem is this, and I am not just trying to harass you.

I want to know if you have any evidence or can give us some idea on how to approach this problem to find out if there is any connection, because the Commission would certainly like to know if there is.

General WALKER. I would be much interested in the hanging of the woman in the prison here in the cell that said she had worked in the Carousel Club, her only claim to fame, who I believe was the same woman, as I remember my information at this point, was the same woman that was driven over to this used car lot where the Reynolds brothers worked.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, in point of fact, your primary source of information in connection with this whole thing is the newspaper story written by Bob Considine; isn't that right? That is where you first got all this information?

General WALKER. He did cite this case; that is correct. That was one of the pieces of information I had.

Mr. LIEBELER. You cited from this newspaper story and the statements that Warren Reynolds has made to you, and your observations about what you have been told about the facts regarding this stripper.

Are these the only things that led you to believe, plus your other statement about keeping people quiet, are the only things that led you to believe there might be some connection between these two events? Isn't that a fair statement?

General WALKER. It would seem significant to me from Reynolds' story that he was only checked by the law enforcement agencies 2 days before he was shot, that somebody was watching what was going on.

There are many things that would make me go into a lot of leads which no doubt make you all go into a lot of leads. Probably what you already know, but just to say that one particular thing is the only thing that makes me curious about this attempt on Warren's life as the one out of a hundred of used car lot operators in Dallas, to attempt the assassination of Warren who had seen Oswald, makes this quite unusual.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want you to tell us right now on the record all of the things that you can think of that led you to believe that there is some connection between these two events, in addition to the ones that you have already suggested.

General WALKER. I have just referred to one.

Mr. LIEBELER. That one that you referred to is the----

General WALKER. The fact that there has not been, as far as I know, any finding of the man who attempted to kill him, is another one.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned previously that Reynolds had said that the law enforcement--you didn't say Reynolds said it--you said that you understood that the law enforcement officers had checked Reynolds just 2 days before he had been shot; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is what Reynolds told you?

General WALKER. That is correct. I believe he referred to them as FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other indications of any possible relationship between these things, that would help the Commission try to find out if there is a relationship between these events?

General WALKER. I don't think of anything else; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you sent a telegram to the Commission suggesting that we question Warren Reynolds?

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you probably know, of course, we have questioned him yesterday.

General WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss Mr. Reynolds' appearance with us, with him?

General WALKER. I did. He called me on the telephone and we discussed it. He said you were a very nice young man.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you, General Walker. Thank Mr. Reynolds. You didn't say that. That is what he said. That isn't what you said.

General WALKER. I may call him tonight and tell him the same thing.

I think we are working in the same effort and same direction. I haven't done anything to hide on this thing. I do ask that you all get the chain of command straightened out here, or chain of responsibility with respect to the case.

Mr. LIEBELER. Those problems come up many times because there isn't any real chain of command or responsibility between these people. We don't have very much to do with the Dallas Police Department.

General WALKER. When they pass things to the FBI and the FBI is responsible to you, then it gives me a feeling it is probably out of their hands. Certainly they have used that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you have any knowledge or any information that would indicate that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy of any type on the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. I think he designated his own conspiracy when he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That to me is a definite recognition of conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Suggesting that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was involved?

General WALKER. I would say as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, it could not be segregated from being involved in it when one of its members does it, who thinks like they do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, that is of course, your view. My question of you is this. Do you have any evidence or any knowledge that would indicate either the involvement of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or any other individual or organization in a conspiracy or plot to assassinate the President.

The fact that Oswald may have been a member of this organization, which he was, of course, is a fact that can be viewed from many different ways. But my question to you is somewhat different from that, and that is, do you know of or have any evidence to indicate that this organization or any other organization or any other person was involved with Oswald in the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. My answer to you is that I have exactly the evidence that you have, which is evidence that it was involved in the conspiracy, because he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and I consider the objectives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee a Communist activity and a conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if anyone discussed the assassination with Oswald prior to the time that he assassinated the President, if he did the assassination; do you have any indication of that?

General WALKER. I have no personal knowledge that they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any indication that they did?

General WALKER. I certainly do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what that is?

General WALKER. The indications seem to be not only mine, but all over the country that Rubenstein and Oswald had some association.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you indicate to us what it was?

General WALKER. Well, I am wondering about one thing, how Rubenstein can take his car in to be fixed and Oswald can sign the ticket and pick up the car.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now can you tell us when and where that happened?

General WALKER. I haven't been able to verify that it happened for sure, but I have been told that it happened.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who told you that?

General WALKER. My information came from a repairman, from another fellow to a friend of mine, to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you give us the name of the person?

General WALKER. I don't think it is necessary. I think you have all the information, because the information also includes the fact that the records were picked up in the repair shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. Whether we have the information or not, I am asking you if you know the name of that repairman who said that Oswald said he picked up his car?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the name of the garage?

General WALKER. No; I don't. As I remember, it was a hotel garage.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you give us the name of the people that brought the information to you, so it can be traced back to this source? Who the garageman is, apparently as you say, that it came from a garageman somewhere.

General WALKER. No; I think your sources are better than mine on this.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is not my question. My question is, do you know their names?

General WALKER. Yes; I do, but I am not telling.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you are not going to tell us the names of these people?

General WALKER. Hold up. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

General WALKER. We are all working in the best interests of this thing. I don't see where my sources of information have to be revealed. You know whether the information is any good or not, and I don't see any reason to get any more people involved than are already involved in it. The information is either correct or incorrect, and can be substantiated by your Commission, or it is not.

This that I am telling you is the information I have got. Now, if you all find out that it is absolutely necessary to your information, but revelation of the names of the people isn't necessary to your information with regard to the assassination. I think we have covered the assassination, and--as helpful as I can be--don't think I wouldn't be delighted to see exactly all the truth that can probably come out of it, come out of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. All we are asking you to do is give us whatever information you have that can help us in this investigation.

General WALKER. That I think we have covered, haven't we?

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know whether we have or not.

General WALKER. If you find out you need the further information that will really help the assassination story--we will leave it like this--I will do the best I can to cooperate on it, but I don't think it is necessary to reveal all the sources of my information, and the story which you all should have the basic facts. The basic facts are the records on the story and you either know whether or not they are true or not. I haven't done all this investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I am not able to make a determination as to whether or not the information that you have would be helpful to the Commission's work because I don't know what information you have.

General WALKER. Let's leave that, because if it is in the best interest of finding anything, that there is a hole in their findings, why we will reveal it.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am going to let the question stand. I do ask you to tell me who advised you or who apprised you of information that Oswald picked up Jack Ruby's car, because I am not able to make a determination as to whether or not that information would be worthless to the Commission. It might be helpful and it it might be that these people should be questioned by people on the Commission staff or by the FBI. So for that reason, I am compelled to let the question stand, and I do renew my request for you to give me the answer.

General WALKER. I will answer that at some later date if you find it necessary, I will reconsider it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, aside from the matter we have just discussed, can you tell us what other common acquaintances Mr. Ruby and Mr. Oswald had, as that is the statement that started all this? You indicated that Ruby and Oswald had common acquaintances.

General WALKER. I thought DeMar's statements--I believe the man is DeMar--were very interesting, and they were only by hearsay from the newspaper, if you call that hearsay.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other indication that Oswald and Ruby were connected?

General WALKER. I am going back on the other question. I say it was only from newspapers. They have been also from the owner or editor of the newspaper, who may have told me that his reporter had been in touch with DeMar. I believe the town is on the Tennessee-Kentucky border or somewhere up there. I don't recall the name of the town where he was at the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is DeMar that was up there?

General WALKER. Yes. Have I got the right name? DeMar is the man that was on the program in one of Rubenstein's clubs.

Mr. LIEBELER. The name seems familiar to me. I don't know the man's name actually myself.

General WALKER. As I recall, it was DeMar, the one that made the original statement that he saw Oswald in the club one night. That was printed in the press.

Mr. LIEBELER. Aside from the fellow DeMar having made the statement, do you know of any other connection between Ruby and Oswald or any other common acquaintances that they may have?

General WALKER. I believe we verified that Oswald had been for a short period living in the same apartment house where Ruby's sister lived.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is Ruby's sister's name?

General WALKER. Eva Grant.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know what apartment house that is?

General WALKER. No; I don't recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who verified this?

General WALKER. I say I believe I verified it.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did yourself?

General WALKER. With assistance.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you are telling me that you conducted an investigation of some sort into the possibility that Ruby's sister, Eva Grant, and Oswald lived in the same apartment house? Now is that in the city of Dallas?

General WALKER. That is correct. And as I recall the address, I never did pinpoint it, but as I recall, it wouldn't be too far from where I live. And of course, I am still interested in my case with respect to Oswald, if there is any significance.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now can you tell me when they were supposed to have lived in this apartment house?

General WALKER. I don't recall the date.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was it 1963?

General WALKER. This is getting pretty old in my mind. It definitely would have been in 1963; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1963?

General WALKER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was the apartment on Neely Street, if you remember?

General WALKER. As I recall--is Neely over in Oak Cliff or on this side?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is in Oak Cliff.

General WALKER. No; it wasn't that far away.

Mr. LIEBELER. It wasn't in Oak Cliff at all?

General WALKER. Well, I had the idea at the time that it was on this side of town, out the side I am on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, from the time Oswald came back from the Soviet Union and moved to Dallas and the time he was killed, he lived in an apartment on Neely Street, and on Elsbeth Street and in a room on Marsalis Street, and 1026 North Beckley Street. Those are the only four places he ever lived. Was it on any one of those four streets that this is supposed to have happened?

General WALKER. I can't recall definitely. Are they over in Oak Cliff?

Mr. LIEBELER. I believe each and every one of them, with the possible exception of Marsalis, is.

General WALKER. I can get the information that I must have recorded somewhere on the address we have.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you have any indication that Oswald lived in the same apartment house that Ruby's sister lived, I will appreciate it very much if you would supply it to the Commission.

General WALKER. Take a note on that, will you. I believe there is a paper release on it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that would indicate any connection between Ruby and Oswald? By that question I do not mean to characterize the previous testimony.

General WALKER. If Oswald was the one that was at my house, I wonder where he was from the time he left until he got home, since the Las Vegas Club is not too far from my house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any indication that Oswald went to that club?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that would suggest a connection between these two men?

General WALKER. I think the two boxes in the post office are very interesting.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, are you suggesting that because two men both happened to have post office boxes in the same post office, that that suggests there is some connection between them and indicates conspiracy to assassinate the President?

General WALKER. The boxes were rented the same week.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were what?

General WALKER. I believe the boxes were arranged the same week in the post office.

Mr. LIEBELER. Rented?

General WALKER. Rented.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that suggests a conspiracy between Oswald and Ruby to assassinate the President?

General WALKER. I think that is more information.

Mr. LIEBELER. But I want to know.

General WALKER. That suggests a possible relationship. I think the fact that Rubenstein shot Oswald suggests plenty. I am convinced he couldn't have shot him except for one basic reason, and maybe many others, but to keep him quiet. That is what shooting people does. I think the whole city of Dallas is very interested. I would be interested in the information on a Professor Wolf, William T. Wolf.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who is he?

General WALKER. William T.

Mr. LIEBELER. What information is that?

General WALKER. The first man we found in the paper that seemed to have come to death after the attempted shot at me.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am not familiar with the circumstances surrounding that. Would you tell me about Dr. Wolf?

General WALKER. William T. Wolf is a professor that was supposedly burned up in an apartment, which seems impossible to have burned a man up, a normal man with his normal faculties, because the apartment, he couldn't have been trapped in it on the first floor.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know Dr. Wolf?

General WALKER. Never heard of him until I read about him in the paper, and I believe I read about him 8 days after they shot at me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think there is some connection between Dr. Wolf's death and the shot at you?

General WALKER. No; but I think there is some connection with respect to what is going on in Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, does this relate to the possibility of a conspiracy between Oswald and Ruby to assassinate President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I think many unusual deaths in the city of Dallas might show some indication of what is going on in Dallas, to include what happened on the 22d of November. And I would refer to one other, a professor by the name of Deen. His name is George C. Deen.

Mr. LIEBELER. What has that got to do with the assassination of President Kennedy? What are the facts about it?

General WALKER. I would think it has to do with the investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in what way?

General WALKER. It seems rather mysterious that a young doctor of psychiatry at Timberlawn would, so far as I can tell, only show up in the obituary page.

Mr. LIEBELER. What happened to this fellow?

General WALKER. Reported died of natural causes, I believe, or certainly nothing more than the obituary, so far as I can find.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with the organization known as The Minutemen?

General WALKER. In general terms.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a member of that organization?

General WALKER. I am not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any connection between The Minutemen and the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any conspiracy or connection on the part of any so-called rightwing organization and the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know of any connection between any of the people who associate themselves with and who, shall we say, follow you as a political leader, and the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. No. People that follow me are for constitutional government. This is absolutely in violation of constitutional government. Very destructive to what we stand for.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you say that there is no involvement of any kind or nature whatever between any of the organizations or people that associate with you or are involved with you in the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. I certainly know of none, and I certainly wouldn't be suspicious of any. I would be suspicious from the center to the left.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you don't have any knowledge of or information that would suggest to you any such conspiracy or involvement of any rightwing organization or person; is that correct?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I asked General Watts to bring whatever records you have that would indicate your whereabouts in October and after that in 1963. Particularly, I want to know whether you were at a political rally or meeting that was held immediately prior to the visit of Adlai Stevenson to the city of Dallas in October of 1963.

General WALKER. Yes, I was the speaker on the day before Mr. Stevenson appeared in the auditorium. I was the speaker in the same room and the same platform on October 22.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that event called U.S. Day?

General WALKER. U.S. Day rally.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many people would you say were there at that rally?

General WALKER. The room holds about 1,700 seats, and there were about 1,300 to 1,400.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you aware of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald claims to have been at that meeting?

General WALKER. No, sir; I wasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't know he was there at the time?

General WALKER. I don't know yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you didn't know then?

General WALKER. Certainly didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall speaking--pardon me, not speaking, but going to any meetings of anti-Castro Cuban groups during the month of October 1963?

General WALKER. During what month?

Mr. LIEBELER. October.

General WALKER. I don't remember a date of attendance.

Mr. LIEBELER. Isn't it a fact that there were some meetings here in Dallas sponsored by an organization known as DRE, which is a revolutionary group that is opposed to Fidel Castro? Do you remember that?

General WALKER. What does DRE stand for?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is the initials of a lot of Spanish words which stands for the Student Revolutionary Council. It is an anti-Castro organization.

General WALKER. What does DRE stand for? How would they have advertised themselves?

Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is probably DRE.

General WALKER. Meaning what?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is Spanish words I am not familiar with.

General WALKER. Well, there is a student directorate group, which I remember they call themselves, and that is the way they identified themselves. I attended a meeting sometime and listened to some speakers.

Mr. LIEBELER. They came from Miami?

General WALKER. I believe they came from Miami.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you contributed $5 to the organization that night?

General WALKER. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald at that meeting?

General WALKER. No; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. In point of fact, it would be correct to state that, to your knowledge, you never saw or heard of Lee Harvey Oswald at any time prior to the time that his name was announced after the assassination on November 22, 1963?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no connection of any sort whatsoever with him prior to that time?

General WALKER. None at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or since that time?

General WALKER. Or with anybody that I ever knew that was associated with him, unless Duff turns out to be.

General WATTS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmet Hubert Muench?

General WALKER. That name is not familiar to me. Can you give me anything to refresh me?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. He is a West German journalist who wrote an article that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a Munich, Germany, newspaper.

General WALKER. No; I don't know him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to him?

General WALKER. Not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life?

General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper?

General WALKER. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29, 1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how Oswald had allegedly attacked you.

General WALKER. November 29, that is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do you know?

General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he probably got from me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and some other person.

General WALKER. Thorsten?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Hasso Thorsten, is that the man?

General WALKER. He called me in Shreveport.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you in Shreveport?

General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you?

General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a record here that indicates when you were in Shreveport?

General WALKER. I don't know that I have a record here. I can tell you definitely when I was in Shreveport.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you?

General WALKER. Well, starting back to make the record clear, I had a speaking engagement in Hattiesburg, Miss., either the 18th or 19th of November. I went from there to New Orleans and stayed 2 or 3 days. I was in the airplane between New Orleans and Shreveport about halfway, when the pilot announced that the President had been assassinated. I landed in Shreveport and went to the Captain Shreve Hotel and stayed there two nights and returned to Dallas and was walking into my house, just about the time of the immediate rerun of the shooting of Oswald. I had been out of the city on speaking engagements.

Mr. LIEBELER. The question was, when were you in Shreveport, and when did you talk to this man?

General WALKER. I was in Shreveport the night of the 23d and the night of the 22d. Do you have a transcript of my conversation with Mr. Thorsten?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir.

General WALKER. Sir?

Mr. LIEBELER. I have what appears to be that; yes.

General WALKER. Where did you get that?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is apparently taken from the newspaper. The newspaper itself had a transcript printed right in it.

General WALKER. I believe the article you referred to in the newspaper was separate from the other article in the paper which evolved out of the conversation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now so that there were in this particular issue of the newspaper two transcripts of a conversation between yourself and Thorsten, and also a story about how Oswald had allegedly fired at you, is that correct?

General WALKER. In the newspaper I remember two separate articles. One based upon the conversation we had between us, as he understood it, and then as a separate article which I consider that the newspaper had done on its own.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the separate article about? Did that have any reference to the fact that Oswald had allegedly fired at you?

General WALKER. Yes. As I remember the article, it alleged that Oswald was the one that had fired at me, and that this had been known earlier, and that this had been known and that nothing was done about it.

And if something had been done about it at that time, he wouldn't have been the man that--it wouldn't have been possible for him to have killed the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, did you tell anybody from this newspaper that Oswald had shot at you and that this had been known prior to the time of the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. No; I did not. I wouldn't have known it. It was much later that they began to tie Oswald into me, and I don't even know it yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you certainly didn't know it before November 22?

General WALKER. Or the morning of the 23d, certainly not. I was very surprised to see the article.

Mr. LIEBELER. So the best of your recollection is that you never provided them with the information?

General WALKER. I did not. I didn't know it at the time of this conversation at all. I didn't know it until I started reading the newspaper, which would have been later than then.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think that is right, so that you only had two conversations with these people, is that correct?

General WALKER. In connection with this incident, as I remember, there was a call back to verify something on the original conversation? I don't remember how the conversation came about. There were two telephone conversations; right.

Mr. LIEBELER. They both took place while you were down in Louisiana, the 23d and the 22d of November?

General WALKER. The first one was 7 o'clock in the morning the 23d, and it woke me up.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't have the faintest idea that Oswald had taken a shot at you and you didn't make a statement to that effect to the newspaper?

General WALKER. No; I didn't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't make a statement to the newspaper or anybody connected with it at any other time, isn't that a fact?

General WALKER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it not a fact?

General WALKER. I might have said that the reports over here had connected Oswald with me some subsequent time.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am somewhat puzzled by the whole thing, because the newspaper in which this apparently appeared is dated November 29, and in fact, that information was not known to anybody that I know of until a later date than that----

General WALKER. Much later.

Mr. LIEBELER. Several days, at any rate.

General WALKER. People began to guess it immediately. I should say guess at it.

Mr. LIEBELER. It might have been that the article was based on speculation, and it might have been the newspaper was postdated too. I think that sometimes happens.

General WALKER. I think that paper was definitely postdated.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that would explain it. That is what I mean, predated.

General WALKER. That is something else.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that you think the Commission ought to have that we haven't already talked about?

General WALKER. Yes. I think the Commission should look into George De Mohrenschildt, if it hasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you know about Mr. De Mohrenschildt?

General WALKER. I know that my information indicates that he lived next door to the professor that was supposed to have burned up.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any information that would connect De Mohrenschildt to the assassination of President Kennedy in any way?

General WALKER. I have the information the paper had that connected him with the Oswalds.

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes?

General WALKER. Of course, it is common knowledge that De Mohrenschildt was associated with Oswald now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Other than that, do you have any information to indicate that De Mohrenschildt was involved in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy?

General WALKER. Not directly.

General WATTS. Do you have any indirect evidence?

General WALKER. I am tired of them blaming the rightwing, and I have had enough of this, and it is about time that the Commission cleared the city of Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, do you have any indirect indication or evidence that would associate De Mohrenschildt with the assassination of President Kennedy in any way?

