Chapter XXVI: Part 26

Five is next. Six is next. Seven is next. Eight is next. Nine is next. Ten is next. Eleven is next. Twelve is next. Thirteen is next. Fourteen. Fifteen. Sixteen. Seventeen. Eighteen. Nineteen. Twenty. Now, page 20 is the reverse side of the page numbered on its face 19, is it not?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; that is not correct. It is an insertion to the page that has not been numbered yet, page 21.

Mr. JENNER. But isn't it a fact that the entry on the page now numbered 20 is on the reverse side of the page numbered on its face 19?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I am sorry. You are correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. But the point you are making is that the entry on page now numbered 20 relates to page 21?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

We will now mark page 21. Twenty-two.

Mr. DULLES. What are you marking that insert as far as our copy is concerned?

Mr. JENNER. As page 20.

Mr. DULLES. Wouldn't it be better to make it 20-A?

Mr. JENNER. I thought from the record that I had made clear that page number 20 was the reverse side of page numbered on its face 19.

Mr. DULLES. All right. Just so you are clear.

Mr. JENNER. Have we covered page 22?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Twenty-three. Twenty-four. Twenty-five. Twenty-six. Twenty-seven.

As I proceeded in numbering the photostat, you placed, did you not, in your own handwriting--followed me and placed the same page numbers in your own handwriting on the pages in question as you wrote the numbers on them--the same pages--on the photostat?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Oswald, do the entries that you have made in the notebook on pages 1 through 27 now identified represent your recollection of the events recorded at the time that you recorded the events?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; they do.

Mr. JENNER. Have you had an opportunity to review those entries since they were made?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. JENNER. Have you reread any portions of any of these entries, other than or in addition to those you read to the Commission this morning?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, I now offer in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 323 the pages of the notebook which have been identified by the witness, and which have been numbered 1 through 27.

Mr. DULLES. Exhibit No. 323 will be accepted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 323 was received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, I would like to direct your attention to page 5 of your notebook.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At that point you were recording the course of events on what day?

Mr. OSWALD. Friday, November 22, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. To orient you and the Commission, the entry to which I refer, that is the paragraph, reads as follows. Follow me, please.

"Mother and I talked briefly and after about 30 minutes we were taken across the hall to where Marina and the two children were. (This was the first I knew of the new baby.) A Mrs. Paine was also present. We talked a little and shortly Mr. Paine--who the police had been talking to, came out of the office and Mrs. Paine introduced us. I did not like the appearance of Mr. Paine, nothing really to put my finger on, but I just had a feeling.

"I still do not know why or how"--what is that next word?

Mr. OSWALD. "but".

Mr. JENNER. "But Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair. Shortly thereafter Mother, Marina, and the children and the Paines left to go to the Paines' house in Irving, and I advised them I would stay there and see them tomorrow."

When you recorded "I would stay there" you mean remain in Dallas? What did you mean?

Mr. OSWALD. My full meaning there, sir, was that I would remain at the Dallas police station, and take a hotel room in Dallas, and spend the night.

Mr. JENNER. Now----

Mr. DULLES. May I ask just one question there for clarity? It refers to an office. Is that the office of the Dallas police?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. DULLES. The Dallas police station?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I take it from this entry you had not heretofore ever met either Mr. or Mrs. Paine?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And would you elaborate upon, please, your statement recorded on December 6, 1963, that you did not like the appearance of Mr. Paine "nothing really to put my finger on, but I just had a feeling. I still do not know why or how, but Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair."

Mr. OSWALD. Well, I was introduced to Mr. Paine at the Dallas police office on the night of November 22, 1963. His wife introduced us. His handshake was very weak and what I might term a live fish handshake.

Mr. JENNER. Live or dead?

Mr. OSWALD. And his general appearance, his face, and most particularly his eyes to me had what I would term a distant look to them, and that he wasn't really looking at you when he was.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Jenner, if you will, please, would you ask the witness whether he meant a live fish or a cold dead fish.

Mr. OSWALD. Sir, I believe I mean a live fish. A cold, dead fish would be stiff.

Mr. McKENZIE. All right.

Mr. JENNER. We are seeking to obtain the basis upon which you made this entry.

Mr. OSWALD. It was Mr. Paine's general appearance and the manner in which he held himself, and by this I mean the way he stood and the way he looked at you, and you had that feeling, as I stated before, that he was not really looking at you.

