Chapter VI: Investigation of Possible Conspiracy (3)

On November 10, Ruth Paine discovered a draft of Oswald’s letter written the day before to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, in which he indicated that he had journeyed to Mexico City and conferred with a “comrade Kostine in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico.”[C6-370] (This letter is discussed later in this chapter.) Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified that although they initially assumed the letter was a figment of Oswald’s imagination, the letter gave Mrs. Paine considerable misgivings.[C6-371] She determined that if the FBI agents returned she would deliver to them the copy of a draft of the letter which, unknown to Oswald, she had made.[C6-372] However, the agents did not return before the assassination.[C6-373] On November 19, Mrs. Paine learned that Oswald was living in his Dallas rooming-house under an assumed name.[C6-374] She did not report this to the FBI because, as she testified, she “had no occasion to see them, and * * * did not think it important enough to call them after that until the 23d of November.”[C6-375]

The Commission has thoroughly investigated the background of both Paines. Mrs. Paine was born Ruth Hyde in New York City on September 3, 1932. Her parents moved to Columbus, Ohio, in the late 1930’s.[C6-376] They were divorced in 1961.[C6-377] Ruth Paine graduated from Antioch College in 1955.[C6-378] While in high school she first became interested in Quaker activities; she and her brother became Quakers in 1951.[C6-379] In 1952, following completion of her sophomore year at Antioch College, she was a delegate to two Friends conferences in England.[C6-380]

At the time the Paines met in 1955, Mrs. Paine was active in the work of the Young Friends Committee of North America, which, with the cooperation of the Department of State, was making an effort to lessen the tensions between Soviet Russia and the United States by means of the stimulation of contacts and exchange of cultures between citizens of the two nations through “pen-pal” correspondence and exchanges of young Russians and Americans.[C6-381] It was during this period that Mrs. Paine became interested in the Russian language.[C6-382] Mrs. Paine participated in a Russian-American student exchange program sponsored by the Young Friends Committee of North America, and has participated in the “pen-pal” phase of the activities of the Young Friends Committee.[C6-383] She has corresponded until recently with a schoolteacher in Russia.[C6-384] Although her active interest in the Friends’ program for the lessening of East-West tensions ceased upon her marriage in December 1957, she has continued to hold to the tenets of the Quaker faith.[C6-385]

Michael Paine is the son of George Lyman Paine and Ruth Forbes Paine, now Ruth Forbes Young, wife of Arthur Young of Philadelphia, Pa.[C6-386] His parents were divorced when he was 4 years of age. His father, George Lyman Paine, is an architect and resides in California.[C6-387] Michael Paine testified that during his late grammar and early high school days his father participated actively in the Trotskyite faction of the Communist movement in the United States and that he attended some of those meetings.[C6-388] He stated that his father, with whom he has had little contact throughout most of his life, has not influenced his political thinking. He said that he has visited his father four or five times in California since 1959, but their discussions did not include the subject of communism.[C6-389] Since moving to Irving, Tex., in 1959, he has been a research engineer for Bell Helicopter Co. in Fort Worth.[C6-390] Mr. Paine has security clearance for his work.[C6-391] He has been a long-time member of the American Civil Liberties Union.[C6-392] Though not in sympathy with rightist political aims, he has attended a few meetings of far-right organizations in Dallas for the purpose, he testified, of learning something about those organizations and because he “was interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left.”[C6-393]

The Commission has conducted a thorough investigation of the Paines’ finances and is satisfied that their income has been from legitimate and traceable sources, and that their expenditures were consistent with their income and for normal purposes. Although in the course of their relationship with the Oswalds, the Paines assumed expenses for such matters as food and transportation, with a value of approximately $500, they made no direct payments to, and received no moneys or valuables from, the Oswalds.[C6-394]

Although prior to November 22, Mrs. Paine had information relating to Oswald’s use of an alias in Dallas, his telephone number, and his correspondence with the Soviet Embassy, which she did not pass on to the FBI,[C6-395] her failure to have come forward with this information must be viewed within the context of the information available to her at that time. There is no evidence to contradict her testimony that she did not then know about Oswald’s attack on General Walker, the presence of the rifle on the floor of her garage, Oswald’s ownership of a pistol, or the photographs of Oswald displaying the firearms.[C6-396] She thus assumed that Oswald, though a difficult and disturbing personality, was not potentially violent, and that the FBI was cognizant of his past history and current activities.[C6-397]

Moreover, it is from Mrs. Paine herself that the Commission has learned that she possessed the information which she did have. Mrs. Paine was forthright with the agent of the FBI with whom she spoke in early November 1963, providing him with sufficient information to have located Oswald at his job if he had deemed it necessary to do so,[C6-398] and her failure to have taken immediate steps to notify the Bureau of the additional information does not under the circumstances appear unusual. Throughout the Commission’s investigation, Ruth Paine has been completely cooperative, voluntarily producing all correspondence, memoranda, and other written communications in her possession that had passed between her and Marina Oswald both before and after November 22, 1963.[C6-399] The Commission has had the benefit of Mrs. Paine’s 1963 date book and calendar and her address book and telephone notation book, in both of which appear many entries relating to her activities with the Oswalds.[C6-400] Other material of a purely personal nature was also voluntarily made available.[C6-401] The Commission has found nothing in the Paines’ background, activities, or finances which suggests disloyalty to the United States,[C6-402] and it has concluded that Ruth and Michael Paine were not involved in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy.