General WALKER. I think it is very important that De Mohrenschildt knew Oswald. I think it is very interesting. My information is that De Mohrenschildt went to Haiti. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, is there anything else that you think the Commission ought to know that we have not already mentioned here this evening? It is now 7:15.

General WALKER. Where am I at?

Mr. LIEBELER. I didn't mean to suggest--I just wanted to let the record show we are both working very hard.

General WALKER. I will stay here all night.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you have anything else that you think the Commission should know or that you consider to be of material importance, I want you to say so, General Walker, because I think that you have--I hope you realize that the Commission is trying to do the best job that it can with the situation, and that if you can be of help to us, or if anybody else could be of help to us, we want your help.

General WALKER. That is my approach to the problem. We certainly want the truth. We want the truth to come out.

General WATTS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

General WALKER. I believe it has been released to the press that, and I am not sure that it has, but some information has gotten to me, I can't recall how, but the bullet that was fired at me matched the gun of the type that Oswald used on the 22d. That sounds rather vague, but I believe that is the way the information has come.

General WATTS. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. General Watts has indicated that he had some ammunition the investigators got from Mr. Duff and I request you to forward that ammunition, to deliver it to the FBI in Oklahoma City and ask them to forward it to the FBI laboratory, and I will contact the FBI in Washington when I get back.

General WALKER. Don't you want to clarify that where they found that in the apartment, wasn't it?

General WATTS. Yes. I will get the investigator and get the detailed source of the ammunition and turn the ammunition over to the FBI in Oklahoma City.

General WALKER. I can think of nothing else that I am not sure hasn't already come to the Commission one way or another.

Mr. LIEBELER. Very well. I have no more questions. I want to thank you very much for coming down and appearing before us and giving us the testimony you have. We appreciate it.

General WALKER. Thank you very much. If I can do anything further for you, we will be happy to.

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WEISSMAN

The testimony of Bernard Weissman was taken at 10:30 a.m., on June 9, 1964, at the U.S. District Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., by Mr. Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Bernard Weissman, called as a witness, having first been duly sworn by the notary public, testified as follows:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, could you state your full name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bernard Weissman.

Mr. EISENBERG. And your address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 439 South Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, did you receive a copy of the rules governing this deposition?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had an opportunity to study them?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have had an opportunity to study them.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your occupation, Mr. Weissman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Salesman.

Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you lived at your present address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Presently or totally?

Mr. EISENBERG. Presently.

Mr. WEISSMAN. About 1 year.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, I now hand you an advertisement beginning "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy," from the Dallas Morning News, Friday, November 22, 1963, which I will mark Weissman Exhibit No. 1.

(Excerpt from Dallas Morning News, Friday, November 22, 1963, marked Weissman Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. Might I interject at this point that since I don't have the advice of counsel, that I reserve the right to refuse to answer any question that I feel may not be in my best interests at the moment?

Mr. EISENBERG. Certainly. Now, under the rules, of course, you are entitled to counsel, and if you wish we can adjourn this deposition so that you can get counsel.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I have tried to get counsel, and I frankly can't afford it, and the counsel I could afford wouldn't take the case.

Mr. EISENBERG. I see. Well, would you wish us to try to make arrangements for a court-appointed counsel?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This would be entirely up to you. I should think possibly that if I can see my way clear to answer your more pertinent questions--in other words, to your satisfaction--it might not be necessary. Otherwise, we can do this some other time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, it is entirely up to you. Now, we can adjourn if you want or we can continue and see whether the questions are pertinent in your mind or not.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would rather continue and to avoid repeating this again, taking time out.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, I hand you this advertisement which I have labeled Weissman Exhibit No. 1, and ask you whether you are familiar with this advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you the Bernard Weissman whose name appears at the bottom of this advertisement, as chairman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Weissman, could you tell us how this advertisement came to be composed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is rather simple. A group of individuals in Dallas, friends of mine, got together and decided to express our feeling about the domestic and foreign policy of the Kennedy administration, and we felt that picketing, anything of the nature of picketing, and so forth, wouldn't go, since the Stevenson incident. We decided that the best way to get our point across would be to run an ad.

Mr. EISENBERG. When was this decision made?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The decision was made approximately a week or so before Kennedy's arrival in Dallas.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be approximately November 15, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Approximately; a few days more, a few days less, in there.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who were the individuals who participated in this decision?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Schmidt, Bill Burley, myself, and one or two other individuals who I would rather not mention.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the reasons why you don't want to mention these individuals, Mr. Weissman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. As a matter of fact, it is not that I doubt your sincerity, personally, it is just that I doubt that--or it is my feeling that there are several members of the Commission that might use, if I implicate any individuals or organizations other than the ones I have mentioned, that this may be used as a political weapon later this year and the coming years, and I feel that what with very comprehensive FBI reports and the report I have given to the FBI myself, and the Secret Service, that any loose parts that are left out right now can be pieced together if you desire to do it, from their reports, very simply and very easily.

The reason I don't have the confidence I should have, not in the Commission itself, but in some of the counsel to the Commission, for example, Norman Redlich, if even 5 percent of what I hear about the individual is true, I don't want to have this man in a position to hurt anybody who has been or is an associate of mine.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, Mr. Weissman, the subject of this deposition, of course, is the advertisement, and it is crucial to that question who composed the ad and who was instrumental in its placement in the newspaper. Now, you are not represented by counsel, and I don't want to press you to answer a question in the absence of representation by counsel. However, since this is the very subject with which the deposition is concerned, I think that if you don't want to answer that question we should stand adjourned until you can obtain counsel, and I will attempt to get a court-appointed counsel for you, if you can't get counsel yourself. If you wish, and we can hold a recess while you think it over.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Call a recess for a few minutes.

(Recess.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. What is your opinion here now? Let me put it to you that way.

Mr. EISENBERG. I think that if there is any question in your mind at all as to what questions you should answer, that you should get a lawyer.

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is what I am going to do. I am going to read you, it looks like about three or four pages, typewritten pages, I will read it into the record.

It will tell the story why I came to Dallas, exactly what I and several of my associates wished to accomplish.

I will name them where necessary and when I am finished I will let this stand as my complete testimony, period, finis, and if at any other time the Commission wants to talk with me, they will have to subpena me and at that time--I want to get it over once and for all.

I am going to tell my story now as to why I did things I have done, how it came about, how the ad happened to fit into this pattern, and it will be all very simple and logical.

Mr. EISENBERG. Go ahead. You understand that when I say to go ahead I don't mean that we will not be asking further questions, but you are certainly welcome to put this in.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I understand. Our preparation to come to Dallas was made approximately----

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me 1 second, Mr. Weissman. I want you to be very sure that before you enter this statement in the record you shouldn't consult an attorney?

(Witness indicates.)

Mr. EISENBERG. You are gesturing "no"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am gesturing "No"; that is right. About 3 years ago in Munich, Germany, while I was in the service, I and several friends joined or formed a conservative political organization, dedicated to a conservative philosophy, and I am going to read what you might call the constitution or the aims of that organization.

This was originally written by Larry Schmidt, who originally founded the organization, which is known as CUSA, or Conservatism, U.S.A., and this particular copy was prepared for the recruitment of new members and what was expected of them.

It also applies to the members of what we call ourselves, the council. The council originally consisted of myself, of Larry Schmidt, of Bill Burley, of a Larry Jones, who is no longer associated in any way with us, of Norman Baker, who is no longer associated in any way with us, James Mosley, who is no longer associated in any way with us.

How was CUSA organized? CUSA, with its headquarters in Dallas, No. 5417 Louis Street, is broken down into two branches. The stateside branch, which was headed by Larry Schmidt, and the overseas branch, which was headed by myself.

Although both presently function separately from each other, they both have the same organization, etc.

On August 1, 1963, the overseas branch will discontinue being a separate branch and will become completely subsidiary to the main stateside branch.

CUSA is set up similar to the Ford Motor Co. and its dependent, the Ford Foundation.

Ford Motor Co. of CUSA is American Businesses, Inc. or AMBUS. AMBUS will be a private profitmaking corporation which finances its own Ford Foundation, which is Conservatism, USA, a nonprofit, nonpartisan conservative political foundation with the goals outlined above.

The owners of AMBUS are the same as the five partners who are the board chairmen of CUSA, the partners I mentioned before. All positions in AMBUS and CUSA are appointed by the ETC or the executive in the council, which again are the five members of that which has been mentioned.

Every member of CUSA and AMBUS who works for either or both of AMBUS and CUSA full time shall be paid at a salary at least equivalent to that paid a man in a similar position in industry or politics.

In most cases AMBUS and CUSA will pay its people higher salaries.

CUSA is broken down into three divisions: the political analysis division, the recruitment and fund solicitation division, and the foreign affairs division.

AMBUS is divided into two divisions: the business management division and the public relations division.

AMBUS' two divisions fully support the activities of CUSA. Each division has its own organizational setup and subsidiary sections and officers to carry out its functions.

For a copy of this, ask the chief of your particular branch--that is pertaining to a new member. He will be happy to show it to you. For detailed information on the operations of any particular division, ask the chief of the division in question.

Geographically CUSA is broken down into six regions. These are the eastern, northern, southern, southwestern, midwestern, and western regions.

Each region has several States under its jurisdiction.

The headquarters of each region are as follows: eastern, New York City; northern, Chicago; southern, Atlanta; southwestern, Dallas; midwestern, Wichita; western, Los Angeles.

These regional headquarters come directly under CUSA's Dallas home headquarters. Each State within the region also has its CUSA headquarters. In each case the headquarters is located in the capital of each State.

The State headquarters come directly under the regional headquarters in which they are located. Each State in turn is broken down into districts with several counties comprising a district.

Most States are broken down into four or five districts. These district headquarters come directly under the State headquarters and the breakdowns go along as I have mentioned, and it gets smaller and smaller as the areas get smaller.

Both AMBUS and CUSA will have staffs in each of the regional State district and city headquarters. These will be full-time salaried employees.

How does CUSA expect to gain its goals? CUSA is convinced it can induce all other conservative organizations to join it, especially if CUSA has induced a large number, that more and more will want to jump on its bandwagon.

For those organizations that refuse to join, CUSA will bring pressures to bear to end their resistance.

CUSA will also work closely with conservatives in the Republican and Democratic parties.

Among CUSA's members are some of the finest salesmen around, men who know how to convince, how to sell, how to persuade: CUSA intends to work toward monopolization of the money available for rightwing organizations, thus forcing any organizations to come into the CUSA fold.

CUSA will use any method, so long as it is legal and honorable, to attain its goal. A timetable has been set up to guide CUSA's actions, when each project has to be completed, and places these projects in proper timetable sequence.

What will happen to CUSA after it reaches its goals? CUSA shall continue to aid the conservative cause and keep our Government conservative. So long as there is a U.S.A. there shall be a CUSA.

Can I make a career of CUSA? Most definitely. CUSA and AMBUS are big business. Think of CUSA as being the same as a political party like the Democratic or Republican. Even if it isn't actually a third party, it shall function as one. However, if you desire and have the necessary qualifications, CUSA will even run an individual for a political office if it feels you can win.

AMBUS needs good business minds and CUSA needs aggressive political minds.

Above all, CUSA-AMBUS needs salesmen, public speakers, writers, debaters, analysts. Men who think like men of action and act like men of thought.

But CUSA also needs background men, men willing to stay out of the public eye and work quietly to do the planning, thinking, creating, formalizing, and other things in a great cause.

CUSA-AMBUS has established regular wage scales along the line of the civil service, GS-4 to GS-18.

Just what is a conservative, anyway? A conservative is a person who looks at a man or a woman as an individual and respects him or her as a unique human being rather than just a face in the crowd; a member of the mass who believes in individual initiative above collective charity, yet accepts charity where the individual cannot provide for himself; who believes the Government should be supported by the people, not the people supported by the Government; who believes Government should be restricted to those areas of concern outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, leaving the citizen free to pursue life, liberty and happiness without the overburdens of excessive taxation that restrict such pursuits; who believes that every effort should be made by individuals to provide for themselves first and when that can't be done, help by local, State, or private charitable organizations rather than by Federal Government aid comprised of general taxation; who believes that the Federal Government should not compete with private enterprise or interfere with the rights of the States as outlined in the Constitution; who believes that the best Government is the Government which governs least; who believes that the best interests of the American people should be served by its Government first before the peoples of other countries, yet believes we Americans must help the needy peoples of other countries; who believes the best interests of the U.S.A. should first be served by our Federal Government before the needs of other nations are looked into, yet that we should aid needy nations where aid is justified and deserved, and in the best interests of our country; who believes that the American form of republican government, a government of the people, for the people, by the people, with rule by law and constitution, is the only way of government and way of life for Americans; who believes that although a government and system of law and rule and economics isn't perfect, it is the best one ever attempted by mankind in its long history; who believes that private enterprise and capitalism is the whole basis of our way of life and the reason of our way of life--and the reason our way of life is so richly endowed; who believes that communism is the greatest threat to the existence and freedom of America and must be completely defeated; who believes there can be no peace without victory over communism; who believes that the true revolutionary political system and the true revolution of mankind is the American democracy and democratic and political system; that the enslavement of man embodied in communism is as old as mankind itself, and therefore there is nothing revolutionary about it, even though it has a modern name and foundation and is certainly no good, indeed fatal, to mankind.

Is CUSA identified with any other organization or society? CUSA is associated with no organization or group, be it political, economic, social, fraternal, or religious. CUSA is committed to none, either.

I can interject a footnote of my own at this point. At council sessions we decided to use whatever vehicles were necessary in the way of other organizations to get CUSA off the ground and at the same time keep the name CUSA secret among ourselves, as it was our organization, you might say; no one of the other organizations that we became involved with knew anything about the existence of CUSA or what we had planned to do with it. They did not know, the individuals that we were concerned with did not know, that in many cases, as a matter of fact, we were using them merely as a vehicle to further the interest of CUSA.

Just who does CUSA hope to elect President?

I want to reiterate that this was prepared in late 1961 or very early 1962.

CUSA considers Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) as Mr. Conservative, U.S.A., and wholeheartedly endorses him for the Presidency, although CUSA is not committed to Mr. Goldwater in any way. However, it is felt that he is by far the most outstanding conservative politician and spokesman in the country.

How does CUSA feel about the so-called radical rightwing? CUSA has proof that many so-called radical organizations are not really radical or at least as radical as the enemies or opposition of these organizations would have the public believe.

CUSA loathes extremism of the right, typified by the American Nazi Party, as much as it does the extremism of the left, exemplified by the Communist Party in the U.S.A.

CUSA does not believe, however, that an American can be too radical or extreme in his love or patriotism for his country.

CUSA endorses Americanism, love of country, and patriotism, even if it does not always agree with what some citizens believe is wrong with our country, who is to blame for our faults and our solution to our problems.

CUSA has faith in and believes in many rightwing organizations and their endeavors, although it does not always agree with everything they say or do, the words or actions of their leaders.

On the other hand, CUSA does not condemn a patriot who, in the heat of anger or frustration, says things which are irresponsible and not honestly meant. On the other hand, CUSA cannot subscribe to continued irresponsibility on the part of organizations, its leaders or membership.

This is one reason, for example, recently in Dallas, we decided not to become, at least as far as we knew, to become involved with anybody associated or doing business with General Walker, as an example. We made it a point to try to stay clear of that.

How does CUSA feel about communism? CUSA intends to do everything it can to destroy communism. CUSA is against any philosophy, any organization, any group, any individual which threatens the freedom, way of life, or congressional government of the United States.

CUSA is against any tyranny, whatever its skin or title; against anything indecent, unlawful, or harmful to man.

Can anyone join CUSA? Any citizen of the United States who believes in what CUSA is trying to do and who is not a demagog or dishonest, may join CUSA regardless of race, religion, creed, or ethnic origin. CUSA does not believe that patriotism is contingent upon skin, color, or religion or family background.

Let me say again that this was prepared in 1961, and in its essence has been followed through to the--up until the 22d of November 1963, and this, I think, would give some reasons or give you several answers as to why the ad was placed, why it read as it did.

Mr. EISENBERG. That completes the statement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That completes my statement.

Mr. EISENBERG. OK; then we will stand adjourned.

TESTIMONY OF WARREN ALLEN REYNOLDS

The testimony of Warren Allen Reynolds was taken at 3:35 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. REYNOLDS. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

Under the rules of procedure governing the taking of testimony, you are entitled to have an attorney present at this hearing. You are also entitled to 3 days' notice for the hearing, and you are entitled to exercise whatever rights and privileges, as far as not answering questions are concerned, as are afforded to you under the Constitution and laws of the United States. I assume that you do not wish to have an attorney present, since you don't have one here. Most of the witnesses do not have.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Warren Allen Reynolds.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address?

Mr. REYNOLDS. 8707 Mosswood.

Mr. LIEBELER. Here in Dallas?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you born, Mr. Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. June 22, 1935.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you employed here in Dallas?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; Reynolds Motor Co.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of company is that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is a used-car lot.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is operated by you and by your brother; is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is operated by my brother, and I am an employee there.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not an owner of the corporation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are employed by your brother?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you give us briefly what your educational background is?

Mr. REYNOLDS. High school.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you graduate from high school here in Dallas?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which school?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Forest Avenue High School.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is this Reynolds Motor Co. located?

Mr. REYNOLDS. 500 East Jefferson.

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is that from the corner of 10th and Patton?

Mr. REYNOLDS. One block.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there at the used-car lot on November 22, 1963?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you there at about, say, after the hour of 12 o'clock noon in the afternoon?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what you saw; will you, please?

Mr. REYNOLDS. OK; our office is up high where I can have a pretty good view of what was going on. I heard the shots and, when I heard the shots, I went out on this front porch which is, like I say, high, and I saw this man coming down the street with the gun in his hand, swinging it just like he was running. He turned the corner of Patton and Jefferson, going west, and put the gun in his pants and took off, walking.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots did you hear?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I really have no idea, to be honest with you. I would say four or five or six. I just would have no idea. I heard one, and then I heard a succession of some more, and I didn't see the officer get shot.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Very good.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, you were questioned by the Dallas Police Department, were you not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department never talked to you about the man that you saw going down the street?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Now, they talked to me much later, you mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. OK; let me put it this way: When is the first time that anybody from any law-enforcement agency, and I mean by that, the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police Department, Dallas County sheriff's office; you pick it. When is the first time that they ever talked to you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. January 21.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is the first time they ever talked to you about what you saw on that day?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you never in any way identified this man in the police department or any other authority, either in November or in December of 1963; is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I sure didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it can be in no way said that you "fingered" the man who was running down the street, and identified him as the man who was going around and putting the gun in his pocket?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It can be said I didn't talk to the authorities.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say anything about it to anybody else?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to identify this man in your own mind?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did identify him as Lee Harvey Oswald in your own mind?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no question about it?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. REYNOLDS. In my mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you an exhibit that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C and ask you if that is the same man, in your opinion?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were in no way, if I understand it correctly then, properly identified as anyone who had told the authorities that this man that was going down the street was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, yes and no. When it happened, and after I seen--and you probably know what I did--after I saw the man on the corner of Patton and Jefferson, I followed him up the street behind the service station and lost him. I went back there and looked up and down the alley and didn't see him, and looked through the cars and still didn't see him.

Then the police got there, and they took my name. While they were taking my name, some television camera got me, and I was on television, I am sure nationwide. Then some man that I worked with wanted to be big time, I guess, so he called some radio station and told them what I had done, and they recorded that and ran it over and over and over again over the radio station. And other than that, no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, what was it that they said you had done? All you had done was try to follow this man and he got away from you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. And he got away.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you went back and you looked around for him around the car lot in the area and you weren't able to find him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I looked through the parking lot for him after. See, when he went behind the service station, I was right across the street, and when he ducked behind, I ran across the street and asked this man which way he went, and they told me the man had gone to the back. And I ran back there and looked up and down the alley right then and didn't see him, and I looked under the cars, and I assumed that he was still hiding there.

Mr. LIEBELER. In the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Even to this day I assume that he was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where was this parking lot located now?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It would be at the back of the Texaco station that is on the corner of Crawford and Jefferson where they found his coat.

Mr. LIEBELER. They found his coat in the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They found his coat there.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that he had apparently gone through the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And gone down the alley or something back to Jefferson Street?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. When the police got there, and they were all there, I was trying to assure them that he was still there close. This was all a bunch of confusion. They didn't know what was going on. And they got word that he was down at a library which was about 3 blocks down the street on the opposite side of the street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Down Jefferson?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Down Jefferson. And every one of them left to go there. So when they left, well, I did too, and I didn't know this man had shot a policeman. I wouldn't probably be near as brave if I had known that. The next time, I guarantee, I won't be as brave.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; I can't say that I blame you, although we don't know there is any connection. But we would certainly like to find it, if there is.