Mr. DULLES. You say there that Mrs. Paine introduced Mr. Paine to you. When had you previously made the acquaintance of Mrs. Paine--just before this?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. DULLES. On that same day?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And you record that in your memorandum, do you not, on a previous page?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. The fact of the introduction?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do so.

Mr. JENNER. I think the Commission would be interested further in explaining your remark "I still do not know why or how, but Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair." What did you mean by that? That is on page 6.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I just wanted to verify that this was still under my date, original entry of December 6, 1963.

At the time I wrote the statement, "I still do not know why or how, but Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair." I meant by this statement that I had gathered that after our meeting of November 22, 1963, at the Dallas police station, to the date of December 6, 1963, that Mr. Paine and Mrs. Paine were separated, and that I had read approximately at this time--and I am not sure that I had read this particular thing in the newspaper prior to December 6, 1963--but I feel like I did--that in a Dallas paper it referred to an incident at a Grand Prairie Rifle Range where some people had identified Lee as being at this rifle range, and that on one occasion a man, and the description was given in the newspaper, had handed Lee Harvey Oswald a rifle over this fence where he was standing inside the rifle range. As I read this description in the newspaper, I reached the conclusion from that description that it was Mr. Paine.

Mr. JENNER. Any other basis that you now recall upon which you predicated the statement that, "Somehow Mr. and Mrs. Paine are involved in this affair."

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; if the newspaper I read at that particular time is dated after December 6, 1963, the statement that I just read a few minutes ago, "I still do not know why or how, but Mr. and Mrs. Paine are somehow involved in this affair"--I made that statement then based on my meeting Mr. and Mrs. Paine at the Dallas police station on Friday night, November 22, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. Now, would you please describe Mr. Paine as he appeared on that particular occasion--first, his physical appearance, and then follow with how he was dressed. Give his height, weight, color of eyes and hair, as you recall them.

Mr. OSWALD. I recall Mr. Paine to be approximately 6 feet in height. I do not recall the color of his hair. He is of slender build. Perhaps I would establish his weight around 160 or 165 pounds. His facial appearance was quite drawn--and this is a conclusion on my part, because I had not met him before--he appeared to be quite drawn in the face.

His eyes, I would say, would have to me a hollow look.

Mr. JENNER. What color were his eyes?

Mr. OSWALD. I do not know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You don't presently recall?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. JENNER. You made no note of it at the time?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. JENNER. What was his complexion--ruddy, pale?

Mr. OSWALD. I would say his complexion would be ruddy complected.

Mr. JENNER. Was he clean shaven?

Mr. OSWALD. To the best of my recollection, he was, sir.

Mr. JENNER. No mustache, no beard?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What else did you notice about his appearance? How did he part his hair? Do you recall?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether he did part it?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I do not. I believe this to be correct--that I never did get any higher than looking at Mr. Paine's eyes, and I do not believe I looked at his hair or above his eyes at any time.

Mr. JENNER. How long were you with Mr. Paine on that occasion?

Mr. OSWALD. Approximately five minutes.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever seen Mr. Paine subsequently thereto?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. JENNER. On how many occasions?

Mr. OSWALD. On one other occasion, sir.

Mr. JENNER. When?

Mr. OSWALD. This would be approximately a Sunday afternoon in the middle of December 1963.

Mr. JENNER. That would be approximately a week after you made this entry?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. In the presence of Mr. Jim H. Martin, and Mr. John Thorne. We traveled from Mr. Martin's home to the Paines' house in Irving to pick up Marina's and Lee's clothes that were still there.

Mr. JENNER. Still at the Paines' home?

Mr. OSWALD. Still at the Paines' home. I saw Mr. and Mrs. Paine again on that day--I mean at that time. That was my second and only time I have ever seen them. Mr. and Mrs. Paine helped gather up the belongings of Marina and the children and Lee's personal belongings that were still there.

Mr. JENNER. To make it clear, Mr. Oswald, did Mr. Paine accompany you with Mr. Martin and Mr. Thorne to the Paine home, or did you meet Mr. Paine when you arrived there?

Mr. OSWALD. We met Mr. Paine and Mrs. Paine on our arrival at their home in Irving, Texas.

Mr. JENNER. How long were you there?

Mr. OSWALD. Approximately 45 minutes to an hour.

Mr. JENNER. How was he clothed on that occasion?