A fuller narrative of the social contacts between the Oswalds and the various persons of the Dallas-Fort Worth community is incorporated in chapter VII and appendix XIII, and the testimony of all members of the group who testified before the Commission is included in the printed record which accompanies the report. The evidence establishes that the Oswalds’ contacts with these people were originated and maintained under normal and understandable circumstances. The files maintained by the FBI contain no information indicating that any of the persons in the Dallas-Fort Worth community with whom Oswald associated were affiliated with any Communist, Fascist, or other subversive organization.[C6-403] During the course of this investigation, the Commission has found nothing which suggests the involvement of any member of the Russian-speaking community in Oswald’s preparations to assassinate President Kennedy.

Political Activities Upon Return to the United States

Upon his return from the Soviet Union, Oswald had dealings with the Communist Party, U.S.A., the Socialist Workers Party, and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and he also had minor contacts with at least two other organizations with political interests. For the purpose of determining whether Oswald received any advice, encouragement, or assistance from these organizations in planning or executing the assassination of President Kennedy, the Commission has conducted a full investigation of the nature and extent of Oswald’s relations with them. The Commission has also conducted an investigation to determine whether certain persons and organizations expressing hostility to President Kennedy prior to the assassination had any connection with Lee Harvey Oswald or with the shooting of the President.

_Communist Party, U.S.A.; Socialist Workers Party._--In August of 1962, Oswald subscribed to the Worker, a publication of the Communist Party, U.S.A.[C6-404] He also wrote the Communist Party to obtain pamphlets and other literature which, the evidence indicates, were sent to him as a matter of course.[C6-405]

Oswald also attempted to initiate other dealings with the Communist Party, U.S.A., but the organization was not especially responsive. From New Orleans, he informed the party of his activities in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, discussed below, submitting membership cards in his fictitious chapter to several party officials.[C6-406] In a letter from Arnold S. Johnson, director of the information and lecture bureau of the party, Oswald was informed that although the Communist Party had no “organizational ties” with the committee, the party issued much literature which was “important for anybody who is concerned about developments in Cuba.”[C6-407] In September 1963 Oswald inquired how he might contact the party when he relocated in the Baltimore-Washington area, as he said he planned to do in October, and Johnson suggested in a letter of September 19 that he “get in touch with us here [New York] and we will find some way of getting in touch with you in that city [Baltimore].”[C6-408] However, Oswald had also written asking whether, “handicapped as it were, by * * * [his] past record,” he could “still * * * compete with antiprogressive forces, above ground or whether in your opinion * * * [he] should always remain in the background, i.e., underground,” and in the September 19 letter received the reply that “often it is advisable for some people to remain in the background, not underground.”[C6-409]

In a letter postmarked November 1, Oswald informed the party that he had moved to Dallas, and reported his attendance at a meeting at which General Walker had spoken, and at a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union; he asked Johnson for the party’s “general view” of the latter organization and “to what degree, if any, [he] should attempt to highten its progressive tendencies.” According to Johnson, this letter was not received by the Communist Party until after the assassination.[C6-410] At different times, Oswald also wrote the Worker and the Hall-Davis Defense Committee, enclosing samples of his photographic work and offering to assist in preparing posters; he was told that “his kind offer [was] most welcomed and from time to time we shall call on you,” but he was never asked for assistance.[C6-411] The correspondence between Oswald and the Communist Party, and with all other organizations, is printed in the record accompanying this report.

When Oswald applied for a visa to enter Cuba during his trip to Mexico City, discussed below,[C6-412] Senora Silvia Duran, the Cuban consular employee who dealt with Oswald, wrote on the application that Oswald said he was a member of the Communist Party and that he had “displayed documents in proof of his membership.”[C6-413] When Oswald went to Mexico, he is believed to have carried his letters from the Soviet Embassy in Washington and from the Communist Party in the United States, his 1959 passport, which contained stamps showing that he had lived in Russia for 2½ years, his Russian work permit, his Russian marriage certificate, membership cards and newspaper clippings purporting to show his role in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and a prepared statement of his qualifications as a “Marxist.”[C6-414] Because of the mass of papers Oswald did present showing his affinity for communism, some in the Russian language, which was foreign to Senora Duran, and because further investigation, discussed below, indicated that Oswald was not a member of the party, Senora Duran’s notation was probably inaccurate.

Upon his arrest after the assassination, Oswald attempted to contact John J. Abt, a New York attorney, to request Abt to represent him. Abt was not in New York at the time, and he was never reached in connection with representing Oswald. Abt has testified that he at no time had any dealings with Oswald and that prior to the assassination he had never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.[C6-415]

After his return from the Soviet Union, Oswald also carried on a limited correspondence with the Socialist Workers Party. In October of 1962 he attempted to join the party, but his application was not accepted since there was then no chapter in the Dallas area.[C6-416] Oswald also wrote the Socialist Workers Party offering his assistance in preparing posters. From this organization too he received the response that he might be called upon if needed. He was asked for further information about his photographic skills, which he does not appear to have ever provided.[C6-417] Oswald did obtain literature from the Socialist Workers Party, however, and in December 1962 he entered a subscription to the affiliated publication, the Militant.[C6-418] Apparently in March of 1963 Oswald wrote the party of his activities and submitted a clipping with his letter. In response, he was told that his name was being sent to the Young Socialist Alliance for further correspondence, but the files of the alliance apparently contain no reference to Oswald. Neither the letter nor the clipping which Oswald sent has been located.[C6-419]

Investigation by the Commission has produced no plausible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had any other significant contacts with the Communist Party, U.S.A., the Socialist Workers Party, or with any other extreme leftist political organization. The FBI and other Federal security agencies have made a study of their records and files and contacted numerous confidential informants of the agencies and have produced no such evidence.[C6-420] The Commission has questioned persons who, as a group, knew Oswald during virtually every phase of his adult life, and from none of these came any indication that Oswald maintained a surreptitious relationship with any organization. Arnold S. Johnson, of the American Communist Party; James T. Tormey, executive secretary of the Hall-Davis Defense Committee; and Farrell Dobbs, secretary of the Socialist Workers Party, voluntarily appeared before the Commission and testified under oath that Oswald was not a member of these organizations and that a thorough search of their files had disclosed no records relating to Oswald other than those which they produced for the Commission.[C6-421] The material that has been disclosed is in all cases consistent with other data in the possession of the Commission.