Mr. REYNOLDS. There is no connection that you can prove now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let's come to that a little bit at a time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Okay.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you were on television, what was shown is that you were talking to the policeman?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They were taking my name. No name was shown, was mentioned.

Mr. LIEBELER. They were just taking down your name?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Just my name.

Mr. LIEBELER. When it was told on the radio about your involvement in it, was it also made clear that you had not, in fact, directed--let me ask the question this way. Was it ever stated either on the television or the radio that you had directed the police to the Texas Theatre?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Not the direction. In the general direction, but not to the theatre.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, you were looking for this man who later turned out to be Oswald, in this parking lot which was some distance from the Texas Theatre at that point?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never saw Oswald continue on down the street--on down Jefferson or go in the Texas Theatre, and you never told the police that he had gone in that direction, did you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I told the police he was going in that direction.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was going--you told the police he went into the parking lot, or what did you tell him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That he was going west. I told them that he was going west, and I had assumed that he just cut through the parking lot and kept going the general direction he was going in.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he hadn't gotten to Jefferson by the time you had seen him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right. He was about almost half a block before he got to Jefferson.

Mr. LIEBELER. But he was heading toward Jefferson?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; he was heading toward Jefferson.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never saw him after he got to Jefferson?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. When he got to Jefferson, that is when I followed him.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he went which way?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Went down Jefferson, and then he went behind the station, and that is when I lost him.

Mr. LIEBELER. He went around behind the station, and there was a parking lot back there, is that right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You went back in the parking lot and you were looking for him there, but you never saw him again after he ducked off Jefferson into the parking lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Just on television.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then according to the information that I have, on January 23, 1964, you were shot in the head by a bullet from a 22 caliber rifle, is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; right there [pointing to right temple].

Mr. LIEBELER. On the right side of your head?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; and it went to here [pointing to left ear].

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances in which that happened?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I know this man was waiting for 3-1/2 hours in a basement where I work.

Mr. LIEBELER. In a car lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. In a car lot.

Mr. LIEBELER. At the car lot?

Mr. REYNOLDS. At the car lot, the Johnny Reynolds Co. And when I went down to turn off the lights in this basement where he had taken the light globe out of the room, I went in there more or less in the dark to turn off the light. It is a switchboard, and when I walked up to it and turned two switches, this man couldn't hardly have been over a foot from me with the rifle, and shot me.

When he shot me, I ran upstairs. I went around to the right about 20 feet and got this towel to, of course, stop the blood, and when I turned around to go call the police, I had assumed all the time that I had been electrocuted for some silly reason, never dreaming I had been shot. But when I saw the man run off, I figured right then I must have been shot, so I ran on in and called the police.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you see the man run off?

Mr. REYNOLDS. When I ran upstairs and ran around to the right to get this towel, and he came up out of the basement. I saw him and two more people saw him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You then got the towel. Did you call the police?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I was able to call the police. Then I laid down just for a few minutes, and the ambulance got there and carried me to the hospital, and by some miracle, I survived, very much a miracle. The police got the call at 9:19 p.m. in the evening of January 23.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now were you able to identify the individual who ran up out of the basement?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea who it was?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of fellow did he look like? Did you get a physical description of him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; it was just a blur to me. It was just a blur, but the people that saw him said he was around 5 foot 4, weight around 130 or 140 pounds, and was either Spanish or Cuban or Indian or something like that; not Negro.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was not a Negro, but he was of a foreign extraction or foreign appearing, or dark colored?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; dark colored, the way they described him. He had a rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea as to why somebody might have wanted to take a shot at you, why did they?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have no proof. I would say it would be fair to think that somebody shot me on account of they thought I knew something or had some connection with Lee Oswald. It was definitely not people that I would know of, and it hadn't been business. I am sure it wasn't in business form.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do in the car lot? Are you engaged actually in selling and trading automobiles?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; generally everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. You can't think of any reason why one of your customers wanted to take a shot at you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there anybody else around the company that might have been having trouble with anybody else that maybe you got shot by mistake, or something like that? Is that possible?

Mr. REYNOLDS. We ruled that out.

Mr. LIEBELER. You considered that possibility?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have considered everything.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the police conduct an investigation of this?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of this shooting?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, they came out with a suspect, didn't they?

Mr. REYNOLDS. They came out with one, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that individual before he was picked up in connection with this investigation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long had you know him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I had known him for about 6 or 7 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was he a friend of yours?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you come to know him?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Just in business. Our business with him was bad business.

Mr. LIEBELER. In what sense?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, he was a troublemaker. But at no time did I think he was the one that shot me.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you form an opinion on the question of whether this was the man who shot you? In fact, we are talking about a man by the name of Darrell Wayne Garner.

Mr. REYNOLDS. That was just my personal opinion.

Mr. LIEBELER. You weren't able to see the man who shot you to say whether it was Garner or whether it wasn't?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Isn't it a fact that Garner had been in the car lot on January 20, 1964, trying to sell you an automobile, particularly a 1957 Oldsmobile for which he didn't have a title?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with your brother?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your brother is Johnny Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He lives at 622 West Five Mile Parkway, is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it surprise you to know that on January 23 he apparently told the Dallas Police Department that Garner had been in the carlot on January 20 and tried to trade a 1957 Oldsmobile for which he did not have a title, and became extremely upset when he, Johnny Reynolds, wouldn't purchase the automobile from Garner?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I had to keep in mind that it is possible that that had happened and I just didn't, I mean I have been through an awful lot these 6 months, and it is possible that I have just missed it, but I would say I would be a little bit surprised.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of person is Garner?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, to describe him as best I can, I heard that his mother had $10 hidden one night and he wanted it and she wouldn't tell him where it was, and he held a knife to her throat threatening to kill her unless she did. He is just a complete troublemaker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where he lives?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I heard he was in Las Vegas. In fact, I parked my car at his father-in-law's. He runs a little parking lot right there down the street, and it so happened I pulled into that parking lot when I came here.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you haven't seen him around recently? You don't know where he is?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, Garner was released from the Dallas Police Department after they conducted an investigation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Into the possibility he might have been involved in the shooting of you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you have any basis for your belief that the shot at you was somehow connected with the assassination, other than pure speculation or surmise on your part?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea as to who it might be other than the fact, as you have previously explained before, it might be that since your were associated in some way with Oswald's apprehension in the Texas Theatre, that somebody wanted to get you for that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. A lot of people thought that I followed him all the way to the Texas Theatre and pointed him out in the theatre. A lot of people, just rumors, thought that, and a lot of people still think it.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in fact, there isn't any fact that you can point to or tell me about that would connect up the assassination in any way with the shooting of you on January 23?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I can't think of anything that could be a fact unless we just found the man.

Mr. LIEBELER. For the purpose of our investigation, I mean if there were any connection between your shooting on January 23 and Oswald's arrest for the assassination, we want to know about it. That is perfectly clear, is it not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am asking you if you have any facts that would tie it up.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have no facts. I just have my own beliefs.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you do believe that there is some relation, do you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Nancy J. Mooney?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever heard of her?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. What have you heard?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I heard that she was with Garner the night that I got shot. I heard that she took a lie detector test that helped free him. I heard that a few days later she was caught fighting and they put her in jail, and she hung herself. I heard that she formerly worked for Jack Ruby as a stripper.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who told you that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I read it in Bob Considine's article.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the only source of your information concerning Nancy J. Mooney?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The police told me that she had hung herself and that she was the one that was with Garner. Everybody calls him "Dago."

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the police department tell you that she had worked for Jack Ruby?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. The only source of information that you have for that is the article that Bob Considine wrote about this whole thing?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you heard anything about Nancy J. Mooney, or do you know anything about her other than that which you read in Bob Considine's newspaper article?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I don't. Well, I know one thing, she was 16, and her age, that is just what I have heard.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have heard that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. From the police department.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that she also used the name Betty MacDonald?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I didn't know that.

Mr. LIEBELER. My information is also that she is 24, not 16.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Twenty-four?

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever hear that she tried to commit suicide prior to the time she hung herself in the Dallas Police Station?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or that she had four children that had been taken away from her because of her conduct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I see nothing in that whole story that Considine wrote that would really come to me--be true.

I mean, it is true in one sense, and it is fair story, but I don't see any connection there, let's say.

Mr. LIEBELER. Considine was trying to create an impression that some girl had worked for Jack Ruby and was connected with Garner, and hung herself in the police department?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you believe there is any connection in that respect?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you considered, when you thought about this problem, that there are other people that actually went down to the police station and viewed Oswald in lineups, and have testified in Washington before this Commission, and received international publicity in connection with the identification of Oswald as the murderer of Tippit and that so far at any rate they have not been attacked in any way such as you were?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you suggest to me why you were picked out to be shot for this reason and not these other people?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The ones that I know, I am the only aggressor in the whole bunch. I am the only one that actually did something more than just look. I actually did something.

Mr. LIEBELER. But that is the only distinction you can see between yourself and those other people?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this question of the possible relationship between your shooting and the assassination, with General Walker?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you say to him and what did he say to you about this matter, if you remember.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Oh, I said to him basically the same thing that I have said to you, and he said it could be and he thinks that it's strange that I was shot. I think anybody would think it strange. But of course, if you have ever talked to him, he wouldn't say yes or no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does General Walker know of any facts, so far as you know, that would relate your shooting to the assassination?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. He has never expressed a firm opinion to you one way or the other as to whether there was in fact, any connection between the two, has he?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Let me just let him answer that when he talks to you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know that he is going to talk to us?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. How do you know that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Talked to him since we have invited him to come over and talk to us?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When is the last time you talked to General Walker?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Around noon today.

Mr. LIEBELER. Talked to him on the telephone? Or in person?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Telephone; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss with him your appearance before the Commission here?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the general subject of your conversation?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I just don't want to answer that, really.

Mr. LIEBELER. Preceding your conversation at noon today, when was the last time you talked to him before that, do you remember, approximately?

Mr. REYNOLDS. About a week ago. Maybe 2 weeks.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many times have you talked to him about this question altogether?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I have no idea; five or six.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, in fact, General Walker sent a telegram to the Commission suggesting that we take your testimony, did he not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You knew that he did? Did he tell you that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. May I go off the record?

Mr. LIEBELER. Sure.

I think I have asked you all the questions I can think of, Mr. Reynolds, at this point. But I do want to say this to you. If you can think of anything else that you want the Commission to know in connection with this whole thing, I want you to feel free to say what it is right now. Or if you think there are any other facts that relate to this that we haven't brought out.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know of any. I think it should be investigated what happened to me.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department did conduct an investigation of the attack on you.

Mr. REYNOLDS. But their investigation didn't go too much past Garner. I mean they questioned a lot of people, but not anything of any importance. They have a little old bullet. I believe that is the only clue that they have.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you can't think of anything else that you think we ought to know and I haven't already asked you about, we can terminate the deposition at this point.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would like to say something that might be important. About 3 weeks after I got out of the hospital, which would be around the 20th of February, my little 10-year-old daughter--somebody tried to pick her up, tried to get her in a car.

Now, again, whether that has any connection or not, I don't know, but it did happen, and it never had happened before nor after. But they even offered her money. She was smart enough to run and get away.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you seen any other indication that anybody has been following you or that anybody is watching you or anything like that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Someone unscrewed my light globe one night on the front porch of my house, and someone definitely did it.

Whether it was a jokester or kid, but I have a lamp over the light. They had to take three screws loose to get to my light globe. They took those off and unscrewed my light, and that is for sure. Now, that was around the 20th of February, too.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was after you had gotten out of the hospital?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there anything else that would lead you to think anybody has been looking for you or looking after you?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds.

TESTIMONY OF PRISCILLA MARY POST JOHNSON

The testimony of Priscilla Mary Post Johnson, was taken at 10:25 a.m., on July 25, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. W. David Slawson and Richard M. Mosk, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. SLAWSON. I will swear you in if you will rise? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Miss JOHNSON. I do.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, would you please state your full name and address?

Miss JOHNSON. My full name is Priscilla Mary Post Johnson, 48 Brattle Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Mr. SLAWSON. And would you state for the record your occupation or activities now and also what they were in 1959 when you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?

Miss JOHNSON. In 1959 I was a Moscow correspondent for the North American Newspaper Alliance, and now I am a freelance writer on Soviet affairs.

Mr. SLAWSON. Have you been given a copy of the Executive order and the joint resolution authorizing the creation of this Commission?

Miss JOHNSON. I have.

Mr. SLAWSON. And an opportunity to read them?

Miss JOHNSON. I have.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson has been asked to testify this morning because she in the course of her duties as a newspaper correspondent in 1959 interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald on at least one occasion while he was in Moscow, just after he had announced to the American Embassy that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship and become a Soviet citizen. She is going to describe to the best of her recollection, with the help of her notes taken at the time, what went on during that interview. Miss Johnson, first I think we will put in as exhibits the various notes you have taken and articles you have written since that time, about your interview with Mr. Oswald. I present you a copy, marked Johnson Exhibit No. 1, of the notes you have said were taken at that time, and I wonder if you would acknowledge that that is a true copy.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; it is.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SLAWSON. I present this as Exhibit No. 1, introduce it in evidence as Exhibit No. 1.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I have marked this as Exhibit No. 2.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SLAWSON. It purports to be a true copy of the article you wrote of your interview with Mr. Oswald, and submitted on November 18, 1959.

Miss JOHNSON. That is right. I submitted it to the Soviet censor on November 18.

Mr. SLAWSON. I submit this in evidence and mark it as Exhibit No. 2.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 2 was received in evidence.)

Mr. MOSK. Miss Johnson, was anything censored?

Miss JOHNSON. No. It would show on that. Nothing was censored.

Mr. SLAWSON. I now show you a document marked Exhibit No. 3 which purports to be a true copy of an article you wrote for the Boston Globe.

Miss JOHNSON. I wrote it for the North American Newspaper Alliance. That just happens to be one place that it appeared. It probably appeared in other places too.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Then I will say your article----

Miss JOHNSON. For the North American Newspaper Alliance.

Mr. SLAWSON. As it appeared in the----

Miss JOHNSON. As it appeared in the Boston Globe.

Mr. SLAWSON. I believe that was on November 24, 1963?

Miss JOHNSON. Sunday. November 24. It was filed on November 22.

Mr. SLAWSON. Except for possible deletions of your complete article as it was submitted, is that a true copy of your article?

Miss JOHNSON. A true copy of my article.

Mr. SLAWSON. I present this in evidence as Exhibit No. 3.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 3 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. I now have a document marked Exhibit No. 4 which is an article from the--a copy of an article from the Christian Science Monitor of November 25, 1963.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)

Miss JOHNSON. The interview was given November 23, and that is a true copy of the interview as published in the Monitor.

Mr. SLAWSON. For the record, Miss Johnson, that is an interview of you by a correspondent working for the Christian Science Monitor; is that correct?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. I then introduce it in evidence as Exhibit No. 4.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 4 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I have here what purports to be a true copy of a statement you gave to a representative of the U.S. Department of State on December 5, 1963, and it has been marked Priscilla Johnson Exhibit No. 5.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.)

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; that is okay. That is a copy.

Mr. SLAWSON. I then introduce in evidence this Exhibit No. 5.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 5 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Finally, I have here a document marked Priscilla Johnson Exhibit No. 6, which purports to be a true copy of an article written by you as published in Harper's magazine.

Miss JOHNSON. April 1964.

Mr. SLAWSON. Right; in the April 1964 issue.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 6 was marked for identification.)

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. That is a true copy?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. I introduce as evidence, present this as Exhibit No. 6.

(Priscilla Mary Post Johnson Exhibit No. 6 was received in evidence.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, to begin the deposition, I would like you to state, with the help of your notes or articles at any time you want to refer to them, exactly when and where and how many times you saw Lee Harvey Oswald.

Miss JOHNSON. May I have the calendar. I saw him, Lee Harvey Oswald, on two occasions. First of all I had been at the American Embassy in Moscow, and Mr. McVickar, the consul, had told me that a would-be defector was staying at my hotel, that he had shown a reluctance to talk with officials of the Embassy or with other correspondents, but knowing my interest in kind of human interest stories, he thought that I might want to see this man. This was on an afternoon in November, and I think it must have been Monday, November 16, 1959, that Mr. McVickar advised me to see Mr. Oswald. So I stopped by Mr. Oswald's room, which was the floor below my own room in the Metropole Hotel. He lived on the second floor. I asked him for an interview, and he agreed to come to my room in the hotel that evening at an hour he named. I forgot what hour it was--8 or 9. So the second occasion on which I saw him was when he actually came that evening, and he stayed until the early hours of the morning, although I don't remember what hour. So far as I know, those were the only two occasions on which I saw him.

Mr. SLAWSON. He was in the same hotel you were staying in?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. Could I interpolate a question here?

Mr. SLAWSON. Certainly.

Miss JOHNSON. Maybe it is out of line, but do you know whether he did stay at that hotel the rest of the time or did he go and leave? You see when I went back they had said he left. Had he actually gone to another hotel or did he remain in that hotel all the time?

Mr. SLAWSON. I believe that he was staying in the Hotel Metropole at the time you saw him, and I think he stayed there----

Miss JOHNSON. The rest of the time?

Mr. SLAWSON. The rest of the time. He had previously been in, I think, the Hotel Berlin, but he had moved to the Metropole before you saw him.

Miss JOHNSON. And they did move him out of the Berlin?

Mr. SLAWSON. That is right.

Miss JOHNSON. He stayed in the Metropole?

Mr. SLAWSON. Stayed in the Metropole.

Miss JOHNSON. So I was informed incorrectly when I was told he had gone by the people at the hotel?

Mr. SLAWSON. Do you remember when you were informed that he had gone?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. I think that it was Thursday, the 19th.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you state some of the details of that, how that came about that you were so informed?

Miss JOHNSON. Sure. Well, I wrote the story about him. I must have filed it on the 18th, but I don't think it was in connection with the story but with rather the fact that I had been told by him that he thought he would leave the hotel at the end of the week. So as soon as I had written the story and wasn't too busy in other ways, I went to the hotel. The woman who sat on his floor, the second floor, and I think it was the 19th, a Thursday, I asked if Mr. Oswald was there, because I wanted to catch him before he left. I expected he would leave the 20th. And because I kind of wanted to keep in contact with him, for his sake. And the woman who was sitting on the second floor--I don't know what you call her--who gave the keys out, just threw up her hands and said, "He is gone." So I asked her when he had gone, and she said she didn't know. So I assumed I had been informed correctly, and didn't try to get in touch with him again. And he had told me that he would let me know before he left for good, and he didn't either.

Mr. SLAWSON. Let us call a recess for a minute here, so that I can look for some records on Oswald's stay at the Hotel Metropole.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, in connection with your statement that you had returned to see Oswald and were told by a woman employee of the hotel on the second floor that he had left at a time which she did not know, I have here a copy of a letter Oswald wrote his brother Robert Oswald dated November 26, 1959 (Commission Exhibit No. 295). At the bottom of the letter he gives his address as "Hotel Metropole, Room 201, Moscow," with the marking, "(New Room)."

Miss JOHNSON. His room when I saw him was, I think it was room 225. It was down a corridor to the right. My room was 319, on the next floor. You turned just a little to the left to get to it. His was about 225 or something like that. So he had probably been moved to a cheaper room. My room would probably have had the same rent as his--$3 a day--but later his was maybe a little bit less.

Mr. SLAWSON. I see. And would the woman employee of the hotel who told you that Mr. Oswald had gone have had charge only of the old corridor and not the corridor with room 201 in it?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I think she would have had charge of his new room too, but he would have entered it possibly from the other side of the landing. I rather forget where the 01 was, but he might have entered it rather than from her desk turning right and then going down a corridor and then turning left. He might have taken his key from her and gone off to the left from her desk and from the elevator. She would have had charge of his room, but she might have been on duty for the first time since he moved, and only been aware that he had left--she might not have been trying to mislead me. It might have been her first day on duty since he switched his room, and she might have seen he wasn't in 225 and not realized that he was on the same floor but in another room.

I think the key thing is they probably gave him a very inexpensive room, since they were paying or since he was very poor. They perhaps accommodated him in allowing him to switch rooms.

Mr. SLAWSON. You mentioned a minute ago that he might have taken his key from her. You mean by that that ordinarily--or rather, frequently--a hotel guest would leave his key with the woman on his floor, but that it was possible to carry the key with you so that you would not have to pick it up from her?