Mr. OSWALD. In a sport shirt and a pair of slacks, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And how was he clothed on the occasion that you record here on page 6?

Mr. OSWALD. I believe also at that time, sir, that he had a sport shirt on and a pair of slacks, and perhaps a sport jacket or jacket of some type.

Mr. JENNER. Was his head covered on either occasion?

Mr. OSWALD. No. sir, it was not.

Mr. JENNER. What did you notice, if anything, as to whether he had straight hair or a full head of hair on him? Was he bald?

You have already said you don't recall the color of his hair, am I correct on that?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, sir.

In referring to the second meeting of Mr. Paine and myself, in reference to his hair, I would say his hair was practically a full set of hair, dark and short.

Mr. JENNER. When you say short, you mean cut short, or a crew cut?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, just cut short.

Mr. JENNER. How do you describe your own head of hair, as to its cut? Is it cut short?

Mr. OSWALD. Presently, I would describe wearing mine at a medium length, for myself.

Mr. McKENZIE. How about Mr. Jenner's?

Mr. OSWALD. I would describe his as being in medium length.

Mr. JENNER. I think you are right.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question there?

Had you known prior to November 22d that Marina was living with Mrs. Paine?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. DULLES. You had not known that before November 22d?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, I did not.

Mr. JENNER. Did you know at the time you were introduced to Mr. Paine?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. And you had become advised in that respect by whom?

Mr. OSWALD. By Mrs. Paine.

Mr. JENNER. Are those the only two occasions you have had any contact with Mr. Paine?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Would you describe her, please?

Mr. OSWALD. A tall woman, approximately 110 pounds--and by tall I mean approximately 5 foot 11, or 6 feet in height.

Mr. JENNER. Weighing only 110 pounds?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, very slender. A slender face, also--not a full face.

Mr. JENNER. When you say also, are you now referring to Mr. Paine?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I was referring to my statement that Mrs. Paine was slender, and also that she was slender in the face.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Thank you.

Mr. OSWALD. Long hair, I believe to be brown in color.

Mr. JENNER. How did she do her hair, was it in braids?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I believe it was just hanging down long.

Mr. JENNER. When you say long, how long?

Mr. OSWALD. Shoulder height.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Oswald, would you accommodate us--not to do it now, but at noontime, if you have the time, to read through, your diary to the court reporter, because some of the writing I have difficulty interpreting. The Commission would appreciate it if you would interpret your own writing on the exhibit.

Mr. OSWALD. All right, sir. I understand that you want me to read the entire diary, is that correct?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, to the court reporter--as part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. You may proceed.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of a student were you, Mr. Oswald?

Mr. OSWALD. I believe my average in school was--if I may, sir, ask you--are you talking about my over-all average?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir, I seek only the over-all.

Mr. OSWALD. I would say a C or C-plus, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are you acquainted with the scholarship in that respect of your brother John?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I am not. I could, if you wish me to, make an opinion on what I think it would be.

Mr. JENNER. This opinion being based upon your attending school with him, as you testified yesterday?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And discussions with him back and forth between the both of you as to how you were getting along?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Common interest in your progress scholarshipwise?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your present recollection as to his scholarship?

Mr. OSWALD. That would be a C-plus or a B.

Mr. JENNER. A touch higher than yours?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have an opportunity during your lifetime to form a like opinion as to the scholarship of your brother Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. JENNER. And what was his scholarship?

Mr. OSWALD. I would say a C to a C-plus, in the same category that I place myself.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Oswald and Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Chairman, have furnished us with the originals of a series of letters and postcards which Mr. Oswald, the witness, received from his brother Lee Harvey Oswald. We have prepared photostatic copies on a Xerox machine of each of those letters, and each envelope relating to that letter. And in the case of postcards the front and reverse side of postcards.

We were further accommodated, by--yesterday afternoon following the close of the session--by sitting down with Mr. Oswald and in his presence comparing the photostatic copy of each document with the original, the original being in the possession of Mr. Oswald. And I am marking each of those documents with an exhibit number.

Mr. DULLES. Could you give us, Mr. Jenner, the first and last dates, so we have an idea of the period covered?

I have a general idea, of course.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. Two of these items are not in exact sequence, but----

Mr. DULLES. Two have been introduced already, have they not?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, I think you are right, Mr. Dulles.