_Socialist Labor Party._--Oswald also wrote to the Socialist Labor Party in New York in November 1962 requesting literature. Horace Twiford, a national committeeman at large for the party in the State of Texas, was informed by the New York headquarters in July 1963 of Oswald’s request, and on September 11, 1963, he did mail literature to Oswald at his old post office box in Dallas.[C6-422] On his way to Mexico City in September 1963, Oswald attempted to contact Twiford at his home in Houston; Oswald spoke briefly with Twiford’s wife, identifying himself as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but since Twiford was out of town at the time, Oswald was unable to speak with him.[C6-423] Arnold Peterson, national secretary and treasurer of the Socialist Labor Party, has stated that a search of the records of the national headquarters reveals no record pertaining to Oswald; he explained that letters requesting literature are routinely destroyed.[C6-424] The Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation has also advised that a review of its records fails to reflect any information or correspondence pertaining to Oswald.[C6-425]

_Fair Play for Cuba Committee._--During the period Oswald was in New Orleans, from the end of April to late September 1963, he was engaged in activity purportedly on behalf of the now defunct Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), an organization centered in New York which was highly critical of U.S. policy toward the Cuban Government under Fidel Castro. In May 1963, after having obtained literature from the FPCC,[C6-426] Oswald applied for and was granted membership in the organization.[C6-427] When applying for membership, Oswald wrote national headquarters that he had

* * * been thinking about renting a small office at my own
expense for the purpose of forming a F.P.C.C. branch here in
New Orleans.

Could you give me a charter?[C6-428]

With his membership card, Oswald apparently received a copy of the constitution and bylaws for FPCC chapters, and a letter, dated May 29, which read in part as follows (with spelling as in original):

It would be hard to concieve of a chapter with as few members
as seem to exist in the New Orleans area. I have just gone
through our files and find that Louisiana seams somewhat
restricted for Fair Play activities. However, with what is
there perhaps you could build a larger group if a few people
would undertake the disciplined responsibility of concrete
organizational work.

We certainly are not at all adverse to a very small Chapter
but certainly would expect that there would be at least twice
the amount needed to conduct a legal executive board for the
Chapter. Should this be reasonable we could readily issue a
charter for a New Orleans Chapter of FPCC. In fact, we would
be very, very pleased to see this take place and would like to
do everything possible to assist in bringing it about.

* * * * *

You must realize that you will come under tremendous pressures
with any attempt to do FPCC work in that area and that you will
not be able to operate in the manner which is conventional
here in the north-east. Even most of our big city Chapters
have been forced to Abandon the idea of operating an office in
public. * * * Most Chapters have discovered that it is easier
to operate semi-privately out of a home and maintain a P.O.
Box for all mailings and public notices. (A P.O. Box is a must
for any Chapter in the organization to guarnatee the continued
contact with the national even if an individual should move or
drop out.) We do have a serious and often violent opposition
and this proceedure helps prevent many unnecessary incidents
which frighten away prospective supporters. I definitely
would not recommend an office, at least not one that will be
easily identifyable to the lunatic fringe in your community.
Certainly, I would not recommend that you engage in one at the
very beginning but wait and see how you can operate in the
community through several public experiences.[C6-429]

Thereafter Oswald informed national headquarters that he had opened post office box No. 30061, and that against its advice he had decided “to take an office from the very beginning”; he also submitted copies of a membership application form and a circular headed “Hands Off Cuba!” which he had had printed, and informed the headquarters that he intended to have membership cards for his chapter printed, which he subsequently did.[C6-430] He wrote three further letters to the New York office to inform it of his continued activities.[C6-431] In one he reported that he had been evicted from the office he claimed to have opened, so that he “worked out of a post office box and by useing street demonstrations and some circular work * * * sustained a great deal of interest but no new members.”[C6-432]

Oswald did distribute the handbills he had printed on at least three occasions.[C6-433] Once, while doing so, he was arrested and fined for being involved in a disturbance with anti-Castro Cuban refugees,[C6-434] one of whom he had previously met by presenting himself as hostile to Premier Castro in an apparent effort to gain information about anti-Castro organizations operating in New Orleans.[C6-435] When arrested, he informed the police that his chapter had 35 members.[C6-436] His activities received some attention in the New Orleans press, and he twice appeared on a local radio program representing himself as a spokesman for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.[C6-437] After his return to Dallas, he listed the FPCC as an organization authorized to receive mail at his post office box.[C6-438]