Miss JOHNSON. No; customarily you pick it up from her when you go to your room and you leave it with her when you leave your room. It is simply that she would have had a book in which she had written down the room number of every guest, and I think each morning changes would be recorded there. My guess is that she rather than consciously misleading me--although she could have been told to say he was out, was gone--that there is a very good chance that she simply had not taken in that he was still there and in another room.

He would have left his key though, and customarily she would have always asked him for the key when he left.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did Oswald say something to you which would have led you to believe that he was interested in getting a less expensive room at the hotel?

Miss JOHNSON. He struck me as notably reticent about his finances, about his financial situation. He told me, truthfully or otherwise; that he had been there for 10 days on Intourist. He said he was paying the standard room and food rate, and said "I want to make it clear they are not sponsoring me." I must have asked him about his financial situation in some detail, because I thought it would give a clue as to how they were handling him. If they had allowed him to go from the $30 a day rate, that is the rate if you come Intourist which he said he was on, if they allowed him to go from $30 to a lesser sum, since mine was $3, that would indicate that they had an interest in him and they were seeking to help him, whether he knew it or not.

And he was defensive. He bristled on the point, and I assume that there was more of an exchange of words than I took notes of, and that there was something there. I just didn't know what it was, and I couldn't get it out of him.

But when you say he switched from 225 to 201, 225 was an outside room, the kind that foreigners have, and it would probably be bugged, and it would be for foreign guests coming in on Intourist. I don't remember room 201, but the chances are it was an inside room. It might have been very small. It might or might not have had a bath attached to it, and the rate for it could have been as low as $1.50 a day. And they could have been either accommodating him because of their interest in him, or because they were simply responding to his financial situation while pending a decision on his request to stay.

Mr. SLAWSON. While we are on this subject--how much he was paying for his hotel room and his finances generally--I am not clear whether you were able to get some kind of indication out of him whether he was paying the $30 a day or simply the lower, something like $3 a day.

Miss JOHNSON. You see he said he had been there since 10 days--perhaps what he said was since being there for 10 days on Intourist at $30 a day "I have been paying the standard room and food rate." That is probably how I should read my own notes.

"I want to make it clear they are not sponsoring me." Your question is?

Mr. SLAWSON. I am trying to establish what your impression was at the time of how much he was paying for that hotel room.

Miss JOHNSON. At the time I was very unclear what he was paying. I think now he must have been paying $30 for the 10 days after his arrival in October, and $3 a day after that until he left room 225. What he was paying when he moved into room 201 I don't know.

Mr. MOSK. That was $30 a day the first 10 days?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes, $300 for the first 10 days. Probably after that $3 a day, and after that I don't know.

Mr. SLAWSON. Are meals included in that $30 a day?

Miss JOHNSON. Meals are included, but they wouldn't have been included once he went off it.

Mr. SLAWSON. I realize you can only do this very approximately but if one were eating fairly inexpensively as Oswald probably did----

Miss JOHNSON. And as I did.

Mr. SLAWSON. But on the other hand he probably did not know much about the city of Moscow, and so could not hunt out places that might be inexpensive. But how much per day do you think he could get along on for meals?

Miss JOHNSON. Perhaps I could just tell you from my own experience. I had a one-burner stove and I bought some food at the Embassy commissary, some from the hotel, and some in the stores around, and my total living expenses probably didn't exceed $50 a week, and my room would have been $21, and taxis would have been a little bit. So probably I could have done it on $15, and he without the stove and without the use of the commissary, but having probably modest tastes, he could have done it for somewhere between $10 and $25 a week foodwise.

He did tell me that he had only been on one expedition by himself to this children's store where he got some food at the buffet, and if that is an indication that he was taking all his meals at the Metropole, then it would have cost him $25 to $30 a week for food at least.

Mr. MOSK. He generally didn't eat breakfast, or he generally ate very little for breakfast. Would this make a difference?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. MOSK. It might reduce it?

Miss JOHNSON. Because breakfast, coffee alone was very cheap. We had old rubles then, and I think it was--the figure in my mind is 2-1/2 old rubles, which is 25 cents, for coffee in the room, and they didn't charge you anything for room service. That would have been cheap, and soup was very nourishing and that was cheap. I think he knew his Intourist guide pretty well, and she may have taken him home and given him food, or shown him cheap places to eat, so that when he said his only expedition himself, that could mean that he took literally himself but it could be he went other places with her, inexpensively. So he could have done pretty well. He could have kept it pretty low.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I don't think that we established clearly before when, or rather what day it was, when you spoke to John McVickar and later spoke to Lee Harvey Oswald and had your interview with him.

Miss JOHNSON. I believe I spoke to John McVickar either on Friday, November 13, or Monday, November 16. My recollection is that it was Monday, the 16th, and that on coming home from the Embassy, coming to the Metropole, I went straight to Oswald's room, and therefore that would have placed my original conversation with McVickar on the 16th, my interview with Oswald probably on the 16th, my writing of the story and my second conversation with McVickar on the 17th, and my filing of the story on the 18th. But I could have seen Oswald as late as the 17th; Tuesday, the 17th. I could have seen Oswald as late as Tuesday, the 17th. My interview was the 16th or the 17th.

Mr. SLAWSON. Fine. Miss Johnson, I have here a copy of Commission Exhibit No. 911, which is a memorandum for the files dated November 17, 1959, written by Mr. John A. McVickar of the American Embassy in Moscow. This is the same John McVickar which you and I have been discussing and to whom you spoke about Lee Harvey Oswald some time just before you saw Mr. Oswald.

I hand you a copy of Exhibit No. 911 and would like you to take some time to read it and comment on your opinion of its accuracy, and make any corrections you like. It purports to record a discussion that you had with Mr. McVickar about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; firstly he says that I told him that I had seen Oswald Sunday, May 15. He would have meant here Sunday, November 15. My recollection is that it was a Monday night that I spoke with Oswald, and it would therefore be Monday, November 16, not May.

Mr. MOSK. 1959?

Miss JOHNSON. 1959. Yes; I was struck by Oswald's reserve, and that comes out in the memo. I had forgotten, but I recollect, and it is not in my notes but I recollect that it is true that he said he had never talked so long about himself to anybody, that about his use of words struck me very much in conversation, that he sometimes pronounced a particular word correctly and later pronounced it incorrectly, and that simple words he sometimes mispronounced and hard ones he got right.

Mr. MOSK. He was speaking in English?

Miss JOHNSON. Oh, yes; his emphasis on legality, I had the impression that unconsciously he wasn't 100-percent behind what he was doing, that he wanted to get out of it and he left a loophole and that the scapegoat was the Embassy.

Mr. SLAWSON. I would like to ask a question on that. You think then that he may have at least unconsciously had reservations right at that time that he was not doing the right thing?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; and I think this is implicit in the interview and it corresponds with my recollection. It says here, "it was her opinion that he might consciously or not have been trying to leave a loophole for himself."

I felt that in making such a scapegoat of the Embassy and of Mr. Snyder, he was leaving himself a reason not to go back to the Embassy, and hence not to really renounce his citizenship, and that impressed me even then, and I think that didn't come out in my story and it doesn't come out in my notes, but it does correspond with my recollection.

I felt he was using his annoyance at the Embassy for other reasons. It was a pretext, although I didn't think it was conscious. And I did bore in on whether the Embassy had given him two versions, that is, whether they had said they were too busy, or whether there was legal grounds that they couldn't allow him to renounce citizenship until he had assurance of Soviet citizenship.

I was just interested in resolving the discrepancies, because I wanted to clarify the nature of the loophole he was leaving himself, rather really than to put the Embassy on the spot. And also I wanted to get the Embassy's role straight because I didn't know how fully in my story to put his annoyance at Snyder, the consul. I wanted to be clear on what he was doing, before writing about his annoyance with Snyder.

Mr. MOSK. Do you think, Miss Johnson, that he had any knowledge of the law of expatriation?

Miss JOHNSON. My recollection of him was that he was very legally minded. He showed me his letters from the Embassy, his exchange of letters from the Embassy, and that is in the notes, that he claimed they were acting illegally. He showed me the text of these letters and asked me what I thought of them. He said that he had been told on Saturday, October 31, that is a Saturday, that they needed time to get the papers together.

Mr. MOSK. But do you think that he had ever read a book of statutes or did he give you that impression, that somebody had told him about the law or that he had read the law?

Miss JOHNSON. He claimed that they were acting illegally, and I am not at all sure that he didn't also indicate that he had a right, that he knew he had a right. I am not sure that he didn't say that they had told him at the Embassy that they wanted some assurance that he had Soviet citizenship, but actually I believe that this was more what I gathered from talking to Mr. Snyder and Mr. McVickar, that they actually wanted to give him time to think.

Somewhere I got the idea that he had also been told that they wanted assurance that he had Soviet citizenship, before letting him renounce American citizenship. Where I got the impression, I think it was from him, but I am not sure. Yes; my guess about him is that he would feel that he knew the law. Whether he would have seen it or been told it by somebody that he thought knew the law, he would have informed himself or thought he was informed about his legal rights. He seemed very stuck on the importance of legality, legalism.

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I am going to now back up a bit and ask you some questions about the general atmosphere in Moscow, quite apart from Lee Harvey Oswald. I make reference here to Exhibit No. 5, which we introduced just a minute ago. On the first page of that exhibit, which is your statement to the Department of State, you mention that most of the defectors who came to Moscow while you were a correspondent there came because of personal troubles they were having at home, rather than reasons of ideology.

You also bring up the fact that, rather your belief that, the Russians had wanted one or two defectors from the U.S. exhibition of 1959 to counter the negative propaganda they had been suffering from the frequent defections of East bloc persons to the West. I wonder if you would comment about both those points? First, if you could give us a description of approximately how many American defectors you either knew or had knowledge of at that time?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, I heard about most of those who came through, though I didn't necessarily interview them. There had been one called Webster--Richard Webster, I think--from the fair, and he had had a job in Ohio. He worked at the fair. I don't know what he did. At the end of the fair he asked to stay. That was, say, September or so of 1959. We had defectors on the brain right then in Moscow, all of us, because there had been a great deal of travel. The result was that a lot of tourists were there; there were an unusually large number. That is to say there had been three defectors. And Webster, now, when you did go into it, it developed that he wasn't too happy with his wife and he was interested in a waitress at the Hotel Ukraine. There had been another one named Petrulli--Nicholas Petrulli. I have forgotten the circumstances, but again they were personal, and I think he changed his mind. I think my colleague, Mr. Korengold, supported him, really, while he was thinking it over and deciding not to do it.

That is as far as I can remember. Those were better known cases that I didn't bother with because I couldn't compete with the agencies. And the Oswald case I did see because Mr. McVickar said he was refusing to talk to journalists. So I thought that it might be an exclusive, for one thing, and he was right in my hotel, for another. But then, once I got talking to him, I realized right away that he was different. At least I found him interesting at the time. Afterward I thought he was very interesting.

I don't remember the Petrulli case; it was probably after the Oswald case, and then there were a couple named Block--Morris Block and Mrs. Block. I one day encountered Mrs. Block on the third floor of my hotel, sitting talking with the woman who gave out the keys. She was quite a forthcoming lady who talked far more about herself than she should have, since they couldn't have wanted any publicity right then about themselves. So I knew about the Blocks, too.

Mr. MOSK. They also came back?

Miss JOHNSON. They did come back this year, lately. But I didn't know too much about the Blocks. There was something else about the Blocks. Maybe they had some connection with the Soviet Union. Maybe he had been there before. There was some reason about the Blocks. Anyway, I couldn't get to interview them. That was the crux of the matter. So that Oswald was the only--and there was something that made me think the Blocks were not pure ideological, that they had some connections with Russia as such, although I may be quite mistaken.

Mr. SLAWSON. You mean possibly some business or personal connection that would give them a tie?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. That would be different, quite apart from the ideology of Communist Russia?

Miss JOHNSON. I had the feeling that perhaps Mr. Block had been in the Soviet Union before, perhaps in the service during war or that they were of Russian ancestry, something of that kind, which took away from any ideological features.

Here Oswald was of an age that made him different right away. He was only 20, and I had never heard of anybody of that age in the first place, or that generation, taking an ideological interest to the point where he would defect. His age made him extraordinary.

Somebody of his generation reminded me right away of the 1930's, and I lived in the hotel where I heard stories about the kind of defectors who came in the 1930's; that is, they had been ideological. They had come for reasons of race or sex; women desirous of emancipation, the American women; Negroes desirous of thinking that here is a country where Negroes were treated equally; people of leftist views; and among the press corps I was aware that most of the Western press corps or much of it were fellow traveling or Communist, and I read quite a bit about them.

Mr. MOSK. This is during the thirties?

Mr. SLAWSON. During the 1930's?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. Malcolm Muggeridge, Eugene Lyons, Louis Fischer. And I would gather these tales, because I was interested in them.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Do you want to add something to what you have previously said?

Miss JOHNSON. The ones we have are Malcolm Muggeridge, Eugene Lyons, Louis Fischer, Walter Duranty. These were famous cases of people who had a great interest in communism, and the Soviet Union in some ways was the promised land to them. Mr. Lyons later titled a book "Assignment in Utopia." Our press corps was not at all like that. We were mostly there because Moscow was a great place to make a name and a career, and we ranged from very interested, like me, to downright disenchanted, you know. We were all pretty anti and skeptical, and we were there because it was good for our careers rather than because we were interested in communism or because we thought it was the promised land, and that was always striking to me, because I often heard stories about the thirtys, and I really thought it sounded very exciting then. And he was the one person who seemed to have nineteen-thirtyish reasons, unemployment in the United States, economic difficulty, racial inequalities, interest in communism. So I thought sometime I would like to write an article about how the kind of newspaper people and the kind of defectors who really came now reflected what happened to the Soviet Union compared to the thirtys, going back to Muggeridge's memoirs, Lyons, Fischer's memoirs, Duranty's memoirs, and what other people had said about Duranty to show what happened to the Soviet Union itself. It didn't attract people now for ideological reasons.

It was a bourgeois country like any other, and if it attracted people from the West it was because they wanted to make it their career; it had become a career for foreigners; or because they were personal malcontents.

They weren't getting along with their wives. It was the strangest kind of reason. Oswald was the exception that proved the rule. And I had made notes about him in the interim, when I thought of him, because of this. He was the exception who proved the rule because he purported to be acting for ideological reasons.

Whenever I thought about him I thought: What is behind these professed reasons? They are really emotional reasons in his case, too, and I don't understand, although it is not obvious like a wife he is leaving, they are still emotional reasons, and I don't know what is behind his professed ideological reasons. And I can't guess. So he was the pin really for the piece, and I couldn't guess them. If I had known he was back in the States--I had thought about him, it seems to me, as recently as 3 weeks before the assassination, and wondered, and the way that the thought used to come to me was, "I wonder what ever happened to that little Lee Oswald?" And had I known he was back--I thought he would have been disenchanted, trapped in Russia, unable to get out--if I had known he was back I probably would have tried to see him, write him, go to see him. And if I had been able to figure out his reasons and what happened to him, maybe I could have written that piece.

Mr. MOSK. You had no indication that people could not leave the Soviet Union?

Miss JOHNSON. Oh, yes; I did. I had plenty of indication that they couldn't leave, and I didn't assume for a second that he had ever left or gotten out, and I wanted, if I could, to help him, warn him subtly that he was going to be trapped. That is why I spent so long talking to him. But I assumed that my room was wired, and I couldn't be obvious about it, and I tried to do it by talking to him about economics.

Mr. SLAWSON. Before we get into the actual interview you had with Mr. Oswald, Miss Johnson, the other comment on the first page of Exhibit No. 5 which you made was, and I quote: "The Russians had wanted one or two defectors from the U.S. exhibition of 1959 to counter the negative propaganda they had been suffering from the more or less frequent defections of East-bloc persons to the West." Could you first identify the exhibition you are referring to, and then give the basis for your statement of what the Russians wanted?

Miss JOHNSON. Right. I am speaking of the U.S. exhibition at Sokolniki Park in Moscow that had been opened by Vice President Nixon in July of 1959, which ran for 6 weeks, which brought a great many Americans to Moscow for periods, fairly long periods of time, in the capacity of employees of the fair, setting up pavilions, setting up exhibits, some guides. And I didn't know this, but I had the impression that they had encouraged Webster to defect.

I may be quite mistaken about that. Webster was an employee of the fair, and I thought perhaps they wanted one. That was just an assumption. Oswald, however, I again bored in quite a bit in my talk with him as to whether they were encouraging him, and he said they were neither encouraging or discouraging. He was very anxious as to whether they were going to let him stay, and this did strike me as a little unusual. I thought they would encourage it. And I didn't know whether he was just a very anxious person, hence anxious, or whether they were keeping him on tenterhooks, not for tactical reasons at all but because of genuine doubts about having him. My only conclusion could be--it was at the time--that Nikita Khrushchev just had been to see Eisenhower; that they were not encouraging defections because of the political atmosphere. I didn't realize that it might be anything personal about Oswald. I assumed that it was the atmosphere.

Mr. SLAWSON. When you first approached Oswald to ask him for an interview--could you describe that?

Miss JOHNSON. I knocked on his door, expecting to be let in. But I wasn't let in. He came out. He came to the door and I stayed in the hall. He stayed in the doorway as I recall it, and I asked him if he would let me talk to him; expected he would say no, from what Mr. McVickar had told me. But he said quite quickly yes, he would come, and he said he would come to my room. He didn't invite me to his, and he named an hour for that evening when he would come, and he did come that evening just at the time he said, and he stayed.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you see into his room to see whether he was alone at that time?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I had the impression he was alone, but I didn't see that anyone was there. Had somebody been sitting in his room, I think I could have seen them. My guess is that his bed would have been out of sight, but that the chairs in which anybody would have been sitting with him might have been visible. But he may have had the door open sufficiently little or at such an angle that I couldn't have seen had he been alone.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did you know at the time that Miss Aline Mosby, a newspaper reporter, I believe, for the Associated Press at that time----

Miss JOHNSON. For the United Press International.

Mr. SLAWSON. United Press--had spoken to Oswald several days earlier?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I had been told he wasn't talking to people, and I hoped that he hadn't talked to anyone else.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did you ever learn from Oswald that he had spoken to Miss Mosby earlier?

Miss JOHNSON. No; I never heard from anyone until after November the 22d, 1963, although Mr. McVickar had said that I could ask Mr. Korengold about him. That was a tip that perhaps he had talked to somebody at UPI, but I didn't want to tip the UPI that I was on to it because I thought that would reinvigorate their efforts. So I never did speak to anybody except Mr. McVickar.

Mr. SLAWSON. While we are back on Mr. McVickar, I don't think we established for the record absolutely clearly whether there was anything in Exhibit No. 911 besides the date and the day which you felt should be corrected?

Miss JOHNSON. No; not at all. There is a postscript at the bottom which is dated November 19. So far as I recall, this doesn't reflect another conversation. It simply reflects an afterthought on the part of Mr. McVickar, or conceivably a second conversation between me and Mr. McVickar. He may have asked me more questions, and this may reflect a little additional.

Mr. SLAWSON. But it does not reflect a second conversation between you and Lee Harvey Oswald; is that correct?

Miss JOHNSON. No.

Mr. SLAWSON. I asked you if that was correct?

Miss JOHNSON. It is correct. It does not reflect a second conversation with Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. SLAWSON. Now then, we can get back to your interview with Lee Harvey Oswald that evening. I have some questions here, but I want you to feel free to interject any comments of your own at any time. Of course we have as exhibits many of your previous statements and articles reflecting your thinking about this before coming here today, so we can both, I think, confine ourselves to elaborations or possible corrections or discussions around the points that you have already set down in the exhibits. The first thing I would like to bring up is a point you touched upon briefly already in the exhibits, that Oswald seemed to be greatly concerned with economics, and that you weren't, and that consequently a great deal of the time in the interview was taken up you might say with noncommunicative thought, or speech rather. I wonder if you would define what you mean by economics, and elaborate on that a little bit?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, since I liked Mr. Oswald, and since Mr. McVickar had pointed out to me that there was a narrow line between my duty as a correspondent and duty as an American, I hoped to establish some kind of communication with him, although I was really trying to write a story about him. I went outside my duty in the sense that I did try to establish some kind of communication. I rather quickly perceived that the best way to do this was to follow his lead and discuss economics. That is what interested him more than anything. He wasn't interested in talking about politics. He hadn't seen enough of Soviet society to discuss it very concretely, nor was I in a position to point out to him too much about its shortcomings, because I was a correspondent there, because my room wasn't a really private place for conversation, and so I tried really to point out its shortcomings in economic terms which seemed to be the surest way of reaching him, and it was the subject on which he had the most interest.