Mr. JENNER. That is correct. A letter of November 8, 1959, introduced in evidence yesterday. I don't recall what the second one was, but at least----

Mr. DULLES. Were they marked at that time as exhibits?

Mr. JENNER. That was marked as an exhibit. And Mr. Liebeler has it.

The November 8 letter, Mr. Chairman, is marked Commission Exhibit No. 294, and it is in evidence.

Mr. DULLES. There was only one letter, or were there two?

Mr. JENNER. There was just one letter. I think, if you please, you have reference to a telegram, which is Exhibit No. 293.

Mr. DULLES. That is it--the telegram.

Mr. JENNER. Being a telegram dated 14 June 1962.

Mr. DULLES. And these other exhibits cover what period?

Mr. JENNER. They commence--the first, Commission Exhibit No. 295, is a letter of eight pages dated November 26, 1959, and concluding with Exhibit No. 322, a letter of two pages dated March 16, 1963.

Mr. DULLES. Were those all from Russia?

Mr. JENNER. They were all from Russia, save the letter dated March 17, 1963, being Exhibit No. 322, a letter of two pages. All the others are from Russia.

Mr. DULLES. Where was that letter from--do you recall?

Mr. JENNER. It is postmarked--the envelope "Lee H. Oswald, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas."

And the cancellation stamp likewise says Dallas, Texas.

The date is that which I have already recited.

Mr. DULLES. That was after Lee Harvey's return from the Soviet Union?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, he returned in June of 1962.

Mr. DULLES. And that letter is dated what?

Mr. JENNER. March 17, 1963.

Would you follow me, Mr. Oswald? In each instance, when we compared the letters and the envelopes, it is a fact, is it not, Mr. Oswald, that the letter in question was contained in the envelope of which we have a photostatic copy--and was received by you intact? That is, the envelope was sealed, and the letter content was in the envelope, that you personally opened the envelope and removed the letter content? That in each instance, the letter content is in the handwriting of your brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, entirely, with the exception of Commission Exhibit 299, which is a letter of three pages dated May 31, 1961, upon the last page of which there is a paragraph in the handwriting of Marina Oswald, written in the Russian language?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I take that to be Mrs. Marina Oswald's writing at that time.

Mr. JENNER. And there appears on that page following that paragraph written in Russian what purports to be an English interpretation of it?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Furthermore, that in each instance the envelope and the letter content is--are in the same condition now as they were when you received them?

Mr. McKENZIE. Except for opening.

Mr. JENNER. Except for the opening of the envelope which was necessary for you to do in order to remove the content. Is my statement correct?

Mr. OSWALD. With this exception, sir. That a number of the letters were not opened by me personally. By that, I mean my wife opened them when she received the mail at the house.

I have marked the chronological date on the front of them in the last few days.

Mr. JENNER. So that there appears on these exhibits in your handwriting a date on the envelope and in some instances on the letter content?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Which you wrote thereon, and which was not on either the envelope or the letter at the time it was received by you?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Those exhibit numbers--excuse me. There are three postcards--Commission Exhibit No. 310, dated December 11, 1961, which is a Christmas card, Commission Exhibit 319, which is a postcard dated October 10, 1962, and Commission Exhibit 321, a postcard dated April 10, 1962. Each of those was received by you in due course, Mr. Oswald, as you related to me yesterday.

I want you to confirm this. And is in the handwriting of your brother, Lee Harvey Oswald.

And except for notations of dates which appear thereon or may appear thereon in your handwriting, they are in the same condition now as when you received them?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I wish you would--I want to exhibit to you the postcard dated April 10, 1962, which is Commission Exhibit No. 321.

Mr. DULLES. As I understand it, these letters have not yet been formally introduced in evidence.

Mr. JENNER. They have not, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Very well.

I might add, Mr. McKenzie, that, of course, one does not know whether those letters were opened by the authorities in the Soviet Union before being forwarded. I think that ought to be on the record.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Commission Exhibit No. 321 I now hand you, Mr. Oswald. There is a date appearing thereon which reads, according to my interpretation 10--and then I cannot quite decipher it.

Would you look at the original, please?

Mr. DULLES. The European system of marking is different from the American system.

Mr. JENNER. That is what I seek to bring out, sir.

Do you now have the original before you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read the figures to which I point? The first is 10?

Mr. OSWALD. 10/4/62.

Mr. JENNER. Indicating what date?