Despite these activities, the FPCC chapter which Oswald purportedly formed in New Orleans was entirely fictitious. Vincent T. Lee, formerly national director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, has testified that the New York office did not authorize the creation of a New Orleans chapter, nor did it provide Oswald with funds to support his activities there.[C6-439] The national office did not write Oswald again after its letter of May 29. As discussed more fully in chapter VII, Oswald’s later letters to the national office purporting to inform it of his progress in New Orleans contained numerous exaggerations about the scope of his activities and the public reaction to them.[C6-440] There is no evidence that Oswald ever opened an office as he claimed to have done. Although a pamphlet taken from him at the time of his arrest in New Orleans contains the rubber stamp imprint “FPCC, 544 CAMP ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA.,” investigation has indicated that neither the Fair Play for Cuba Committee nor Lee Harvey Oswald ever maintained an office at that address.[C6-441] The handbills and other materials bearing the name of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee were printed commercially by Oswald without the approval of the national headquarters.[C6-442] Oswald’s membership card in the “New Orleans chapter” of the committee carried the signature of “A. J. Hidell,” purportedly the president of the chapter, but there is no evidence that an “A. J. Hidell” existed and, as pointed out in chapter IV, there is conclusive evidence that the name was an alias which Oswald used on various occasions. Marina Oswald herself wrote the name “Hidell” on the membership card at her husband’s insistence.[C6-443]

No other member of the so-called New Orleans chapter of the committee has ever been found. The only occasion on which anyone other than Oswald was observed taking part in these activities was on August 9, 1963, when Oswald and two young men passed out leaflets urging “Hands Off Cuba!” on the streets of New Orleans. One of the two men, who was 16 years old at the time, has testified that Oswald approached him at the Louisiana State Employment Commission and offered him $2 for about an hour’s work. He accepted the offer but later, when he noticed that television cameras were being focused on him, he obtained his money and left. He testified that he had never seen Oswald before and never saw him again. The second individual has never been located; but according to the testimony of the youth who was found, he too seemed to be someone not previously connected with Oswald.[C6-444] Finally, the FBI has advised the Commission that its information on undercover Cuban activities in the New Orleans area reveals no knowledge of Oswald before the assassination.[C6-445]

_Right-wing groups hostile to President Kennedy._--The Commission also considered the possibility that there may have been a link between Oswald and certain groups which had bitterly denounced President Kennedy and his policies prior to the time of the President’s trip to Dallas. As discussed in chapter II, two provocative incidents took place concurrently with President Kennedy’s visit and a third but a month prior thereto. The incidents were (1) the demonstration against the Honorable Adlai E. Stevenson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in late October 1963, when he came to Dallas on United Nations Day; (2) the publication in the Dallas Morning News on November 22 of the full page, black-bordered paid advertisement entitled, “Welcome Mr. Kennedy”; and (3) the distribution of a throwaway handbill entitled “Wanted for Treason” throughout Dallas on November 20 and 21. Oswald was aware of the Stevenson incident; there is no evidence that he became aware of either the “Welcome Mr. Kennedy” advertisement or the “Wanted for Treason” handbill, though neither possibility can be precluded.

The only evidence of interest on Oswald’s part in rightist groups in Dallas was his alleged attendance at a rally at the Dallas Auditorium the evening preceding Ambassador Stevenson’s address on United Nations Day, October 24, 1963. On the evening of October 25, 1963, at the invitation of Michael Paine, Oswald attended a monthly meeting of the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union in which he was later to seek membership.[C6-446] During the course of the discussion at this meeting, a speaker mentioned Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army). Oswald arose in the midst of the meeting to remark that a “night or two nights before” he had attended a meeting at which General Walker had spoken in terms that led Oswald to assert that General Walker was both anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic.[C6-447] General Walker testified that he had been the speaker at a rally the night before Ambassador Stevenson’s appearance, but that he did not know and had never heard of Oswald prior to the announcement of his name on radio and television on the afternoon of November 22.[C6-448] Oswald confirmed his attendance at the U.S. Day rally in an undated letter he wrote to Arnold Johnson, director of the information and lecture bureau of the Communist Party, mailed November 1, 1963, in which he reported:

On October 23rd, I had attended a ultra-right meeting headed by
General Edwin a. Walker, who lives in Dallas.

This meeting preceded by one day the attack on a. e. Stevenson
at the United Nations Day meeting at which he spoke.

As you can see, political friction between ‘left’ and ‘right’
is very great here.[C6-449]

In the light of Oswald’s attack upon General Walker on the evening of April 10, 1963, discussed in chapter IV,[C6-450] as well as Oswald’s known political views,[C6-451] his asserted attendance at the political rally at which General Walker spoke may have been induced by many possible motives. However, there is no evidence that Oswald attended any other rightist meetings or was associated with any politically conservative organizations.

While the black-bordered “Welcome Mr. Kennedy” advertisement in the November 22 Dallas Morning News, which addressed a series of critical questions to the President, probably did not come to Oswald’s attention, it was of interest to the Commission because of its appearance on the day of the assassination and because of an allegation made before the Commission concerning the person whose name appeared as the chairman of the committee sponsoring the advertisement. The black-bordered advertisement was purported to be sponsored by “The American Fact-Finding Committee,” which was described as “An unaffiliated and nonpartisan group of citizens who wish truth.” Bernard Weissman was listed as “Chairman” and a post office box in Dallas was the only address. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1031, p. 294.)