My notes therefore don't really reflect a great deal of that part of the conversation, because it meant nothing to me storywise at the time.

It wasn't what I was going to write about. And I wasn't too interested in it really. I was just trying to talk with him. And so when I talked to him, what I said wasn't recorded in the notes, and the gist of his reply was--of his replies were--that is about the exploitation of the worker. I tried to point out to him that in the stage of primary accumulation any society has to take more from the workers. They have to be paid less than they really create. So there is poverty and injustice everywhere. It was by way of trying to say to him that things were not so good in the Soviet Union if he just would look, because I wanted him to think before he did it. I assumed his act was irrevocable and I was very sorry for him. So all this was couched in economic language, which takes up time, and in which I wasn't really too interested. I did feel that when he left that if I only understood economics more--had only taken more interest in it when I studied it, I had only studied it a bit more--that I could have answered him, talked with him in terms that he could really respect, and that it might have caused him to think more about his action and might even have caused him to hesitate, and might have built up his respect for me sufficiently that I could become someone whom he would have come back to talk to and could have been some help to him.

And I felt that I had failed him in the sense that I could not talk to him in the one language that he really wanted to talk in and was interested in. I did as much as I could along those lines, but I felt that it had been inadequate in the situation in my own desire to help him.

Mr. SLAWSON. You used the term "economics." Do you mean by that, economics in the sense of a Marxist versus Capitalist discussion, terms like you used, "primary accumulation," "exploitation," and so on?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes, a little better than exploitation, more in primary accumulation, and comparing the two systems. If I had been good at comparing the two systems and using economic verbiage--I guess that what I am saying is that if I had had long words about economics, been able to throw them around with some authority, he would have respected me. He did respect words, long words, language, and if I had seemed to have a key to some occult science that he didn't know about but was interested in, that this would have compelled his respect and might have brought him back. But I had taken a course in Soviet economics at Harvard where they had waived the requirement that you had studied the American economic system, and I had done all right in the course, but that really was where my economic training began and ended, and I just barely sustained my interest through the course.

I regreted very much after that conversation not having ever really studied economics formally, at least not knowing the terms.

I am so uninterested in it that if somebody tells me the words I forget them. It was that bad with me. This was the only real occasion where I was very sorry.

Mr. SLAWSON. In Commission Exhibit No. 911, which is John McVickar's memorandum to files about his conversation with you, he quotes you as saying, "Miss Johnson remarked that although he used long words and seemed in some ways well-read, he often used words incorrectly as though he had learned them from a dictionary."

Was that in reference to these economic discussions you had with Oswald?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. I think really he didn't use long words too much about economics. I felt if I could have, I could have made an impression. Words were important to him. And he was not qualified, mind you, for a technical discussion of economics.

It wasn't that he was qualified for it. If I had been, I felt I would have had a value to him.

Mr. SLAWSON. I wish you would elaborate on this: What kind of knowledge you felt Lee Oswald had on economics, and his general ability to engage in abstract argument and discussion.

Miss JOHNSON. He liked to create the pretense, the impression that he was attracted to abstract discussion and was capable of engaging in it, and was drawn to it. But it was like pricking a balloon. I had the feeling that if you really did engage him on this ground, you very quickly would discover that he didn't have the capacity for a logical sustained argument about an abstract point on economics or on noneconomic, political matters or any matter, philosophical. Actually the conversation kept coming back to him, and this was not only my desire for an interview. It was the way he led it. He really talked about himself the whole time.

Whatever he was talking about was really Lee Oswald. He seemed to me to have really zero capacity for a sustained abstract discussion on economics or any other subject, and I didn't think he knew anything about economics.

In fact, if I had been a little smarter I would have just used the economic words that I could have remembered, compelled his respect and he wouldn't have known that I didn't know anything.

Mr. SLAWSON. You said that you did not get into much political discussion with him.

Miss JOHNSON. No, we didn't. Partly I couldn't engage him directly on the Soviet Union because I had a poor status there as a correspondent. I worked for the weakest of the American agencies. I was always in danger of being expelled with my visa expiring. Even then I was only on a 1 month visa, and at that only because of the spirit of Camp David. I had just barely gotten back in the country.

I was just there on sufferance, and I really couldn't show my hand politically, tell him anything I thought politically. He also didn't seem interested in a pointed political discussion about either society. He seemed to be able or willing to discuss in generalizations rather than in direct terms, a comparison of the two societies or anything like this. The point where I felt I could engage him was on economics, and here we did go in for some comparisons of the two societies. That was all. But politics we hardly discussed, except when he brought it up. And he didn't bring it up in terms of people at all.

(Short recess.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I wonder if you would search your memory with the help of your notes and make any comments you could on what contacts Lee Oswald had had with Soviet officials before you saw him, any remarks he made or things you could read between the lines, and so on.

Miss JOHNSON. I was looking for contact between him and the secret police, and I wanted to find out if there had been such contact, and if so, how much and was he aware of it. And I came away impressed only with the fact that he was secretive, and not at all certain what his contacts had been, but assuming that there had been some, whether or not he was aware of it.

He was very reticent as to who he had seen, what agencies they represented. I asked him whether he had told Intourist of his intention, and his answer, which is on the record somewhere, I asked him if they were encouraging him, and he said they treat it like a legal formality. They don't encourage and don't discourage you.

"They do of course warn you that it is not easy to be accepted as a citizen of the Soviet Union." They were investigating the possibility of his studying.

I assumed that the police had told him he wasn't to see any of us, and that they would tell him when he left the hotel at the end of the week not to tell any one before he left. I asked him if Intourist knew about his intentions and he refused to answer.

He said he had had an interview with an official of the Soviet Government a few days later. I assume that means after his arrival. But "official of the Soviet Government" meant nothing and I didn't know what agency that official represented.

Also I had the impression, in fact he said, he hoped that his experience as a radar operator would make him more desirable to them. That was the only thing that really showed any lack of integrity in a way about him, a negative thing. That is, he felt he had something he could give them, something that would hurt his country in a way, or could, and that was the one thing that was quite negative, that he was holding out some kind of bait. That also indicated his extreme naivete, because they have plenty of radar operators, and I doubted that anything in that realm would be of use to them, although perhaps he knew codes and things.

I didn't know anything about that.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you elaborate a little bit on that radar point. Had you been informed by the American Embassy at the time that he had told Richard Snyder that he had already volunteered to the Soviet officials that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps, and would give the Russian Government any secrets he had possessed?

Miss JOHNSON. I had no idea that he had told Snyder that, but he did tell me--I got the impression, I am not sure that it is in the notes or not, I certainly got the impression that he was using his radar training as a come-on to them, hoped that that would make him of some value to them, and I----

Mr. SLAWSON. This was something then that he must have volunteered to you, because you would not have known to ask about it?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, again I am not very military minded, and I couldn't have cared less, you know. But somehow along the line, if it is not in my notes then it is a memory, then it is one of the things I didn't write--well, one thing is you know I tend to write what I thought I might use in the story. But I wasn't going to write a particularly negative story about him. I wasn't going to write that he was using it as a come-on so I might not have transcribed it just simply for that reason, that it wasn't a part of my story.

But it definitely was an impression that he--and it was from him, certainly not from the Embassy, that he was using that as a come-on, and I sure didn't like that. But it didn't occur to me he might have military secrets. I just felt, well hell, he didn't have much as a radar operator that they need, although even there I didn't know.

Maybe there was some little twist in our radar technique that he might know. It showed a lack of integrity in his personality, and that I remembered. What he might or might not have to offer them I didn't know.

About the other point, police interest, I assumed the police would be the first people to be interested, and that whether he knew it or not, he had talked to somebody from the police, that he was getting a favorable room rate because of this interest. That is what I was after the whole time. But I was struck only by his secretiveness in answer to this, and I couldn't make out whether he had something to hide, whether he didn't know really what the situation was, or whether he was simply a very secretive person.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he tell you that he had this information which he was, you might say, holding out as bait to the Soviets, or that he had already given to the Soviet Government whatever expertise or information he might have had as a radar operator?

Miss JOHNSON. I think he told me--could you repeat your question?

Mr. SLAWSON. Well, I will put it in a different way. I wonder whether your memory is that Oswald was telling you that he had this information which he had not yet given to the Soviet Government, and hoped to use it as a means of convincing them to take him, or whether he had already given it to them?

Miss JOHNSON. No; he didn't tell me that he had any specific information, that he offered it, that he had told them, or that he would tell them. It was not that explicit. It was something like if his experience as a radar operator would be of any use to them, perhaps they would let him work as a radar operator. It was a little more pointed than that, because I realized that he was going to make available his radar experience, and that he did want to use it as a come-on.

It was a tiny bit, a little bit more pointed than that, but it was more in that category. If anything he learned as a radar operator in the Marines would be useful to them, he would give it to them, and he hoped to continue his training, something like that.

But it is not in my notes. It is memory, and it is the most negative recollection of him I had.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he make any comments to you about having been interviewed by any Soviet newspaper reporters or radio reporters or anything of that type?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, of course that is an obvious question I ought to have asked him, since a visiting foreigner very quickly does get that kind of attention, but I didn't ask him.

Mr. SLAWSON. You did, I think, according to the statements you have made in these exhibits, ask him whether he had had any contacts with American Communists or other Communists before he came to the Soviet Union?

Miss JOHNSON. I wasn't as suspicious about this as I had been on the Soviet police angle, but he awakened my suspicions by his reticence. He seemed to have something to hide, and once again I didn't know whether he had something to hide or whether he was just very secretive, because I asked him what books he had read, and he wouldn't say. Yet he was certainly trying to give me the impression that he was a book-learned boy, and this comes about page 11 of my notes. We were talking about books, and we were talking about his contact with American Socialists or Communists about the same time.

So perhaps the way that the conversation led from one to the other gave me the impression that he wasn't naming books because he didn't want to hurt authors by suggesting that they had had anything to do--he was taking full responsibility--that they had had anything to do with his defection. But you would think he would have mentioned books because he was giving the impression that he was a boy who paid a lot of attention and he really read books.

Then Socialists and Communists, I wasn't too suspicious although I should have been. How did he get there? It wasn't easy at all for him to do. I was more impressed, awed by it, than I was inquisitive about where he might have been coached.

But he awakened me to the point that I should be inquisitive because of the very fact that he eluded, naming names, specified that he had no contacts with American Communists, going out of his way to stress it. I am sure that this part of our conversation was quite a bit longer than came out in my notes. Again you know I had no idea that he was going to ever be at all important. But it was he who put the emphasis on lack of contacts with American Communists. He said American Socialists were to be shunned by anybody with an interest in progressive ideology. I probably brought them up rather than the Communists first, just as his interest in Socialist literature.

He answered, "Well, they were to be shunned." This was an emphatic reply to what was probably a very vague, general, unemphatic question. And he called them "a dormant flag-waving organization."

So that woke me up and I asked him what about American Communists, and he said--he was very emphatic here and again probably at more length than was in the notes--that only through reading literature and observing, but he wouldn't name what literature, American Communists "(I never saw an American Communist)" he said, and I put that in parentheses because I was that uninterested, really. I didn't make it anything but a parenthetical observation, but only through reading did he conclude it was best. In other words it was he who had tried to emphasize that there had not been people involved.

Retrospectively I see that this was important, that there may have been people involved.

Mr. SLAWSON. You say retrospectively you see that it was important. Do you mean by that that you see now it was very important to him that he establish to you that he had come only on his own?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, I saw then that it was important to him to establish this to me. My story reflects whatever importance I gave it at the time. But if I knew about him then a tenth of what I know now, I would have tried to pin him down even more on it, that he might have had coaching.

It is also the sort of thing that comes out more clearly when you look at your notes and you think about a person afterwards, just-how-did-he-get-here kind of a thing.

How does a boy like this who doesn't know his way around Moscow find his way here? But at the time I was talking to him, I had less interest really than in any help he may have had on the Soviet side.

Mr. SLAWSON. Trying to divorce what you now know from what you knew then, did he go into any detail at all about his life before he came to Russia, his life in the Marine Corps particularly?

Miss JOHNSON. The only details there were about his experience abroad. He said literally nothing about his experience in the Marine Corps in the United States except that he was studying Russian then. He did speak about his experience in the Marine Corps abroad in Japan, in the Philippines, and he indicated that he hated to be part of it, you know, "oppressing power." He said he had been part of an invasion of Indonesia in March 1958, that there was a Communist-inspired social turnover, that they had to sit off the coast in ships with enough ammunition to intervene. He was told that they might have had to go in in Suez in 1956.

He had been in Japan and the Philippines, and he hated to participate in what he viewed as American imperialism, but details of his life in the Marine Corps he didn't go into at all.

Mr. SLAWSON. At that time did you yourself speak a fair amount of Russian?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. Were you able to judge his facility in that language?

Miss JOHNSON. No; because our conversation was totally in English. It was he who volunteered about his linguistic competence, and I think that he said that while the Berlitz method had helped him learn to read and write, and I queried "write" because writing is even harder than speaking, it hadn't taught him to speak. And he indicated considerable helplessness in the language. There are a number of things not in the notes, such as perhaps this, about the language, there was more than is in the notes.

His helplessness about the city, the fact that he had only been on one walk by himself is not in my notes, but it is in my story. There are a few things like that that weren't in the notes, but that came across very clearly. I had the feeling that he felt quite helpless in Russian, not that he hadn't studied it but he simply didn't find the study was useful in his day-to-day getting around the city.

Mr. SLAWSON. Your article quotes Oswald as saying that he used Berlitz methods in learning the language. Does your memory have anything to add to that as to what exactly he might have meant?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. This was another point where he struck me as really rather elusive about an innocent enough subject. I see on page 3, he said, "I started learning Russian a year ago along with my other preparations."

Well, his saying "along with my other preparations" took my interest at the time. What were they? Whether I tried to find out more about what they were and failed and therefore that is not in the notes, but he threw it out and he then didn't really deliver as far as detailing them. He said, "I was able to teach myself to read and write from Berlitz. I still have trouble speaking."

So I said, "Well, how did you teach yourself to read and write from Berlitz? Did you just get a textbook or did you go into some city nearby for lessons at a school?" And he wouldn't answer, and that struck me as one hell of a--I mean a strange thing to be elusive about. Why, learning a language is just something you can tell somebody, so I thought.

So I said, "Practice or a teacher? Did you have a teacher or did you just do it from practice?" And he wouldn't say. And then that got me sufficiently curious that I asked him on what money he had come to the Soviet Union. That was my next question. He did have a way of a little bit piquing your curiosity and then failing to deliver.

He liked to play cat and mouse with your curiosity.

Mr. SLAWSON. Can you go into and describe what kind of assurances Oswald said he had been given at that time about his ability to stay indefinitely in the Soviet Union, or lack of assurances?

Miss JOHNSON. This was a point on which his anxiety was patent, and he said almost at the beginning of the interview, "They have confirmed the fact that I will not have to leave the Soviet Union, be forced to leave even if the Supreme Soviet refuses my request for Soviet citizenship."

This came up repeatedly in the conversation, that he was anxious, that he had been very anxious that he would be forced to go--what was your question exactly again?

Mr. SLAWSON. I think you are already addressing yourself to it. I am interested in what Oswald told you about how sure he was at that time that he would be permitted to stay in the Soviet Union.

Miss JOHNSON. Well, he had by that time been told that he wouldn't have to leave, and as it had obviously been very recently that he had been told. It was obviously also an enormous relief to him but he hadn't quite recovered from the anxiety he had felt before the assurance, because it kept coming up again and again. In fact, he even----

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you state for the record what kept coming up again and again? I mean, what did he tell you he had been told?

Miss JOHNSON. The fact that he could stay in the Soviet Union as a resident alien even if he did not receive Soviet citizenship, that he wouldn't have to leave the country. It came up almost as a leit motif of this conversation, his anxiety about staying, and his recent reassurance by them that he could remain as a resident alien had not altogether quelled the anxiety which was still alive, even though the assurance was there.

He was holding on to it and repeating it, you know, reiterating it as though it gave him something to hold on to. In fact, he did give this as a reason for his talking to me, that he no longer was afraid that by talking to a foreigner he would be compromising his ability to stay. In other words, all the time I was also curious really as to just what he was. Was he a publicity seeker? Was he doing it for that reason? And so he said he wouldn't have talked, that he would have given no statement to the press, which was a rather pretentious way I guess of describing his utterances up to that time, if the Embassy hadn't already released it, and he wouldn't have said anything to anyone if they hadn't released it.

This was another reason for his being mad at the Embassy. Then he went on to say as another reason for talking--he was already inconsistent there--he would like to give his side of the story and give the people of the United States something to think about.

And then on top of that, that having been assured "I would not have to return to the United States I assumed it would be safe for me to give my side of the story," and at the time I underlined the word "safe." Why did he think it would be unsafe, and "my side of the story"? He is assuming that the Embassy is giving out a negative story about him. He was paranoid. I mean he assumed that they were saying nasty things about him and he wanted to set the record straight. This told me something about him already at the beginning of the interview, that he really was a little bit paranoid.

Mr. SLAWSON. I have intentionally asked you of your impressions on this point, without giving you some other information that we have, and I now want to give that information to you and see whether in the light of this, what is your interpretation of Oswald's attitude at that time.

His historic diary, which is Commission Exhibit No. 24, has an entry that on November 15 he interviewed Aline Mosby. That is incorrect, probably a day late. It was probably the 14th or the 13th. On November 16, which he places as the day after he interviewed her, he has the following entry:

"A Russian official comes to my room, asks how I am, notifies me I can remain in U.S.S.R. 'til some solution is found with what to do with me. It is comforting news for me."

Miss JOHNSON. That was the 16th.

Mr. SLAWSON. But I say, do not take the dates correctly except that one date comes after another, because he also placed the interview with Mosby the 15th, which we know must have been at least as early as the 14th, and possibly as early as the 13th.

Miss JOHNSON. In other words--yes; but that might help account for the fullness. Either he is lying; i.e., really he is misled, or not lying but confused about his reason for talking to me, and I think he was.

Mr. SLAWSON. But I think that the significance of the entry is that the promise that he could stay was very distinctly qualified.

Miss JOHNSON. "Until some solution----"

Mr. SLAWSON. "Is found what to do with me."

Miss JOHNSON. That is interesting: "until some solution." The way he put it to me was, and he put it more than once, it is in the notes, "even if they refuse that, I won't have to leave."

I imagine that his talking to me for so long, however, could be partly because he did feel the heat was off him in some way. That might be one reason. Another thing is that leads me to date my own interview the 17th, because for some reason I have the feeling that that information has been conveyed to him on the day before I talked to him.

Mr. SLAWSON. I don't think this is a basis for your dating your interview on the 17th, because I think he has everything moved up a day here. He puts the Mosby interview on the 15th which we know was on the 14th, so he probably puts the Russian officials coming to his room on the 16th when it probably occurred on the 15th.

Miss JOHNSON. That would be a Sunday. But Soviet officials do do things on Sundays. They definitely do. But even so, it is more likely that that happened on the 14th, Mosby on the 13th. That is possible, too.

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes.

Miss JOHNSON. So they had just simply said until--in other words, he is inexact for all his legalism. Either he is confused and inexact, or he was misleading purposely. He may have misunderstood the official, thought the official was promising more than he was.

Mr. SLAWSON. It could be, except that this of course is his diary entry, so he must have known what he was writing there, unless he wrote it down much later. In other words, it is possible that he made the entry in the diary at a much later time when he then realized that the promise had been qualified, and was under the impression when he spoke to you that he had received an unconditional promise. But the reason I brought this up was whether with the insight that he may have known when he spoke to you, that he had not quite received the unconditional promise he purported to have received, does this give you any further insight on him? I don't want you to just speculate here.

Miss JOHNSON. Well, whether he viewed publicity as actually perhaps helping his case, or whether enjoying the sense of importance that publicity gave him, he was rationalizing it by thinking that he was manipulating the situation to his advantage by having a little more publicity.

This is the only thing I wonder. Or possibly it was simply relief. He did use the word "safe," that he felt it would be safe.

Mr. SLAWSON. I think we have about got out all on that point we can. Could you elaborate a little more on Oswald's attitude toward the Embassy's reluctance to permit him to renounce his citizenship, on what he felt the Embassy was doing here, and what your impression was what the Embassy was doing?