Mr. OSWALD. April 10, 1962, in accordance with the European system of dating.

Mr. JENNER. Of putting the day first, the month second, and the year last?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. Do you recall whether these letters were opened by cutting or opened by unsealing?

Mr. OSWALD. I believe without exception, sir, looking at the originals, that they were opened by unsealing, rather than cutting.

Mr. DULLES. I was asking because it is sometimes possible, by modern methods, to determine whether a letter has been opened and resealed, and if the letter is cut, that can be done.

If the letter has been torn open where the seal is, you cannot do anything with it. You cannot always do this, but there are certain techniques.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Chairman, did you have reference to when Robert opened the letters?

Mr. DULLES. Well, what I had reference to is to whether if the letters were cut and not resealed, then there is a certain possibility of ascertaining whether the letter has been previously opened by a censor, and then resealed. I was just getting at that.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Dulles is interested, I see, in whether the letters had been censored in Russia before they arrived in the United States.

Mr. DULLES. That was my point.

Mr. JENNER. May I inquire of the witness on that subject further?

Mr. McKENZIE. Let me state this for the record. When Robert Oswald or his wife opened the letters, as you can plainly see from the letters here in front of you, they were either opened by letter opener--a knife or a letter opener, or just torn open.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, it is entirely possible and might even be probable that the Commission would be interested in examining the originals on this subject--that is, to determine through experts as to whether the envelopes had been opened and censored, and the contents censored, before being resealed, if they had been so opened, and dispatched to the United States. And I take it that your inquiry was directed towards that.

Mr. DULLES. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. May I inquire of Mr. McKenzie, in the light of that fact, as to whether these originals of these letters would be available to us so that we may have expert examination of them for that purpose?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir; I will make them available at any time that the Commission so desires.

And I would like further to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is my opinion, based on a reading of these letters--and I feel that Robert Oswald concurs in my opinion here--that many of the letters were censored, because the letters actually have reference to the censor in many instances. And I speak of that--the censor in the Soviet Union.

Mr. DULLES. Yes. I have not yet read the letters.

Mr. JENNER. The photostats that we have of the letters will reveal that to which Mr. McKenzie is now referring. We took the face of each envelope and in most instances of the reverse side of the envelope. And in each instance the front and reverse side of each postcard.

Mr. DULLES. And in each case I believe we will have in our records, will we not, the date when it was mailed and the date of receipt?

Mr. JENNER. To the extent that is revealed by the face and reverse side of the envelope; yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Because if you have a case where a letter takes four or five days, longer than another letter, that may mean nothing, or it may mean quite a good deal.

Mr. McKENZIE. In some instances, Mr. Chairman, it took five days to receive a letter from the Soviet Union to Fort Worth, Texas.

Mr. DULLES. That is par for the course, I guess.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

But I might also add sometimes it takes five days for a letter to get from downtown Dallas to the suburbs in Dallas, Texas.

Mr. JENNER. Now, Mr.----

Mr. OSWALD. Pardon me, sir, if I may, I would like to say something to my attorney.

Mr. JENNER. Surely.

Mr. DULLES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Proceed, Mr. Jenner.

Mr. JENNER. Would you turn to the letter of September 10, 1961, please? That is Commission Exhibit 305.

Mr. OSWALD. All right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have it?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. In addition--did anything accompany that letter in the way of photographs?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, there was.

Mr. JENNER. Is a reference made to those photographs in the letter?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; there is.

Mr. JENNER. And do you still have the photographs?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And you have them there before you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And how many are there, and what do they depict?

Mr. OSWALD. There is a total of three photographs depicting purportedly pictures in Minsk, Russia.

Mr. JENNER. Is there any handwriting on the reverse side of any of these exhibits?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; on two of the three photographs there is.

Mr. JENNER. I will mark this Exhibit as Commission Exhibit 304, the next as 304-A and the next as 304-B.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits 304 and 304-A and 304-B for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The witness now has before him a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 304, on the reverse side of which appears some handwriting.

Do you recognize that handwriting?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Whose is it?

Mr. OSWALD. I recognize it to be Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read it?

Mr. OSWALD. "Trade Union Hall on the Main Street."

Mr. JENNER. And on the opposite side on which this handwriting appears is a picture of a public building?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. I turn your attention to the document marked Commission Exhibit No. 304-A. On the reverse side of that does there appear some handwriting?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Whose handwriting is it?