The Commission has conducted a full investigation into the genesis of this advertisement and the background of those responsible for it. Three of the four men chiefly responsible, Bernard W. Weissman, William B. Burley III, and Larrie H. Schmidt, had served together in the U.S. Army in Munich, Germany, in 1962. During that time they had with others devised plans to develop two conservative organizations, one political and the other business. The political entity was to be named Conservatism--USA, or CUSA, and the business entity was to be named American Business, or AMBUS.[C6-452] While in Munich, according to Weissman, they attempted to develop in their “own minds * * * ways to build up various businesses that would support us and at the same time support our political activities.”[C6-453] According to a subsequent letter from Schmidt to Weissman, “Cusa was founded for patriotic reasons rather than for personal gain--even though, as a side effect, Ambus was to have brought great return, as any business endeavor should.”[C6-454] To establish their organizations, Weissman testified that they:

* * * had planned while in Munich that in order to accomplish
our goals, to try to do it from scratch would be almost
impossible, because it would be years before we could even get
the funds to develop a powerful organization. So we had planned
to infiltrate various rightwing organizations and by our own
efforts become involved in the hierarchy of these various
organizations and eventually get ourselves elected or appointed
to various higher offices in these organizations, and by doing
this bring in some of our own people, and eventually take over
the leadership of these organizations, and at that time having
our people in these various organizations, we would then, you
might say, call a conference and have them unite, and while no
one knew of the existence of CUSA aside from us, we would then
bring them all together, unite them, and arrange to have it
called CUSA.[C6-455]

Schmidt was the first to leave the service; settling in Dallas in October 1962, he became a life insurance salesman and quickly engaged in numerous political activities in pursuit of the objectives devised in Munich.[C6-456] He became affiliated with several organizations and prepared various political writings.[C6-457]

Upon their release from the military, Weissman and Burley did not immediately move to Dallas, though repeatedly urged to do so by Schmidt.[C6-458] On October 1, 1963, Schmidt wrote Weissman: “Adlai Stevenson is scheduled here on the 24th on UN Day. Kennedy is scheduled in Dallas on Nov. 24th. There are to be protests. All the big things are happening _now_--if we don’t get in right now we may as well forget it.”[C6-459] The day of the Stevenson demonstration, Schmidt telephoned Weissman, again urging him to move to Dallas. Recalling that conversation with Schmidt, Weissman testified:

And he said, “If we are going to take advantage of the
situation * * * you better hurry down here and take advantage
of the publicity, and at least become known among these various
right-wingers, because this is the chance we have been looking
for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become
known,” in other words, go along with the philosophy we had
developed in Munich.[C6-460]

Five days later he wrote to Weissman and Burley to report that as the “only organizer of the demonstration to have publicly identified himself,” he had “become, overnight, a ‘fearless spokesman’ and ‘leader’ of the rightwing in Dallas. What I worked so hard for in one year--and nearly failed--finally came through one incident in one night!” He ended, “Politically, CUSA is set. It is now up to you to get Ambus going.”[C6-461]

Weissman and Burley accepted Schmidt’s prompting and traveled to Dallas, arriving on November 4, 1963.[C6-462] Both obtained employment as carpet salesmen. At Schmidt’s solicitation they took steps to join the John Birch Society, and through Schmidt they met the fourth person involved in placing the November 22 advertisement, Joseph P. Grinnan, Dallas independent oil operator and a John Birch Society coordinator in the Dallas area.[C6-463]

Within a week to 10 days after Weissman and Burley had arrived in Dallas, the four men began to consider plans regarding President Kennedy’s planned visit to Dallas.[C6-464] Weissman explained the reason for which it was decided that the ad should be placed:

* * * after the Stevenson incident, it was felt that a
demonstration would be entirely out of order, because we
didn’t want anything to happen in the way of physical violence
to President Kennedy when he came to Dallas. But we thought
that the conservatives in Dallas--I was told--were a pretty
downtrodden lot after that, because they were being oppressed
by the local liberals, because of the Stevenson incident. We
felt we had to do something to build up the morale of the
conservative element, in Dallas. So we hit upon the idea of the
ad.[C6-465]

Weissman, Schmidt, and Grinnan worked on the text for the advertisement.[C6-466] A pamphlet containing 50 questions critical of American policy was employed for this purpose, and was the source of the militant questions contained in the ad attacking President Kennedy’s administration.[C6-467] Grinnan undertook to raise the $1,465 needed to pay for the ad.[C6-468] He employed a typed draft of the advertisement to support his funds solicitation.[C6-469] Grinnan raised the needed money from three wealthy Dallas businessmen: Edgar R. Crissey, Nelson Bunker Hunt, and H. R. Bright, some of whom in turn collected contributions from others.[C6-470] At least one of the contributors would not make a contribution unless a question he suggested was inserted.[C6-471] Weissman, believing that Schmidt, Grinnan, and the contributors were active members of the John Birch Society, and that Grinnan eventually took charge of the project, expressed the opinion that the advertisement was the creation of the John Birch Society,[C6-472] though Schmidt and Grinnan have maintained that they were acting “solely as individuals.”[C6-473]

A fictitious sponsoring organization was invented out of whole cloth.[C6-474] The name chosen for the supposed organization was The American Fact-Finding Committee.[C6-475] This was “Solely a name,” Weissman testified; “* * * As a matter of fact, when I went to place the ad, I could not remember the name * * * I had to refer to a piece of paper for the name.”[C6-476] Weissman’s own name was used on the ad in part to counter charges of anti-Semitism which had been leveled against conservative groups in Dallas.[C6-477] Weissman conceived the idea of using a black border,[C6-478] and testified he intended it to serve the function of stimulating reader attention.[C6-479] Before accepting the advertisement, the Dallas Morning News apparently submitted it to its attorneys for their opinion as to whether its publication might subject them to liability.[C6-480]

Weissman testified that the advertisement drew 50 or 60 mailed responses.[C6-481] He took them from the post office box early on Sunday morning, November 24.[C6-482] He said that those postmarked before the attack on President Kennedy were “favorable” in tone;[C6-483] those of later postmark were violently unfavorable, nasty, and threatening;[C6-484] and, according to a report from Schmidt, those postmarked some weeks later were again of favorable tone.[C6-485]

The four promoters of the ad deny that they had any knowledge of or familiarity with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to November 22, or Jack Ruby prior to November 24.[C6-486] Each has provided a statement of his role in connection with the placement of the November 22 advertisement and other matters, and investigation has revealed no deception. The Commission has found no evidence that any of these persons was connected with Oswald or Ruby, or was linked to a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.