Miss JOHNSON. My impression from talking to John McVickar was that the Embassy had tried to give him a cooling off period, to be sure he knew what he was doing, but that it had also written him, informed him in writing that he could renounce his citizenship and he had a perfect right to come in and do so. The Embassy's behavior had been correct, and on the side it was trying to be humane, giving him time to think out what he was doing.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he show you the letter the Embassy had written him?

Miss JOHNSON. He showed me two letters, and I think he asked me something about them. I was very amused, because the Embassy was his scapegoat, and he did keep bringing it up. But this contrasted with really the correctness of the letters that he showed me from them, and it contrasted with the rather kindly attitude that Mr. McVickar had. And then on top of that he kept saying he shouldn't be too mad at them, but he indicated that he was very very mad at them indeed.

He said November 1 he had written a letter of protest to the Ambassador protesting the way Snyder had carried out his duties, and had received a letter back, and he then gave me, showed me the letter. But my impression is that he showed me two letters.

Mr. SLAWSON. Perhaps I can refresh your recollection a little. I am now on page 6 of your exhibit No. 5, in which you quote from a letter from the State Department which he showed you.

Miss JOHNSON. This is Mr. Thompson's letter. He did show it to me. I remember now that he showed me the letter.

Mr. SLAWSON. A letter from Mr. Thompson?

Miss JOHNSON. From Ambassador Thompson. Well, I am not sure. He said he wrote a letter of protest to the U.S. Ambassador, and he received this letter back. But it may have been that the letter was signed by Mr. Snyder.

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes. Do you think that your recollection of two letters may be that one he wrote and the other he received, or do you distinctly remember that he received two which he showed you?

Miss JOHNSON. I thought he showed me two things, but the only one I wrote anything about was the Embassy's reply, and either my memory has miscarried and he only showed me one letter, or I simply don't recollect what the other one was.

Mr. SLAWSON. Is it correct that the Embassy reply you are referring to is the one that is quoted on page 6?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. Of your exhibit No. 5?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he show you any communications he had received from his family or anybody else?

Miss JOHNSON. No. He told me that--again there is a little more here than is in the notes but it is partly a matter of impression. He was avoiding hearing from them, and they called him, and he said it was to ask him to come back, and he wouldn't answer. How did he know they were asking him to come back if he didn't answer? He was full of those kinds of contradictions, but that he was avoiding them. As far as I recollect he didn't show me anything from his family.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he tell you why he was avoiding communications with his family?

Miss JOHNSON. No.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he----

Miss JOHNSON. Well, maybe he felt his resolve was shaky. I felt his resolve was shaky, and maybe he felt so too, and he was afraid if he talked to them they would talk him out of it.

Mr. SLAWSON. In one of your exhibits you comment on his reply to one of your questions, that if he was so adamant on wanting to renounce his American citizenship, he could do so by going back to the Embassy, and that he had been so informed in the letter. His reply to that, according to your exhibits, was that they would simply give him the same runaround again. Do you have anything to add to that?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, it has come up. It is in the notes several times here, and I may not catch it each time. But I think I have already spoken for the record my impression that he was really not consistent about the Embassy, or I might say just putting it a little more strongly and editorially, he was not quite honest, because he claimed he was so mad he wouldn't go back, yet he was so firm in his resolve as a great big man, that he was going to give up his citizenship, you know.

But I pointed out to him that this seemed to me to be pique, boyish pique. Whether I actually said it, you know, I probably didn't quite, but that is what I thought. He was indulging himself. If he was really so resolved to give up his citizenship, then why let a little thing like annoyance over his October the 31st interview stand in the way of doing this, which he felt was an important principle and act? And I did point out to him the discrepancies in a gentler way than I honestly thought. The answers in my notes reflect his response to this, not the way that I put it to him, that he wouldn't go back because of this and that.

He did show me the letter, but my impression is that he wanted to know whether I thought that the letter was proper treatment. Showing it to me was to me an indication of his very legal approach, legalistic approach to things, and it seemed to me of course nothing exceptional about the letter. You see there he knew what he could do, and he was in light of that refusing to go to the Embassy. That seemed to me very immature, and from the standpoint of his stated principles, very inconsistent.

Mr. SLAWSON. I just have one final question here. I would like to bring together----

Miss JOHNSON. Excuse me, could I add something there?

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes.

Miss JOHNSON. And that really was one more thing that led me to think that he was less than certain about his attempt to defect. Well, leaving himself this loophole was it seemed to me important, it seemed important at the time, and he knew he was doing it, because I pointed it out to him. He knew he was doing it, and he got out of it by whatever it was he said to me. I can't isolate all the comments in the notes, but they are all there. He got out of it, but he knew he was doing it.

Mr. SLAWSON. But you felt that all these comments then were more or less excuses made up in his own mind, either consciously or unconsciously, that he was--excuses for not going back to the Embassy to make this final step of dissolving his citizenship?

Miss JOHNSON. And that behind what appeared to me to be boyish pique lay something else. He was leaving himself a way out, and I was fully aware of it at the time.

Mr. SLAWSON. We previously have discussed how much he probably was paying for his hotel room at various times, and for his meals. I bring to your attention one of your statements in the exhibits, that he said he had been living on Intourist vouchers for 10 days, and we have already gone into what 10 days probably meant. Did he make any other comments that would relate to how much money his attempt to defect was costing him?

Miss JOHNSON. Finance was certainly something I talked to him about, and it was something he was notably elusive about, and again he said he was paying the standard rate. "I want to make it clear they are not sponsoring me." Naturally I wanted to know on what money he got there, and it was in response to this that he told me the itinerary by which he came, by which he said he came, that is from New Orleans to Le Havre, to Helsinki. He gave me his route.

Whether it was the true route I don't know, but he gave me what he said was the route, and the method of transport. He said he left from New Orleans September 19. I wasn't absolutely sure that was the date he gave me, on a Friday by ship. Actually the 19th was a Saturday. And he might have left on the 18th. That it took him 12 days to get to Le Havre, that he booked a flight to Helsinki but you couldn't fly to Helsinki from Le Havre. You would have to fly from Paris.

Mr. SLAWSON. Actually he flew from London. He went from Le Havre to London and then Helsinki.

Miss JOHNSON. By the same ship?

Mr. SLAWSON. No; by airplane I believe. Anyway he disembarked on the ship at Le Havre, as he told you, then went from there to London I believe by airplane, although I am not certain. But then he went by airplane from London to Helsinki.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; actually he got his visa in London probably.

Mr. SLAWSON. Well, I do know some of these facts, but I would like you to go on the best of your recollection.

Miss JOHNSON. He said nothing about London at all. I never was sure how the hell he got to Helsinki, but he said he went by train from Helsinki to Moscow, and he repeated that for 10 days he had been on those vouchers.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he indicate to you anything about how he got his visa?

Miss JOHNSON. No; not at all. I may well have asked him too. A question and a nonreply, though, are not recorded in my notes, but I may well have asked him. On the other hand I think I would have remembered if he had said anything. If he just evaded the way he evaded a lot, I might not have put it down, because evasion was really quite characteristic of him. But of course I was curious where he got it, and how. And I do have $30 written down here as the rate. You know there was a businessman's rate of $12 a day at that time, and also the $30 rate I am telling you is as of that time because it is now $35. But I do have $30 written down, so I assumed that he specified that he was there at the $30 rate those 10 days, not the $12. No; he said nothing about a visa, and of course I was curious.

Mr. SLAWSON. I have no more specific questions, Miss Johnson. If you have anything at all to add, or any further comments you want to make, please go ahead and do so.

Miss JOHNSON. No; I don't.

Mr. SLAWSON. Thank you very much for coming here.

Miss JOHNSON. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF ERIC ROGERS

The testimony of Eric Rogers was taken on July 21, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Eric Rogers, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Rogers, I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission. I think I met you one day.

Mr. ROGERS. I remember you; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I wanted to ask you a few questions about Oswald. I am questioning you under authority granted to me by the Commission under Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress, No. 137.

You are entitled to have an attorney if you want to and you don't have to answer any questions if you feel that they are incriminating.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can't answer what I don't know. I will tell you just what I told them, you see. That's all I saw.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Rogers, am I correct in understanding that you lived at 4907 Magazine Street during the period last summer when----

Mr. ROGERS. I did; a few months.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you move there?

Mr. ROGERS. It was around in the--in July, around July.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald there?

Mr. ROGERS. He was there for a short period of time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You lived right next door to Oswald?

Mr. ROGERS. My apartment was in the front and my window was right next--near his apartment.

Mr. LIEBELER. You met Oswald and came to know him? Did you ever meet him?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I never met him. He didn't bid the time to anyone.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him or anything?

Mr. ROGERS. No; never did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know what his name was?

Mr. ROGERS. Just by mail coming in the box on the front.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to his wife?

Mr. ROGERS. She spoke Russian. She did bid the time of day, that's all, but he didn't. He wouldn't bid the time to no one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they ever have any arguments that you know of?

Mr. ROGERS. Some spats, but in Russian, looked like. You know what I mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. They spoke Russian and you couldn't understand what they were saying?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald have any visitors at his apartment?

Mr. ROGERS. He had no one. Had some kind of a dark fellow asked where he lived.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he appear to be a Cuban?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; Spanish type of person.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that in August, do you remember?

Mr. ROGERS. Around that time. I believe it was around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you remember anybody else that visited Oswald at his apartment?

Mr. ROGERS. Probably at the time they had this--you know--Fair Play for Cuba, something like that. I think they were radio interviewers, I think. Looked like local people. Didn't look like--heard him saying something about wanting to play on radio. That's all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember any other ones?

Mr. ROGERS. Not that I know of unless I was at work. I wasn't there all the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your wife was in the hospital part of this time, is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you work at that time, sir?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I wasn't working at that time. See, Mr. Liebeler, I am on pension, you see. I am only allowed to make so much a year because of the pension, you see.

Mr. LIEBELER. I see. Did you ever see Oswald sitting on the front porch?

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, yes; with books, reading.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he read a lot?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see any rifle or firearms of any type in his possession at that time?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I never. We did see one time some--the mailman brought a big package in. I wouldn't say what it was, of course. I guess they checked that through the mail.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that?

Mr. ROGERS. It was in the summer, some time before he left, somewhere around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald's apartment had a little porch in the front?

Mr. ROGERS. Screened porch.

Mr. LIEBELER. It had blinds in it, too, that you could let down, did it not?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it would have been possible for him to have sat in that porch and you couldn't see him very well from the street?

Mr. ROGERS. He wouldn't discuss anything on the porch. He would go in the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been possible to sit in that porch and drop the blinds so that people couldn't see you?

Mr. ROGERS. It could be possible. I don't know. I never--I seen him sitting down there and go in and out, coming in and out.

Mr. LIEBELER. We talked to you previously out at the apartment, and my recollection is that you told us that some time in September, I believe, that a station wagon came and picked up Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. ROGERS. That was the time he left town.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. ROGERS. The station wagon was visible. I called my wife. I said "Well, he must be leaving." They were packing all the things. Probably left the next night or sometime like I told you, the following night after. Had the two things in his hand and goggles on like he was running out of there. I don't know what he was doing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about those goggles. Were they something like sunglasses? Describe them.

Mr. ROGERS. I don't know. I couldn't say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see what license plates the station wagon had on it?

Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Liebeler, I couldn't tell you on that. Kind of a gray station wagon. He was putting the packing, everything in that himself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know when the station wagon left?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I told my wife--she said she might have left early in the morning before we got up, with the lady.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that she might have left with the lady?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Then he left that night or late afternoon. Went out in a hurry. Left all the lights on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was in the station wagon? Was there another lady?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the station wagon leave?

Mr. ROGERS. We didn't see it leave, but it wasn't there when he left. There was nobody else evidently.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Oswald at all after the station wagon left?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I didn't see him until that night. He slipped out of there. He was going out to catch the bus across the street. The bus stop is right across the street from us.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did see Oswald come out of the apartment in the evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. We was sitting on the porch at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it is clear to you that Oswald did not leave with the ladies in the station wagon?

Mr. ROGERS. No; he didn't leave with them in the station wagon. It was the following evening he left on the bus with these two handbags.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was in the evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He ran across the street and got on the bus?

Mr. ROGERS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he get on the bus at the bus stop?

Mr. ROGERS. Bus stop on the corner right opposite.

Mr. LIEBELER. Toward the center of the city?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the bags that he had in his hand when he went out?

Mr. ROGERS. My wife seen some of them.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing pictures to witness). Let me show you some pictures and see if these look like it.

Mr. ROGERS (indicating). This middle one, I know that ain't the type there. That's not the type.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture of a bag that has been marked as "Commission Exhibit No. 126," and ask you if that looks like the bag.

Mr. ROGERS. That's it. That's it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like one of the bags?

Mr. ROGERS. That looks to me like it was.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). Now I show you a picture which we will mark Rogers Exhibit No. 1, showing two views of a bag. Does it look like the one Oswald had?

Mr. ROGERS. You mean--he had two of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many did he have?

Mr. ROGERS. He had two of them in my estimation, each one in one hand. They looked like these here to me, to my knowledge. I mean, yes. I don't think it was this type [indicating]. I would say this type [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are pointing to No. A-1, which is a picture of Commission Exhibit No. 126 and do you think he had two bags that looked like "Commission Exhibit No. 126." Did he carry both in one hand?

Mr. ROGERS. One in each hand.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you can tell, he did not have a bag similar to Rogers Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. ROGERS. No, no. It was kind of daylight. You could see. You know what I mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you sure that he didn't have one like Rogers Exhibit No. 1? Is it a different size?

Mr. ROGERS. It was--they both look like the same size, and they were well packed. They were well stuffed. I know they wasn't light. I don't know what he had in them.

Mr. LIEBELER. So in your estimation, he had two bags like Exhibit 126?

Mr. ROGERS. If I am not mistaken, they are the two bags that my wife and I identified when they came over to the house, somebody from Oklahoma. He was transferred down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. An FBI agent?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. They actually brought the bags over?

Mr. ROGERS. They had the pictures like this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he show you pictures like these two that I have got here?

Mr. ROGERS. Sure did.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had bags like Exhibit 126?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. This is the type. That's the green type of looking luggage.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say again that he did not have a bag that looked like Rogers Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did Oswald leave as far as you can tell on the same day that the station wagon left, or on the next day?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, they packed that night and, yes; they left on the same day, the following evening.

Mr. LIEBELER. They packed the station wagon on one day and the next day you looked out and the station wagon was gone?

Mr. ROGERS. He left that following evening. I figured he was moving. I don't know. If he was moving, he was supposed to tell the landlord.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he talk to the landlord about it?

Mr. ROGERS. No; but she knew about it. He didn't talk to her. He didn't talk to nobody. He would give you the money and wouldn't say nothing. He was quiet himself, that's all.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I am going to show you a picture that has been marked "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. ROGERS. Wait. Let me get my glasses on. I can see better this way. [Examining picture.] No, Mr. Liebeler, I don't think. I don't think. No; I don't think I know any one in there.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that has been marked "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize any individual that is in that picture.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, maybe he did identify him, but I never saw this man. No. That's when this happened? Mr. Garner did, but I didn't. No, I--if he did come around, I wasn't there. If I did, I would tell you, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A," and ask you if you recognize that man.

Mr. ROGERS. No. I seen plenty people, but I don't know him either. If I did, I would tell you.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Under oath, I tell you just exactly what I tell you, the same thing. As far as the boy is concerned, you know, he never spoke to anybody. Go in and out, eat and clean. Didn't nobody knew his business.

Mr. LIEBELER. He kept pretty much to himself?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES LEHRER

The testimony of James Lehrer was taken at 10:45 a.m., on July 24, 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 please stand 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?

Mr. LEHRER. 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 President Johnson's Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress, No. 137. Under the Commission's rules governing the taking of testimony, you are entitled to 3 days' notice and to have an attorney here if you want to, and you are entitled to the usual privileges and rights concerning self incrimination and that sort of thing as far as answering my questions are concerned. I know that you have not had 3 days' notice of this, but I understand that you are here voluntarily and that you are prepared to proceed without an attorney; is that correct?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please state your name.

Mr. LEHRER. James Lehrer [spelling], L-e-h-r-e-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. When and where were you born?

Mr. LEHRER. May 19, 1934, Wichita, Kans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mr. LEHRER. Dallas; 3709 West Beverly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you outline your educational background for us, please?

Mr. LEHRER. High school, graduate of Victoria College, University of Missouri.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you major in at the university?

Mr. LEHRER. Journalism.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you presently employed by the Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you worked with them?

Mr. LEHRER. Nearly 3 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your job over there?

Mr. LEHRER. I am a reporter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you cover a specific beat?

Mr. LEHRER. I cover the Federal beat, labor, and politics--some politics.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you do before you went to work with the Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. I was with the Dallas Morning News about 2 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before that?

Mr. LEHRER. I was in the Marine Corps. I went there directly from school into the service.

Mr. LIEBELER. And then you came to work for the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. LEHRER. I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then you went to work for the Dallas Times Herald and you are employed by them now?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have received information that you were in the office of the Dallas Times Herald on the morning of November 28, 1963; is that correct?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us when you got there and what you did that morning and what you saw?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, it was Thanksgiving and I got there about 7 or 7:30, something like that, and I don't remember specifically any stories that I worked on on that day. It was just a routine day, not a routine day--a holiday is not routine, because you don't work the whole day on a holiday, so I only worked until around noon that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You got to the office about 7 o'clock?

Mr. LEHRER. About 7 or 7:30--something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Hunter Schmidt, Jr.?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes; I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is he also employed as a reporter by the Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he was at that time?

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see him in the office that morning?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with the fact that a story appeared in the Dallas Times Herald on this day concerning a gunshop in Irving, Tex., at which Oswald was supposed to have had some work done on a rifle?

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you aware of how that story came into the office of the newspaper?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes; in a general way. The desk, or the city desk, which consists of the city editor and the assistant city editor or the rewrite staff--somewhere they got a tip that there was a fellow in Irving who had mounted the sight or knew something about it. It was given to Hunter to check out. I happened to be sitting over there. I do not normally work physically on the city desk, but all of us had been working on the assassination aspects and it had been a lot of my responsibility in particular, because so much of it was on my beat at that time, and somebody said they got this guy and they gave it to Hunter to check out and I was sitting right next to Hunter and when he checked it out--in other words--when he called.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did he do--do you remember?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, he just--he was talking to somebody on the telephone and he was given the checkout and he had the man's name before he called and he called somebody on the phone and I was doing something myself--I wasn't writing a story, but I was sitting there and he was talking to this guy, talking to somebody on the telephone, let's put it that way, and when he got through he said something about, "Yeah--this is it; that's right."

Or, it was words to that effect, and then I looked at his notes, you know, and said, "That's a hell of a story," or something like that, and about that time somebody said, "Don't talk about it, write it." So he gave it to, I think it was--I'm not sure about this, but I think it was in a general story of the assassination developments of that day, which we were running every day, and I think a rewrite man may have taken the notes and written the story. I don't recall seeing Hunter write the story.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the name of the man that Schmidt was talking to?

Mr. LEHRER. I can only assume it was Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. What leads you to that assumption?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, it was just circumstantially--I believe it was. I mean, he was given this name and the information that this man is supposed to have mounted the sight on Oswald's rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER. And the name he was given was Dial Ryder; is that right?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right; that's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he was told to check that story?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And he proceeded to do it?

Mr. LEHRER. He proceeded to do it. He dialed a number and got somebody on the line and started talking and when he got through, he said, "That's right." I looked at his notes--I don't have a specific recollection of what the notes said, but I remember that he had some quotes there, I mean, he had some information in the notes that verified the story, and at that time--one of the reasons I was interested in it--I was working on the story we finally ran the next day on the FBI looking for where Oswald might have possibly test fired this rifle, so that was one of the reasons I was particularly interested in it, because I wasn't coordinating our assassination coverage, but I was vitally involved in it, I would say, at that time, and I was working on this, and I think he gave the notes to a rewrite man. I'm not sure, but I don't know what happened after that.

Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, you have the specific recollection that Schmidt engaged in a conversation over the telephone for some period of time at a time when he was supposed to be checking out this story of the gunsmith in Irving?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. After this conversation was over, he indicated to you that the story checked out?

Mr. LEHRER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequently that day the story, in fact, appeared in the newspaper, indicating that there was evidence to show that Oswald had taken his rifle to this particular gunshop.