Mr. OSWALD. I recognize that to be Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read it, please?

Mr. OSWALD. "A square in Minsk."

Mr. JENNER. And on the opposite side is also depicted a public building?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 304-B, does the reverse side of that exhibit contain any handwriting?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, it does not.

Mr. JENNER. The face of the exhibit, however, depicts a plaza with some public buildings?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Would you replace those photographs, please, in the envelope with the original?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, would you turn to the letter dated January 30, 1962, being Commission Exhibit No. 314?

Mr. OSWALD. All right, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any contents accompanying this letter in addition to the letter itself?

Mr. OSWALD. I believe it did contain, sir--since there is no reference within the letter itself----

Mr. JENNER. It is your recollection?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; it is my recollection that it did contain two photographs.

Mr. JENNER. Is it not a fact, sir, that when you exhibited the original of the letter, the original of the envelope, and removed the contents yesterday afternoon in my presence, that the two photographs to which you now refer were contained in the envelope?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Now, Mr. Liebeler, would you give us those A and B numbers, please?

Mr. LIEBELER. 314-A and B.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits 314-A and 314-B, for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Directing your attention to Commission Exhibit 314-A, that is a photograph, is it not?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is there handwriting on the reverse side of that photograph?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; there is.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the handwriting?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Whose is it?

Mr. OSWALD. Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. JENNER. What does it say?

Mr. OSWALD. "April 30, 1961. Marina--Lee."

Mr. JENNER. Now, turn to the face of the exhibit, do you recognize the persons depicted in that photograph?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Who are they?

Mr. OSWALD. Left to right, Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina N. Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. And is the exhibit in the same condition it was when you removed the exhibit from the envelope upon receipt of the envelope, except for the exhibit number?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Would you turn to the other exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 314-B?

And does the reverse side of that exhibit contain some handwriting?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the handwriting?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Whose is it?

Mr. OSWALD. Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. JENNER. What does it say?

Mr. OSWALD. "Marina, wedding day, April 30, 1961."

Mr. JENNER. Would you turn to the face of the exhibit. Do you recognize the person depicted on it?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Who is it?

Mr. OSWALD. Marina N. Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. Is that exhibit in the same condition now as it was when you received it and removed it from the envelope in which it was contained, being the letter dated January 30, 1962?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the series of letters which I have identified, and which the witness has confirmed, and the contents, being the now five photographs which have been identified, as Commission Exhibits Nos. 295, being a letter of eight pages, dated November 26, 1959; 296, a letter of one page--we don't have a more accurate date than the summer of 1959; 297, a letter of one page, dated December 17, 1959; 298, a letter of two pages, May 5, 1961; 299, a letter of three pages, dated May 31, 1961.

Mr. McKENZIE. Pardon me, Mr. Jenner, just a second.

The letter that you have referred to as being dated December 17, 1959, does not have a date on it. It's received December 17, 1959?

Mr. JENNER. That is in the witness' handwriting.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes; in the witness' handwriting.

Mr. JENNER. The letter itself is undated.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. The words "received" and the figures December 17, 1959, are written by you on the letter?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And is that in fact the date it was received here in America by you?

Mr. OSWALD. It was, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you for following me, Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, Exhibit 299 is the letter which contains in part the paragraph written in Russian which on its face purports to have been a notation by Marina, which we have already identified.

Exhibit 300 is a letter of two pages, dated June 26, 1961.

Exhibit 301 is a letter of two pages dated July 14, 1961.

Exhibit 302 is a letter of one page dated July 28, 1961.

Exhibit 303 is a letter of two pages dated August 21, 1961.

Exhibit 305 we have already identified. That is September 10, 1961, the letter of three pages which contain the pictures of the public buildings and plaza in Minsk, Russia.

Exhibit 306 is a letter of two pages dated October 22, 1961.

Exhibit 307 is a letter of three pages dated November 20, 1961.

Mr. McKENZIE. Pardon me just a second, Mr. Jenner. Don't you have one dated November 1, 1961?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, it is out of order. I will reach it in due course. I am correct that there is a letter of three pages dated November 20, 1961?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 308 is a letter of two pages dated November 30, 1961.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 309 is a letter of two pages dated November 1, 1961. That is the one to which you have reference.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 310 is a Christmas card dated December 11, 1961.

It is contained in an envelope, I believe.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. JENNER. Is my statement correct?