The advertisement, however, did give rise to one allegation concerning Bernard Weissman which required additional investigation. On March 4, 1964, Mark Lane, a New York attorney, testified before the Commission that an undisclosed informant had told him that Weissman had met with Jack Ruby and Patrolman J. D. Tippit at Ruby’s Carousel Club on November 14, 1963. Lane declined to state the name of his informant but said that he would attempt to obtain his informant’s permission to reveal his name.[C6-487] On July 2, 1964, after repeated requests by the Commission that he disclose the name of his informant, Lane testified a second time concerning this matter, but declined to reveal the information, stating as his reason that he had promised the individual that his name would not be revealed without his permission.[C6-488] Lane also made this allegation during a radio appearance, whereupon Weissman twice demanded that Lane reveal the name of the informant.[C6-489] As of the date of this report Lane has failed to reveal the name of his informant and has offered no evidence to support his allegation. The Commission has investigated the allegation of a Weissman-Ruby-Tippit meeting and has found no evidence that such a meeting took place anywhere at any time. The investigation into this matter is discussed in a later section of this chapter dealing with possible conspiracies involving Jack Ruby.

A comparable incident was the appearance of the “Wanted for Treason” handbill on the streets of Dallas 1 to 2 days before President Kennedy’s arrival. These handbills bore a reproduction of a front and profile photograph of the President and set forth a series of inflammatory charges against him.[C6-490] Efforts to locate the author and the lithography printer of the handbill at first met with evasive responses[C6-491] and refusals to furnish information.[C6-492] Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified as the author of the handbill.[C6-493] Surrey, a 38-year-old printing salesman employed by Johnson Printing Co. of Dallas, Tex., has been closely associated with General Walker for several years in his political and business activities.[C6-494] He is president of American Eagle Publishing Co. of Dallas, in which he is a partner with General Walker.[C6-495] Its office and address is the post office box of Johnson Printing Co. Its assets consist of cash and various printed materials composed chiefly of General Walker’s political and promotional literature,[C6-496] all of which is stored at General Walker’s headquarters.[C6-497]

Surrey prepared the text for the handbill and apparently used Johnson Printing Co. facilities to set the type and print a proof.[C6-498] Surrey induced Klause, a salesman employed by Lettercraft Printing Co. of Dallas,[C6-499] whom Surrey had met when both were employed at Johnson Printing Co.,[C6-500] to print the handbill “on the side.”[C6-501] According to Klause, Surrey contacted him initially approximately 2 or 2½ weeks prior to November 22.[C6-502] About a week prior to November 22, Surrey delivered to Klause two slick paper magazine prints of photographs of a front view and profile of President Kennedy,[C6-503] together with the textual page proof.[C6-504] Klause was unable to make the photographic negative of the prints needed to prepare the photographic printing plate,[C6-505] so that he had this feature of the job done at a local shop.[C6-506] Klause then arranged the halftone front and profile representations of President Kennedy at the top of the textual material he had received from Surrey so as to simulate a “man wanted” police placard. He then made a photographic printing plate of the picture.[C6-507] During the night, he and his wife surreptitiously printed approximately 5,000 copies on Lettercraft Printing Co. offset printing equipment without the knowledge of his employers.[C6-508] The next day he arranged with Surrey a meeting place, and delivered the handbills.[C6-509] Klause’s charge for the printing of the handbills was, including expenses, $60.[C6-510]

At the outset of the investigation Klause stated to Federal agents that he did not know the name of his customer, whom he incorrectly described;[C6-511] he did say, however, that the customer did not resemble either Oswald or Ruby.[C6-512] Shortly before he appeared before the Commission, Klause disclosed Surrey’s identity.[C6-513] He explained that no record of the transaction had been made because “he saw a chance to make a few dollars on the side.”[C6-514]

Klause’s testimony receives some corroboration from Bernard Weissman’s testimony that he saw a copy of one of the “Wanted for Treason” handbills on the floor of General Walker’s station wagon shortly after November 22.[C6-515] Other details of the manner in which the handbills were printed have also been verified.[C6-516] Moreover, Weissman testified that neither he nor any of his associates had anything to do with the handbill or were acquainted with Surrey, Klause, Lettercraft Printing Co., or Johnson Printing Co.[C6-517] Klause and Surrey, as well as General Walker, testified that they were unacquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald and had not heard of him prior to the afternoon of November 22.[C6-518] The Commission has found no evidence of any connection between those responsible for the handbill and Lee Harvey Oswald or the assassination.

Contacts With the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City and the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.

Eight weeks before the assassination, Oswald traveled to Mexico City where he visited both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies.[D] Oswald’s wife knew of this trip before he went,[C6-519] but she denied such knowledge until she testified before the Commission.[C6-520] The Commission undertook an intensive investigation to determine Oswald’s purpose and activities on this journey, with specific reference to reports that Oswald was an agent of the Cuban or Soviet Governments. As a result of its investigation, the Commission believes that it has been able to reconstruct and explain most of Oswald’s actions during this time. A detailed chronological account of this trip appears in appendix XIII.

[D] The Soviet Embassy in Mexico City includes consular as
well as diplomatic personnel in a single building. The
Cuban Embassy and Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, though
in separate buildings, are in the same compound. Both the
Soviet and the Cuban establishments will be referred to
throughout the report simply as Embassies.