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this situation with Schmidt recently?

Mr. LEHRER. No; actually, I talked to him about it briefly this morning.

He was somewhat--he didn't recall who was sitting next to him and I told him I had, because I didn't think there was any problem, and I just mentioned that. Now, the FBI--one thing--as far as that's concerned--and as far as the fact that somebody might think that Hunter and I got together on this--the day the FBI got this, and apparently it was sent down by the Commission who said, "Check this out"--that Ryder apparently--there was some question about it--and the FBI came up there and a guy by the name of--well, there were two agents from Oklahoma City who were working a special on the assassination at that time--just the assassination story. It was Petrakis and some other guy--I don't remember the other guy's name, but they came up and talked to Ken Smart. You see, there was no byline on the story and they said, "Who wrote the story?" and Smart apparently said he didn't know and they went back and looked in the files and that indicated who wrote it and so Ken came over to me and showed me the story with Petrakis and this other guy there, and he said, "Did you write the story?" And I said, "No, Hunter Schmidt wrote the story"; that's how they found out Hunter even wrote it--where he got the information was when I told him and so then we talked about this thing briefly, you know, and Ken said, "Apparently Ryder is saying that he didn't talk to anybody at the time," and I told Smart and Petrakis and this other fellow here that I was sitting right next to the fellow and that he was talking to somebody and I assumed it was Ryder and then I hadn't even mentioned it to Hunter, because Hunter was not in the office that day and Petrakis finally got ahold of him at home on the phone, I believe, or talked to him later and Hunter didn't even know until this morning.

As I say, then Hunter told me that--it was you, I believe, that told him that there was a witness who could verify that there was such a conversation and he said, "Who is that, what are you talking about?" And he said, "Why didn't you tell me before?" I said I didn't think there would be any problem--I just mentioned it to Martha Jo in passing here one day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say this morning Schmidt told you he had been over here last night and he had been questioned?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you the details of his experience last night?

Mr. LEHRER. A little bit.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you that Mr. Ryder had been in here?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes; that Ryder was here.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in point of fact and indicating for the record, the way the information came most recently to my attention, that you had overheard this, because Mrs. Martha Jo Stroud, an assistant U.S. attorney in this office, told me that you had come over here after we had asked Schmidt to come over and testify.

Mr. LEHRER. Right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you mentioned to her in passing that you thought probably we wanted Schmidt to come over so we could ask him about this newspaper story that was written in connection with the Irving Sports Shop; isn't that right?

Mr. LEHRER. Well, specifically, when Martha Jo called Hunter and told him that somebody from the Warren Commission wanted to talk to him on a certain day, Hunter came over to me and said, "Somebody from Washington is coming in," and you know, I didn't know that anybody was coming in. You know, you are unannounced on your trips here and this is part of my responsibility to cover Warren Commission people when they come and I try to do it, and I said--we discussed, "Maybe they want to talk to you about this deal, because the FBI had talked to you before," and so the next day when I was down talking to Martha Jo, we were talking about it and I indicated to her this was probably what it was. I told her what it was probably about and I said there was no problem--I was just sitting there and just sitting there very casually.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't have any doubt in your mind whatsoever that Schmidt actually talked to Ryder that morning, do you?

Mr. LEHRER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are aware of the fact, of course, that Ryder denies talking to this man?

Mr. LEHRER. That's what I understand.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you have no information that would suggest any reason why Ryder would deny this?

Mr. LEHRER. I can't think of any reason unless he denies the information, if he just denies the technicality that he didn't talk to a newspaperman or didn't talk to Schmidt specifically, that's one thing; if he's denying the whole bit, that's conceivable.

Mr. LIEBELER. No; he doesn't deny the whole bit, he just denies that he was the one that gave that story out.

Mr. LEHRER. I see; I don't know what it could be in that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you think of any reason why Schmidt might be lying about it?

Mr. LEHRER. No; he had nothing to gain by it. It was just a story, and my goodness, we were working--I mean--there were a multitude of stories and a multitude of checking out and we were deluged just like everybody was with rumors and things of this and that and he would have no reason to write something that wasn't true. The fact is, he didn't even have his name on it, so he didn't have anything to gain by it.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you very much.

Mr. LEHRER. Thank you.

Mr. LIEBELER. We appreciate your cooperation.

Mr. LEHRER. All right.

AFFIDAVIT OF BARDWELL D. ODUM

The following affidavit was executed by Bardwell D. Odum on July 10, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows:

I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity since June 15, 1942.

On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was staying.

In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose.

I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald's room and knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door slightly and, upon being informed that I wished to speak to Marina Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me to the motel room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite Oswald the photograph in question. She looked at it briefly and stated that she had never seen this individual. I then departed the Executive Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald and the exhibition of the photograph took place while I was standing outside the door to the room and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar.

Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a photograph.[G] I have examined these copies and they are exact copies of the photograph of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald on November 23, 1963.

Signed this 10th day of July 1964.

(S) Bardwell D. Odum, BARDWELL D. ODUM.

[G] The photograph referred to in the above affidavit of Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum appears in the exhibit volumes as Odum Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES R. MALLEY

The following affidavit was executed by James R. Malley on July 14, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

I, James R. Malley, Inspector, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, being first duly sworn, depose as follows:

In accordance with a request by Mr. Howard P. Willens, a member of the staff of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, I transmitted to the Commission on February 11, 1964, a copy of a photograph of an unidentified man which was made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Prior to transmitting the aforementioned copy of this photograph to the President's Commission, I used a scissors and trimmed from the photograph all background which surrounded the head, shoulders and arms of the unidentified individual. I did this, inasmuch as the Central Intelligence Agency had previously advised that it had no objection to this Bureau furnishing a copy of this photograph to the President's Commission with all background eliminated.

I have examined a copy of Commission Exhibit 237, which is attached,[H] and it appears such exhibit was made from the copy of the photograph of the unidentified individual which I cropped and transmitted to Mr. Willens on February 11, 1964.

To my knowledge, the identity of the unknown individual depicted in the copy of the photograph which I transmitted to Mr. Willens on February 11, 1964, has not been established.

I have reviewed records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this particular matter and such records disclose that a duplicate copy of this same photograph was cropped in a different shape to remove background by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum of the Dallas Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was then exhibited to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald by Special Agent Odum on November 23, 1963.

Signed this 14th day of July 1964, at Washington, D.C.

(S) James R. Malley, JAMES R. MALLEY.

[H] The photograph referred to in the above affidavit of Inspector James R. Malley is identical to Commission Exhibit No. 237 and appears in the exhibit volumes.

AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD HELMS

The following affidavit was executed by Richard Helms on August 7, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF VIRGINIA, County of Fairfax, ss:

Richard Helms, being duly sworn says:

1. I am the Deputy Director for Plans of the Central Intelligence Agency.

2. I base this affidavit on my personal knowledge of the affairs of the Central Intelligence Agency and on detailed inquiries of those officers and employees within my supervision who would have knowledge about any photographs furnished by that Agency to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

3. I have personally examined the photograph which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 237, a copy of which is attached to the affidavit of Inspector James R. Malley, dated July 14, 1964, and the photograph attached to the affidavit of Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum dated July 10, 1964.

4. Those photographs are partial copies of a photograph furnished by the Central Intelligence Agency to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on November 22, 1963. They are referred to as partial only because, on information and belief, Odum and Malley personally trimmed or cropped their copies of the photograph to exclude the background against which the individual portrayed in these photographs is depicted in the original photograph.

5. The figure portrayed in those photographs is the same individual portrayed in the original photograph.

6. The original photograph was taken outside of the continental United States sometime during the period July 1, 1963 to November 23, 1963.

Signed this 7th day of August 1964.

(S) Richard Helms. RICHARD HELMS.

AFFIDAVIT OF PETER MEGARGEE BROWN

The following affidavit was executed by Peter Megargee Brown on May 13, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF NEW YORK, County of New York, ss:

Peter Megargee Brown, being duly sworn, says:

I am a member of the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, counsel for the Community Service Society and am familiar with the papers and records in the possession of the Society relating to Lee Harvey Oswald.

This firm has caused a search of the files of Community Service Society under my supervision which reveals one file entitled "Marguerite Claverie Oswald #219055". 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 Lee Harvey Oswald in the possession or control of the Community Service Society. Accordingly under my supervision photostatic copies have been made of this entire file, such copies being attached to this affidavit.

In information and belief the attached photostatic copies[I] are of the entire file and comprise all the papers relating to Lee Harvey Oswald in the possession and control of the Community Service Society or its counsel.

Signed this 13th day of May 1964.

(S) Peter Megargee Brown, PETER MEGARGEE BROWN.

[I] The attached photostatic copies referred to in the above affidavit appear in the exhibit volumes as Brown Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF GARY TAYLOR

The following affidavit was executed by Gary Taylor on August 4, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Gary Taylor, 3948 Orlando Court, Apartment 111, Dallas, Tex., being sworn, say:

1. As I testified in my deposition, I went with Lee Harvey Oswald on or about November 4, 1962, to a gasoline service station in Fort Worth, Texas, where Oswald rented a U-Haul trailer which we were to use and did use in transporting Oswald's household goods and paraphernalia from Mrs. Hall's home in Fort Worth to the Oswalds' Elsbeth Street apartment in Dallas.

2. The rental charge for the trailer was about $5.00 and was paid by Oswald. I made the cash deposit to secure the return of the trailer. I returned the trailer that afternoon and picked up the deposit.

Signed this 4th day of August 1964.

(S) Gary E. Taylor, GARY E. TAYLOR.

AFFIDAVIT OF FRANCIS L. MARTELLO

The following affidavit was executed by Francis L. Martello on July 31, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

I, Lt. Francis L. Martello, Police Headquarters, 2700 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, La., being first duly sworn, depose and say:

1. I am a Lieutenant in the New Orleans Police Department.

2. When a suspect is arrested, an arrest report is filled out. The notations concerning the height and the weight of the suspect are the figures supplied by him.

3. When a suspect is booked, he is fingerprinted, photographed, weighed and measured. Thus, the weight figure on the Bureau of Identification Card would be the result of an actual weigh-in.

Signed this 31st day of July 1964, at New Orleans, La.

(S) Francis L. Martello, Lieutenant FRANCIS L. MARTELLO.

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN CORPORON

The following affidavit was executed by John Corporon on July 29, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

John Corporon, being duly sworn, says:

1. My name is John Corporon. I am and have been since at least August 1, 1963, head of the news department of WDSU-TV and radio, New Orleans.

2. As such I am familiar with the programs broadcast over both WDSU-TV and WDSU radio.

3. Mr. William Stuckey has never had any TV or radio show known as "Latin American Focus" on that station or, to the best of my knowledge, any other radio or TV station.

4. In August of 1963 Mr. Stuckey had a radio program called "Latin Listening Post" which was broadcast some of the time over WDSU radio.

5. Lee Harvey Oswald appeared briefly on Stuckey's radio program known as "Latin Listening Post" on August 17, 1963.

6. To the best of my knowledge Oswald never appeared on any other TV or radio program in connection with Mr. Stuckey or any other program either over radio or television in the City of New Orleans with the exception of a radio program known as "Conversation Carte Blanche" on which Oswald appeared on August 21, 1963 and on a brief TV news program following the broadcast of "Conversation Carte Blanche" on that date.

Signed this 29th day of July 1964.

(S) John R. Corporon, JOHN CORPORON.

AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. J. U. ALLEN

The following affidavit was executed by Mrs. J. U. Allen on June 12, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, County of Claiborne, ss:

Mrs. J. U. Allen, Port Gibson, Claiborne County, State of Louisiana, being duly sworn, says:

1. I am secretary of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy, a boys military academy at Port Gibson, Mississippi, and I am in charge and custody of its books and records.

2. I have examined the records and files of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy for the years 1945 through 1948, both inclusive, which are kept in the regular and usual course of business under my supervision. It appears from those records that John Edward Pic and Robert Lee Oswald, half brothers and sons of Marguerite Oswald (and for a portion of the period 1945 through 1948 was Mrs. Edwin A. Ekdahl), entered Chamberlain-Hunt Academy in September 1945, on transfer from Davy Crockett School in Dallas, Texas. They continued as students during the school years 1945-1946, 1946-1947, and 1947-1948. Said records show that John Edward Pic was transferred to Arlington Heights High School, Fort Worth, Texas, in September 1948. The records do not show the school to which Robert Lee Oswald was transferred at the end of the academic year 1947-1948.

3. The Exhibits marked Chamberlain-Hunt Academy Exhibits Nos. 1 to 4[J] are Verifax copies of the records of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy respecting the attendance of John Edward Pic and Robert Lee Oswald as students at said Academy. Said Exhibits were prepared under my personal supervision and direction.

4. Included in the files of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy are various items of correspondence. Chamberlain-Hunt Academy Exhibits Nos. 5 to 15 are true and correct Verifax & Thermofax copies of said items of correspondence. The Verifax copies were prepared under my personal supervision and direction.

Signed this 12th day of June 1964.

(S) Mrs. J. U. Allen, Mrs. J. U. ALLEN.

[J] Chamberlain-Hunt Academy Exhibits Nos. 1-15 were subsequently relabeled Allen Exhibits Nos. 1-15, respectively.

AFFIDAVIT OF LILLIAN MURRET

The following affidavit was executed by Lillian Murret on June 3, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

Lillian Murret, being duly sworn, says:

1. Affiant is the sister of Marguerite Claverie Oswald.

2. In the month of May 1945, Marguerite Claverie Oswald sent affiant a snapshot photograph of herself and her husband, Edwin A. Ekdahl, taken on their marriage day, May 5, 1945.

3. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1 is the original of the aforesaid snapshot photograph. Affiant recalls the physical appearances of her sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald and of her newly wed husband Edwin A. Ekdahl as of the year 1945. The lady pictured in the snapshot photograph, which is Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1, is affiant's sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald. The gentleman pictured in the photograph (Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1) is Edwin A. Ekdahl, the husband of Marguerite Claverie Oswald. The photograph is in each instance an accurate and true photographic representation of Mr. and Mrs. Edwin A. Ekdahl as they looked and appeared in May of 1945.

4. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1, when received by affiant in May 1945, bore on the reverse side the inscription or endorsement: "May 5th--Happy Though Married." Affiant is familiar with the handwriting of her sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald. The aforesaid longhand inscription on the reverse side of Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1 is in the handwriting of affiant's sister Marguerite Claverie Oswald.

5. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1 is in the same condition now as it was when received by affiant in May of 1945.

Signed this 3d day of June 1964.

(S) Mrs. Lillian Murret, LILLIAN MURRET.

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. BURCHAM

The following affidavit was executed by John W. Burcham on June 19, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Travis, ss:

I, John W. Burcham, sometimes referred to as Jack W. Bucham, being duly sworn, say:

1. I am a resident of Austin, Texas, and am Chief of Unemployment Insurance of the Texas Employment Commission at Austin, Texas.

2. Burcham Exhibit No. 1, consisting of 63 pages, is a photostatic copy of my report of November 26, 1963, respecting the interstate unemployment compensation claim of Lee Harvey Oswald and of the various claimant payment records and documents described in said report.

3. Burcham Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 have been personally examined by me. From my knowledge of procedures and operations of the Insurance Department of the Texas Employment Commission, Burcham Exhibit No. 2 appears to me to be the copy of the Form B-12 mailed to L. H. Oswald by the Texas Employment Commission on April 16, 1963, and Burcham Exhibit No. 3 appears to be the document mailed by the Texas Employment Commission along with the final payment mailed to L. H. Oswald notifying him this was his last payment.

Signed this 19th day of June 1964.

(S) John W. Burcham, JOHN W. BURCHAM.

AFFIDAVIT OF EMMETT CHARLES BARBE, JR.

The following affidavit was executed by Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr., on June 15, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr. of New Orleans, La., being duly sworn, says:

1. I am employed by William B. Reily Company, Inc., as Maintenance Foreman. The William B. Reily Company plant is located at 640 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. I have been employed by that Company for five years. During the year 1963 I was serving as Maintenance Foreman.

2. William B. Reily Company is engaged in the roasting, grinding, canning, bagging, and sale of coffee. In its roasting, grinding, canning, and bagging operations a great deal of machinery consisting of chains, conveyer belts, motors, blowers, automatic hoppers, grinders, etc., distributed over some five floors of the premises is employed in said operations. Said machinery must be kept well greased and oiled. This work required the full time of one man.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald became employed by William B. Reily Company, Inc. as a greaser and oiler maintenance man on May 10, 1963. His employment terminated on July 19, 1963. During the latter portion of his employment, I served as his immediate supervisor. As his supervisor I was aware of Oswald's performance or lack thereof of his duties.

4. There were occasions from time to time when I was unable to locate Oswald in and about the premises and learned that he was in the habit of absenting himself from the premises without leave and visiting a service station establishment adjacent to the Reily Coffee Company known as Alba's Crescent City Garage. Furthermore, Oswald had become quite indifferent to the performance of his duties. I spoke with him from time to time about his absences and his indifferences, all to no avail. Ultimately I recommended to my superiors that Oswald be discharged. My request was granted and he was discharged on July 19, 1963.

Signed this 15th day of June 1964.

(S) Emmett Charles Barbe, Jr. EMMETT CHARLES BARBE, Jr.

AFFIDAVIT OF HILDA L. SMITH

The following affidavit was executed by Hilda L. Smith on June 15, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

I, Hilda L. Smith, 1205 St. Charles, Apartment 813, New Orleans, La., being first duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I was employed by the Louisiana Labor Department, Division of Employment Security, Employment Service, and Unemployment Compensation, 630 Camp Street, New Orleans 12, Louisiana, on April 29 and April 30, 1963.

2. I interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald when he applied for his initial Interstate Claim.

3. I recall that when I interviewed him, he was very evasive. He was very abrupt and I considered him unusual. I only saw him this one time since others handled his Continued Interstate Claim.

4. The signature appearing on the attached Interstate Claim, labelled Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit No. 2 is my signature.[K]

Signed this 15th day of June 1964.

(S) Hilda L. Smith, HILDA L. SMITH.

[K] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit No. 2 was subsequently relabeled as Smith Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF J. RACHAL

The following affidavit was executed by J. Rachal on June 22, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

J. Rachal, of New Orleans, La., being duly sworn says:

1. My name is J. Rachal. I am now and have for a number of years past been employed by the Louisiana Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security, Professional Unit.

2. In my capacity as Placement Interviewer in the Professional Unit of the Louisiana State Employment Security Division of the Louisiana Department of Labor, I had occasion to become acquainted with one Lee Harvey Oswald. I recall his being in my office and at my desk on April 26, 1963, which was his initial visit.

3. At that time Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit number 1[L] was filled out, in part by Mr. Oswald and in part by me. Said Exhibit number 1 is the Registration Card so made out by Lee Harvey Oswald and myself, recording Oswald's registration as an unemployed worker who had come from Texas and was seeking employment in New Orleans.

4. The hand-printing, with the exception of the block entitled "Skills, Knowledge, Abilities, and Experience," and the notations in the block entitled "Special information and employment counseling statement," and the letters "RIF" in the upper right-hand corner of the inside face of Exhibit number 1, is that of the applicant, Lee Harvey Oswald. The writing other than that of Lee Harvey Oswald is that of affiant. The signature appearing at the foot of the inside face of Exhibit number 1 is that of affiant. Exhibit number 1 is part of the books and records of the aforesaid Division of Employment Security of the Louisiana Department of Labor, kept in the usual and regular course of business.

5. Exhibit number 1 reflects that Lee Harvey Oswald first called at the Unemployment Division on April 26, 1963, and at that time was interviewed by me and supplied the personal data and prior employment and experience facts recited on Exhibit No. 1.

6. Upon noting that Oswald had listed Photographer as one of his skills, I telephonically contacted the George Reppel Studio, 5220 Elysian Fields, to determine if they needed the services of a photographer. Upon learning that they could employ the services of a photographer, I directed Oswald to report to that company for possible employment, and I recorded that reference on the reverse side of Exhibit number 1. A few days later I recontacted the studio and learned that Oswald had not appeared there.

7. Exhibit number 1 also reflects the fact that on April 29, 1963, Oswald again reported to the Unemployment Compensation Office at 630 Camp Street, which is the claims office, and filed an interstate claim against the State of Texas for unemployment compensation. This was a reactivation of his claim. I had learned from my earlier interview that Oswald had therefore been employed for relatively short periods of time at Fort Worth, Texas, and Dallas, Texas. The letters "RIF" appearing in the upper right-hand corner of Exhibit number 1 are an abbreviation for the words "Reduction in Force." The presence of those letters on Exhibit number 1 means that Oswald advised me that the reason for his termination of employment at Jaggars, Chiles, Stovall of Dallas, Texas, was a reduction in force, a prerequisite to a valid claim for unemployment compensation.