_Trip to Mexico._--Oswald was in Mexico from September 26, 1963, until October 3, 1963.[C6-521] (See Commission Exhibits Nos. 2478, 2481, p. 300.) Marina Oswald testified that Oswald had told her that the purpose of the trip was to evade the American prohibition on travel to Cuba and to reach that country.[C6-522] He cautioned her that the trip and its purpose were to be kept strictly secret.[C6-523] She testified that he had earlier laid plans to reach Cuba by hijacking an airliner flying out of New Orleans, but she refused to cooperate and urged him to give it up, which he finally did.[C6-524] Witnesses who spoke with Oswald while he was on a bus going to Mexico City also testified that Oswald told them he intended to reach Cuba by way of Mexico, and that he hoped to meet Fidel Castro after he arrived.[C6-525] When Oswald spoke to the Cuban and Soviet consular officials in Mexico City, he represented that he intended to travel to the Soviet Union and requested an “in-transit” Cuban visa to permit him to enter Cuba on September 30 on the way to the Soviet Union. Marina Oswald has testified that these statements were deceptions designed to get him to Cuba.[C6-526] Thus, although it is possible that Oswald intended to continue on to Russia from Cuba, the evidence makes it more likely that he intended to remain in Cuba.[C6-527]

(COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2481)

APPLICATION FOR TOURIST CARD

(COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2478)

TOURIST CARD]

Oswald departed from New Orleans probably about noon on September 25 and arrived in Mexico City at about 10 a.m. on September 27.[C6-528] In Mexico City he embarked on a series of visits to the Soviet and Cuban Embassies, which occupied most of his time during the first 2 days of his visit. At the Cuban Embassy, he requested an “in-transit” visa to permit him to visit Cuba on his way to the Soviet Union.[C6-529] Oswald was informed that he could not obtain a visa for entry into Cuba unless he first obtained a visa to enter the U.S.S.R.,[C6-530] and the Soviet Embassy told him that he could not expect an answer on his application for a visa for the Soviet Union for about 4 months.[C6-531] Oswald carried with him newspaper clippings, letters and various documents, some of them forged or containing false information, purporting to show that he was a “friend” of Cuba.[C6-532] With these papers and his record of previous residence in the Soviet Union and marriage to a Soviet national, he tried to curry favor with both Embassies.[C6-533] Indeed, his wife testified that in her opinion Oswald’s primary purpose in having engaged in Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities was to create a public record that he was a “friend” of Cuba.[C6-534] He made himself especially unpopular at the Cuban Embassy by persisting in his demands that as a sympathizer in Cuban objectives he ought to be given a visa. This resulted in a sharp argument with the consul, Eusebio Azque.[C6-535]

By Saturday, September 28, 1963, Oswald had failed to obtain visas at both Embassies.[C6-536] From Sunday, September 29, through Wednesday morning, October 2, when he left Mexico City on a bus bound for the United States, Oswald spent considerable time making his travel arrangements, sightseeing and checking again with the Soviet Embassy to learn whether anything had happened on his visa application.[C6-537] Marina Oswald testified that when she first saw him after his return to the United States he was disappointed and discouraged at his failure to reach Cuba.[C6-538]

The general outlines of Oswald’s activities in Mexico, particularly the nature and extent of his contacts at the Cuban Embassy, were learned very early in the investigation. An important source of information relating to his business at the Cuban Embassy was Senora Silvia Tirado de Duran, a Mexican national employed in the visa section of the Cuban Embassy, who was questioned intensively by Mexican authorities soon after the assassination.[C6-539] An excerpt from the report of the Mexican Government summarized the crucial portion of Senora Duran’s recollection of Oswald. In translation it reads as follows:

* * * she remembered * * * [that Lee Harvey Oswald] was the
name of an American who had come to the Cuban Consulate to
obtain a visa to travel to Cuba in transit to Russia, the
latter part of September or the early part of October of this
year, and in support of his application had shown his passport,
in which it was noted that he had lived in that country for a
period of three years; his labor card from the same country
written in the Russian language; and letters in that same
language. He had presented evidence that he was married to
a Russian woman, and also that he was apparently the leader
of an organization in the city of New Orleans called “Fair
* * * [Play] for Cuba,” claiming that he should be accepted
as a “friend” of the Cuban Revolution. Accordingly, the
declarant, complying with her duties, took down all of the
information and completed the appropriate application form;
and the declarant, admittedly exceeding her responsibilities,
informally telephoned the Russian consulate, with the intention
of doing what she could to facilitate issuance of the Russian
visa to Lee Harvey Oswald. However, they told her that there
would be a delay of about four months in processing the case,
which annoyed the applicant since, according to his statement,
he was in a great hurry to obtain visas that would enable
him to travel to Russia, insisting on his right to do so in
view of his background and his loyalty and his activities in
behalf of the Cuban movement. The declarant was unable to
recall accurately whether or not the applicant told her he
was a member of the Communist Party, but he did say that his
wife * * * was then in New York City, and would follow him, *
* * [Senora Duran stated] that when Oswald understood that it
was not possible to give him a Cuban visa without his first
having obtained the Russian visa, * * * he became very excited
or angry, and accordingly, the affiant called Consul Ascue
[sic], * * * [who] came out and began a heated discussion in
English with Oswald, that concluded by Ascue telling him that
“if it were up to him, he would not give him the visa,” and “a
person of his type was harming the Cuban Revolution rather than
helping it,” it being understood that in their conversation
they were talking about the Russian Socialist Revolution and
not the Cuban. Oswald maintained that he had two reasons for
requesting that his visa be issued promptly, and they were:
one, that his tourist permit in Mexico was about to expire; and
the other, that he had to get to Russia as quickly as possible.
Despite her annoyance, the declarant gave Oswald a paper * * *
in which she put down her name, “Silvia Durán,” and the
number of the telephone at the consulate, which is “11-28-47”
and the visa application was processed anyway. It was sent
to the Ministry of [Foreign] Relations of Cuba, from which a
routine reply was received some fifteen to thirty days later,
approving the visa, but on the condition that the Russian visa
be obtained first, although she does not recall whether or not
Oswald later telephoned her at the Consulate number that she
gave him.[C6-540]

(COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2564)

OSWALD’S APPLICATION ——> TRANSLATION

CUBAN REPLY ——> TRANSLATION

BOTH DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA.]