8. I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview. On July 22, 1963, he was more casually dressed.

9. Oswald returned after the April 29, 1963, visit to our office on July 22, 1963. Between the April 29 and July 22 dates, the application card had been green-lined in the right hand column either because the applicant had not come in in four weeks or his claim had been cancelled or terminated sometime during that period. Sometime subsequent to July 22, 1963, Oswald's application card was again green-lined for one of the two reasons above stated. This application card is marked Exhibit number 1.

10. I recall that Oswald returned some time, either late in July or the forepart of August 1963, seeking employment assistance. In the meantime, the incident involving the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had come to my attention. I had seen Oswald on a television broadcast showing him distributing Fair Play for Cuba handbills. There was reference in the broadcast to his having lived in Russia, marrying a Russian girl, and returning to this country. I discussed the matter with my supervisor, Miss Hope Kristofferson. As a result, it was determined that we should not undertake to furnish employment references for him. This was the last contact I had with Mr. Oswald.

11. Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit numbers 10 and 11[M] are also records of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of Louisiana in New Orleans. The forms themselves are identical with Exhibit number 1, and the recorded information is substantially identical with the information set forth in Exhibit number 1. Exhibits numbers 10 and 11 were prepared in another section of my Division and reflect the fact that on May 28, 1963, Oswald was referred to Commerce Pictures Company of New Orleans for possible employment as a developer, and the initials "NR" appearing in green crayon on the reverse side of Exhibit number 10 reflect the fact that Oswald did not report to the Commerce Picture Company. Serial number 259 appearing under the heading "Remarks" on the same line on which the green crayoned letters "NR" appear means that the unemployed person failed to respond and that his unemployment compensation would be delayed one week to make further determination of the applicant's status.

12. Inasmuch as Oswald was an interstate claimant and the libel was against the State of Texas, his weekly appearances for the purposes of keeping his interstate claim alive were furnished to the Texas Employment Commission in Austin, Texas, and they in turn would issue an unemployment check which would be mailed directly to Oswald. Oswald's weekly appearances at our office were recorded on Form 1-B-2.

Signed this 22d day of June 1964.

(S) John Russell Rachal, J. RACHAL.

[L] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit No. 1 was subsequently relabeled Rachal Exhibit No. 1.

[M] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11 were subsequently relabeled Rachal Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.

AFFIDAVIT OF BOBB HUNLEY

The following affidavit was executed by Bobb Hunley on June 16, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

I, Bobb Hunley, employed by the Louisiana Labor Department, Division of Employment Security, Employment Service, and Unemployment Compensation, 630 Camp Street, New Orleans 12, La., being first duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I recall handling Lee Harvey Oswald's Interstate Claims at the Division of Employment Security office.

2. Generally there is a line of claimants with their IB-2 forms which they have previously filled out. I sign them and fill in blanks four through eight.

3. I recall nothing unusual about Lee Harvey Oswald. He usually wore a T-shirt and light windbreaker.

4. We do not check to see if the claimant has contacted the places listed in item 14 of the IB-2 form. Thus, I have no knowledge of whether Oswald contacted the employers he listed.

5. The signatures appearing on the attached Interstate Claims, labelled as Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and the Interstate Request for Recommendation of Monetary Determination, Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibit Nos. 3 and 6 are my signatures.[N]

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

(S) Bobb W. Hunley, BOBB HUNLEY.

[N] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 4-9 were subsequently relabeled Hunley Exhibits Nos. 1-7, respectively.

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT J. CREEL

The following affidavit was executed by Robert J. Creel on June 26, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of Orleans, ss:

Robert J. Creel, of New Orleans, La., being duly sworn, says:

1. My name is Robert J. Creel. I am employed by the State of Louisiana, Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security, Employment Service and Unemployment Compensation, 630 Camp Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, and have been so employed since prior to the year 1962.

2. I am familiar with the records and documents maintained by said Division of Employment Security.

3. The several Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 12 through 19,[O] both inclusive, which have been submitted to me and which I have examined are either original or exact copies of records of the State of Louisiana, Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security, Unemployment Insurance Service, maintained by it in the usual and regular course of business. Said exhibits relate to the interstate claim of Lee Harvey Oswald against the State of Texas, and record the investigation and disposition of said claim by the State of Louisiana and the State of Texas.

Signed this 26th day of June, 1964.

(S) Robert J. Creel, ROBERT J. CREEL.

[O] Louisiana Department of Labor Exhibits Nos. 12-19 were subsequently relabeled Creel Exhibits Nos. 1-8, respectively.

AFFIDAVIT OF HELEN P. CUNNINGHAM

The following affidavit was executed by Helen P. Cunningham on June 11, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham, being duly sworn, says:

1. I am in the employ of the Texas Employment Commission as an Employment Counselor. As appears from my deposition I had occasion in my official capacity to counsel with Lee Harvey Oswald. I am familiar with the official books and records of the Texas Employment Commission maintained at its Dallas, Texas, office. Cunningham Exhibit No. 4 is the original copy of the Counseling Record Card which was prepared in the course of and in connection with the counseling service rendered by me.

2. All of the handwriting appearing on both sides of the Counseling Record Card is in my hand and consists of entries made by me at the time I interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald on October 9 and 10, 1962. The entries under the portion of the exhibit entitled "Counselor's Notes" reflect that Oswald was referred on October 10, 1962, for a position at Harrell and Huntington, architects, for a position as messenger at $1.50 an hour, and thereafter to Jaggars Printing for a position as photo-printing trainee at $1.35 an hour. The entry "10-15-62" on the face of the Counseling Record Card reflects the fact that Oswald had obtained employment at Jaggars Printing and that the case was closed successfully.

3. On the face of the card is reflected the fact that Mr. Don Brooks, Counselor in the Industrial Division of the Texas Employment Commission, interviewed Oswald previous to October 9, 10 and 11, 1962.

4. As it appears from the entries in my hand on the reverse side of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, I recorded the fact that I obtained Oswald's "General Aptitude Test" battery results from the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission. I concluded after examining the GATB obtained from the Fort Worth office and after interviewing Oswald that because he was in great financial need for immediate employment, that I should classify him for clerical work and I noted on the face of the card the proper clerical code, being 1-X 4.9. I also recorded the fact that on October 11, 1962, Oswald was referred to Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall Printing Company as a photo-print trainee and that Oswald was enthusiastic about the possibility of his being employed. I also recorded the fact that Oswald reported on October 15, 1962, that he had obtained the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall position and that he was pleased.

5. In my counseling with Oswald and as appears from my entry under the heading "Other Plans" Oswald told me that he hoped to develop through a work-study program at Dallas College or Arlington State qualification for responsible junior executive employment but that this must be delayed because of his and his family's immediate financial needs and responsibilities.

6. The notation "D. Brooks" appearing on the face of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4 refers to Don Brooks, who is identified above; my signature appears to the right of the notation of Mr. Brooks' name. I wrote "D. Brooks" name on the face of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4.

7. Cunningham Exhibits 1-A, 2-A and 3-A are, respectively, originals of Cunningham Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

8. The green-ink entry on the facing side of Cunningham Exhibit No. 1-A, "10-30-62", means that on that date it was confirmed that Oswald was employed. The succeeding entry being "4-8-63" records the fact that Oswald came to the Commission on that date, seeking employment; he having lost his position with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. The succeeding entry "4-12-63" records the fact that Oswald visited the Commission offices in further pursuit of employment. The succeeding entry, which is in green crayon, "5-8-63" when considered with the entry dated "5-3-63" in the referral section of the exhibit, records the fact that on that day Oswald was mailed a call-in card for possible referral to Texas Power and Light Company for a position as meter reader but failed to respond. The next entry on the face of Cunningham Exhibit No. 1-A which is "Ri-10-3-63" records the fact that his case was reactivated as of that date and the final entry "10-17-63" in green crayon records the closing of his case due to his having obtained employment. This entry is related to the final entry in the referral section of Cunningham Exhibit No. 1-A which recites under the heading "Remarks" that at 10:30 a.m. on October 16, 1963, it was ascertained by Robert L. Adams that Oswald had obtained employment.

Signed this 11th day of June 1964.

(S) Helen P. Cunningham, HELEN P. CUNNINGHAM.

AFFIDAVIT OF THEODORE FRANK GANGL

The following affidavit was executed by Theodore Frank Gangl on June 16, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Theodore Frank Gangl, 7903 Mohawk Drive, Dallas, Tex., being duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am Plant Superintendent for the Padgett Printing Corporation, 1313 North Industrial, Dallas, Texas.

2. On October 4, 1963, I interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald, who had applied for employment in response to an advertisement the Padgett Printing Corporation placed in the local newspaper. We were seeking a typesetter in the composing room.

3. Oswald was well dressed and neat. He made a favorable impression on the foreman of the department to whom I introduced Oswald. Since Oswald had worked in a trade plant I was interested in him as a possible employee.

4. Oswald filled out the application. Padgett Printing Corporation Exhibit No. 1[P] is a photostatic copy of the original application which was filled in during the course of my interview with Oswald. The original application was prepared and maintained among the records of Padgett Printing Corporation in the usual and regular course of its business. The exhibit is a copy of the application as it was when it was completed by me on or about October 4, 1963. It is entirely in Oswald's handwriting except for my initials in the blank, "Interviewed by", the date, the word "over", and the handwriting on the reverse side, all of which are in my handwriting.

5. Oswald said he could be reached at the Irving, Texas, phone number he listed on the application, and he suggested particular periods of the week he would most likely be available to respond to a telephone call.

6. Shortly after the interview, I called Mr. Stovall at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where Oswald had previously worked. Mr. Stovall was not there, so I spoke with somebody who had worked with Oswald there. He implied that Oswald's fellow employees did not like him because he was propagandizing and had been seen reading a foreign newspaper.

7. I later talked with Mr. Robert Stovall, who is a friend of mine, and he said Oswald could not get along there and he could not adapt himself to the type of work assigned to him.

8. As a result of this conversation I wrote the comments that appear on the back of the application and decided that we would not hire him.

9. I called Oswald at the Irving, Texas, telephone number he had written on the application and told him that we had hired somebody with better qualifications.

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

(S) Theo. F. Gangl, THEODORE F. GANGL.

[P] Padgett Printing Corp. Exhibit No. 1 was subsequently relabeled Gangl Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF GENE GRAVES

The following affidavit was executed by Gene Graves on June 16, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Tarrent, ss:

My name is Gene Graves and I am employed as a secretary with the Leslie Welding Co., Inc., 200 E-North Vacek, Fort Worth, Tex.

I certify that the attached copies[Q] of time cards of Lee Harvey Oswald are true and correct.

Signed this 16th day of June 1964.

(S) Gene Graves, GENE GRAVES.

[Q] These attachments were subsequently relabeled Graves Exhibit No. 1.

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. ADAMS

The following affidavit was executed by Robert L. Adams on August 4, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Robert L. Adams, being duly sworn, say:

1. I am now, and during all of the year 1963 was an employee of the Texas Employment Commission as an employment interviewer. As appears from my deposition, I had occasion, during the month of October, 1963, to refer Lee Harvey Oswald to several employment opportunities that had come to the attention of the Texas Employment Commission.

2. I am familiar with the official books and records of the Texas Employment Commission maintained at its Dallas, Texas, office. Cunningham Exhibit 1-A is the original of the Texas Employment Commission employment, application, counseling, and referral card or record, familiarly known as an "E-13," respecting Lee Harvey Oswald. It was prepared and maintained in the usual course of the business and services rendered by the Texas Employment Commission. The entries thereon are true and correct.

3. Cunningham Exhibit 1-A is a single-fold card. The last three lines of entries on the lower portion of the inside (when folded) of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A are in my hand. All of those entries were made by me.

4. At the time that my deposition was taken, I did not have before me either Cunningham Exhibit 1-A or a copy or duplicate thereof. However, since that time I have had an opportunity to examine Cunningham Exhibit 1-A. This has served to refresh my recollection of my contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald and the job employment opportunity references which I made for him on October 7, 9, and 15, 1963.

5. As appears from the last three sets of entries in my hand on the lower portion of the inside pages of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A:

(a) On October 7, 1963, the Texas Employment Commission had on hand an order from the Solid State Electronics Company of Texas for a sales clerk at an indicated compensation of $350 per month, for permanent employment, for which they desired the Commission to refer an applicant. On that day I called BL3-1628, which is the telephone number in Irving, Texas, that appears on the face of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A. I was told that Oswald was not in. I left a message with the person who answered, requesting that Mr. Oswald contact me. The entry "Left MSG to call under the column headed "Remarks" is my notation of the fact that I made the telephone call and left the message on October 7, as I have just stated. Oswald contacted me the next day either by telephone or in person in the Commission offices. My present recollection does not serve me to say which. I had in the meantime contacted the prospective employer and discussed with him the matter of Oswald's qualifications for the position they had in mind. As a result of that conversation, I had received authority to send Oswald for an interview. Since I had authority to refer Oswald, I did not call the prospective employer again, but sent Oswald directly. Accordingly, the word "Direct," which I wrote in the column headed "Remarks," records that fact. Later that day I personally checked with Solid State Electronics Company of Texas and was advised that Oswald had followed through on my job reference, had been interviewed, but had not been hired. The initials "NH" that appear under the column headed "Results" mean "Not Hired." I made that entry when I learned that Oswald had responded to the job opportunity but had not been hired.

(b) On October 9, 1963, I referred Oswald on a clerk trainee job opportunity at $1.25 an hour with the Burton-Dixie Company of Dallas. I made this reference directly, that is, while he was in the Texas Employment Commission offices. Later that day I checked with Burton-Dixie Company and learned that Oswald had responded to the reference but had not been hired. The word "Direct" appearing under the column headed "Remarks" is my recording of the fact that I referred Oswald directly to the employer on this order.

(c) On October 15, 1963, I was advised by Mr. Roy of Trans Texas Airways that the company was contemplating expansion and that he would need possibly as many as twelve or fourteen ramp agents, as they are called by the airlines industry; we call them baggage or cargo handlers. He advised me of the minimum qualifications and asked me to send out job applicants who met them. He advised that the salary was $310 per month and that the employment was permanent. Oswald was one of the possible applicants whom I referred for interview on this order. My best recollection is that on that day I called the BL3-1628 Irving, Texas, telephone number listed on the face of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A. I learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not there. I left a message with that person that Oswald should contact me at the Commission. My further recollection is that the following morning at 10:30 o'clock I again called the BL3-1628 Irving, Texas, number and learned from the person who answered that Oswald was not there and that he had in the meantime obtained employment and was working. I thereupon made the entry, appearing in the column headed "Remarks," which reads: "Working 10:30 A 10-16 RLA," in order to record the information I had received as a result of my telephone call. On the following day, October 17, 1963, I "green dated" the face of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A. This means, as appears from the face of Cunningham Exhibit 1-A, that I entered in green crayon the date October 17, 1963, which is our way of recording the fact that the applicant is no longer available for employment. The initials "NR" appearing under the column headed "Results" mean "Non-report" or, in other words, that the man referred on the job application did not report. I included that designation under the column headed "Results" as a result of the information I received when I made the foregoing telephone call at 10:30 in the morning of October 16, 1963. Inasmuch as I did not talk with Oswald either by telephone or in person in connection with this job order, I do not know whether he was ever advised of this referral, but under the circumstances I do not see how he could have been.

Signed this 4th day of August 1964.

(S) Robert L Adams, ROBERT L. ADAMS.

AFFIDAVIT OF IVAN D. LEE

The following affidavit was executed by Ivan D. Lee on June 1, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss:

I, Ivan D. Lee, being duly sworn, depose as follows:

In my performance of duties as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I was assigned to take photographs of the rear of Major Edwin A. Walker's residence at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas, Texas.

On February 1, 1964, accompanied by Special Agent W. James Wood, I proceeded to the alley area located behind the residence of Major General Walker and took photographs from an automobile of the Federal Bureau of Investigation proceeding slowly through the alleyway. These photographs were taken at approximately 10:00 a.m. on February 1, 1964. At approximately 10:30 a.m., I returned to the area on foot and took two photographs, looking south by southwest down the alleyway behind Major General Walker's residence toward Avondale Street, Dallas. After returning to the Bureau automobile, we proceeded through the alley once again at approximately 10:45 a.m. and took another photograph of the rear of the residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker. At approximately 11:15 a.m. another trip was made through the alley and another photograph was taken of the rear of the residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker.

Photographs numbered on the back as DL 36[R] depict rear views of the residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker, and is the same residence as depicted in Commission exhibit number 5 and marked as FBI inventory number 369. Photographs numbered as DL 35[S] depict the alleyway looking south by southwest from the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints parking lot which is located adjacent to and north of the property of Major General Edwin A. Walker. In the left hand side of the photographs of the alleyway, a driveway is noted, which is the driveway leading to the back of Major General Edwin A. Walker's residence.

I used a Federal Bureau of Investigation owned 35 millimeter Robot camera in taking the above photographs.

Signed this 1st day of June 1964, at Dallas, Tex.

(S) Ivan D. Lee, IVAN D. LEE.

[R] This photograph was labeled Ivan Lee Exhibit A.

[S] This photograph was labeled Ivan Lee Exhibit B.

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES D. CROWLEY

The following affidavit was executed by James D. Crowley on June 12, 1964.

AFFIDAVIT

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

James D. Crowley, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

On August 13, 1961, he was duly appointed an officer in the Department of State, as a specialist in intelligence matters; that he has continued to serve in that capacity since that time, and that he has personal knowledge of the matters related in this affidavit:

1. I am one of the officers in the Department of State responsible for disseminating throughout the Department various reports, memoranda and documents which are received from other United States Government agencies.

2. The first time I remember learning of Oswald's existence was when I received copies of a telegraphic message, dated October 10, 1963, from the Central Intelligence Agency, which contained information pertaining to his current activities. I requested that a search of the Office of Security records be made on October 11, 1963, to determine if the Department had received any information previously. Based on a quick review of the Office of Security file on Oswald, I disseminated copies of the Central Intelligence Agency message to the various offices within the Department which were interested in receiving this type of material.

3. I also briefly reviewed Oswald's Office of Security file on November 14, 1963. Although I am not certain, I believe the impetus for this review was either my receipt of a Federal Bureau of Investigation report dated October 31, 1963 on Lee Harvey Oswald or my receipt of a Federal Bureau of Investigation report dated October 25, 1963 on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee--New Orleans Division. Both of these reports were received in the Intelligence Processing Section on November 8, 1963.

4. In both instances, I reviewed the Office of Security file in a routine manner and had it returned to the Office of Security File Room the same day in which it was charged to me.

Signed this 12th day of June 1964.

(S) James D. Crowley, JAMES D. CROWLEY.

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be due to mispronunciations were not changed.

Some simple typographical errors were corrected.

Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.

Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.

Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.

Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of conversation?") retained.

Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.

Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed.

Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and corrected, but some almost certainly remain.

In the source for this Volume, the name "De Mohrenschildt" sometimes is printed in quoted material or Affidavits as "de Mohrenschildt" or "deMohrenschildt", and all variations have been retained here. In another Volume, which contained testimony from Mr. and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt, "De" always was capitalized and was a separate word.

Footnotes have been repositioned to immediately follow the Affidavits or other information that reference them.

The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be available at Project Gutenberg.

The Preface and Contents refer to "Mrs. J. V. Allen" but the name in her Affidavit is "Mrs. J. U. Allen". None of these were changed here.

Page 67: "enclosed is an envelope" probably should be "in".

Page 70: "Mr. Pic. Is just a letter marked Exhibit No. 34." is a misprint for "Mr. Jenner."

Page 94: "merely to with the argument" probably should be "to win".

Page 212: "Out Intourist Guide's name" was printed that way.

Page 282: "ribbons in here hair" was printed that way.

Page 288: "I wasn't in her being down there at the time." was printed that way.

Page 301: "The testimony of Maj. Eugene D. Anderson was taken" was misprinted with the initial "A" instead of "D"; changed here for consistency with other instances.

Page 373: "put an Americano came too" possibly should be "name".

Page 437: "from a 22 caliber rifle" was printed without a period before "22".

Page 439: "carlot" was printed that way.

Page 473: "Jack W. Bucham" was printed with that way, not as "Burcham".

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us