With the dates of Oswald’s entry into and departure from Mexico, which had been obtained from the records of the Mexican Immigration Service very shortly after the assassination, the Government of Mexico initiated a thorough investigation to uncover as much information as possible on Oswald’s trip.[C6-541] Representatives of U.S. agencies worked in close liaison with the Mexican law enforcement authorities. The result of this investigative effort was to corroborate the statements of Senora Duran and to verify the essentials of Oswald’s activities in Mexico as outlined above.

Senora Duran is a well-educated native of Mexico, who was 26 years old at the time of her interrogation. She is married to Senor Horacio Duran Navarro, a 40-year-old industrial designer, and has a young child. Although Senora Duran denies being a member of the Communist Party or otherwise connected with it, both Durans have been active in far left political affairs in Mexico, believe in Marxist ideology, and sympathize with the government of Fidel Castro,[C6-542] and Senor Duran has written articles for El Dia, a pro-Communist newspaper in Mexico City.[C6-543] The Commission has reliable evidence from a confidential source that Senora Duran as well as other personnel at the Cuban Embassy were genuinely upset upon receiving news of President Kennedy’s death. Senora Duran’s statements were made to Mexican officials soon after the assassination,[C6-544] and no significant inaccuracies in them have been detected. Documents fitting the description given by Senora Duran of the documents Oswald had shown her, plus a notation which she said she had given him, were found among his possessions after his arrest.[C6-545]

The Cuban Government was asked to document and confirm the essentials of Senora Duran’s testimony. Its response, which has been included in its entirety in this Report, included a summary statement of Oswald’s activities at the Cuban Embassy;[C6-546] a photograph of the application for a visa he completed there,[C6-547] and a photograph of the communication from Havana rejecting the application unless he could first present a Soviet visa.[C6-548] (See Commission Exhibit No. 2564, p. 306.) The information on these documents concerning Oswald’s date of birth, American passport number and activities and statements at the Embassy is consistent with other information available to the Commission.[C6-549] CIA experts have given their opinion that the handwriting on the visa application which purports to be Oswald’s is in fact his and that, although the handwritten notations on the bottom of the document are too brief and faint to permit a conclusive determination, they are probably Senora Duran’s.[C6-550] The clothes which Oswald was wearing in the photograph which appears on the application appear to be the same as some of those found among his effects after the assassination, and the photograph itself appears to be from the same negative as a photograph found among his effects.[C6-551] Nothing on any of the documents raises a suspicion that they might not be authentic.

By far the most important confirmation of Senora Duran’s testimony, however, has been supplied by confidential sources of extremely high reliability available to the United States in Mexico. The information from these sources establishes that her testimony was truthful and accurate in all material respects. The identities of these sources cannot be disclosed without destroying their future usefulness to the United States.

The investigation of the Commission has produced considerable testimonial and documentary evidence establishing the precise time of Oswald’s journey, his means of transportation, the hotel at which he stayed in Mexico City, and a restaurant at which he often ate. All known persons whom Oswald may have met while in Mexico, including passengers on the buses he rode,[C6-552] and the employees and guests of the hotel where he stayed,[C6-553] were interviewed. No credible witness has been located who saw Oswald with any unidentified person while in Mexico City; to the contrary, he was observed traveling alone to and from Mexico City,[C6-554] at his hotel,[C6-555] and at the nearby restaurant where he frequently ate.[C6-556] A hotel guest stated that on one occasion he sat down at a table with Oswald at the restaurant because no empty table was available, but that neither spoke to the other because of the language barrier.[C6-557] Two Australian girls who saw Oswald on the bus to Mexico City relate that he occupied a seat next to a man who has been identified as Albert Osborne, an elderly itinerant preacher.[C6-558] Osborne denies that Oswald was beside him on the bus.[C6-559] To the other passengers on the bus it appeared that Osborne and Oswald had not previously met,[C6-560] and extensive investigation of Osborne has revealed no further contact between him and Oswald. Osborne’s responses to Federal investigators on matters unrelated to Oswald have proved inconsistent and unreliable, and, therefore, based on the contrary evidence and Osborne’s lack of reliability, the Commission has attached no credence to his denial that Oswald was beside him on the bus. Investigation of his background and activities, however, disclose no basis for suspecting him of any involvement in the assassination.[C6-561]

Investigation of the hotel at which Oswald stayed has failed to uncover any evidence that the hotel is unusual in any way that could relate to Oswald’s visit. It is not especially popular among Cubans, and there is no indication that it is used as a meeting place for extremist or revolutionary organizations.[C6-562] Investigation of other guests of the hotel who were there when Oswald was has failed to uncover anything creating suspicion.[C6-563] Oswald’s notebook which he carried with him to Mexico City contained the telephone number of the Cuban Airlines Office in Mexico City;[C6-564] however, a Cuban visa is required by Mexican authorities before an individual may enplane for Cuba,[C6-565] and a confidential check of the Cuban Airlines Office uncovered no evidence that Oswald visited their offices while in the city.[C6-566]