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 311 is a letter of two pages dated December 14, 1961.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 312 is a letter of one page dated December 20, 1961.

Mr. McKENZIE. December 20, 1961?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McKENZIE. Three pages?

Mr. JENNER. One page.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 313 is a letter of two pages dated January 5, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. January 5, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 314 is a letter of three pages which we have identified, dated January 30, 1962, and contains the two photographs, one of Marina on the wedding day and then one of both of them on their wedding day.

Exhibit 315 is a letter of three pages dated February 15, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 316 is a letter of two pages dated March 9, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 317 is a letter of two pages, dated April 12, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. Again, on the letter of March 9, 1962, the date on that letter is the date written by Robert Oswald the day he received that letter. The letter itself is actually undated. But the envelope is dated by Robert Oswald.

Mr. JENNER. That is correct, Mr. Oswald?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And is the envelope postmarked?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. JENNER. And the postmark is----

Mr. OSWALD. March 9, 1962, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you.

Mr. DULLES. That is date of receipt?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 317 is a letter of two pages dated April 12, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 318 is a letter of two pages dated May 22, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 319 is the front and reverse side of a postcard dated October 10, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. No, sir. April 10, 1962.

Mr. JENNER. That is the postcard the witness----

Mr. McKENZIE. Has previously identified as being in the European tradition of dating.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit 320 is a letter of one page dated November 11, 1962. Or is that '61? Would you check me on that, please?

Mr. McKENZIE. I don't find that. Is it a letter or a postcard?

That is November 11. That should be November 17, 1962. The photocopy did not pick up all of it. And if you would like for us, we will change that to November 17. It should be November 17th.

Mr. JENNER. Would you make that change, please, in ink.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is Exhibit No. 320.

Mr. JENNER. Commission Exhibit No. 320, a letter of one page, the original dated November 17th. What year?

Mr. McKENZIE. Just November 17th. But the postmark shows it was dated November 18, 1962.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 321 is a postcard dated April 10, 1962.

Mr. OSWALD. To which you have previously referred.

Mr. JENNER. Have we got a duplication?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are Exhibits 319 and 321 duplicates?

Mr. McKENZIE. I would have to look at the exhibit. I have the original here in front of me.

Mr. JENNER. They are different exhibits.

Mr. McKENZIE. This is Exhibit 321.

The other one is this one you have here, and it is dated October 10, 1962.

Mr. JENNER. All right. To make sure the record is clear, Mr. Chairman--Exhibit No. 319, which is a postcard, is cancelled on its face at Dallas on the 10th day of October 1962, and it reads on the other side, "Dear Robert, for the new address you can write to Box 2915, Dallas, Texas. Also please stop by the house and collect any mail which may have come in before the post office had a chance to change my address to Dallas." And then in the center of the card "Lee", with two X marks. Is that correct?

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Now, that is Exhibit 319.

Now, Exhibit 321----

Mr. DULLES. Let me see. I would like to straighten that out.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 321 is the postcard dated April 10, 1962.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I had marked the exhibits correctly.

Mr. McKENZIE. And I concur in that remark.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 322 is a letter of two pages dated March 17, 1963.

Mr. McKENZIE. Dated March 16, 1963. It is postmarked the 17th, but dated March 16, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence as Commission Exhibits, Exhibits 295 through 322, both inclusive, the documents that have been marked with the exhibit numbers so indicated, including the sub-exhibit numbers on the photographs which have been heretofore identified.

Mr. DULLES. They may be received.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits 295 through 322, inclusive, and received in evidence.)

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Jenner, if I may, I would like to say something for the purpose of the record.

Robert Oswald has brought these exhibits voluntarily. They are at the Commission's convenience at any time. We do not know whether or not they have been censored in Russia, but we are confident that they were, because some of the letters refer to the censor in Russia.

Mr. JENNER. That will appear, Mr. Chairman, from the photostats of the exhibits as offered in evidence.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, Mr. McKenzie, among the original postcards and letters which you produced for us is a postcard dated January 13----

Mr. McKENZIE. January 10th.

Mr. JENNER. January 10, 1963. And may I have that, please?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, sir; you may.

Mr. JENNER. That will be marked as Commission Exhibit No. 324.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 324 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Does the witness have the original before him?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Examining Commission Exhibit No. 324, which purports to be a postcard, it is in fact a postcard, is it not?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recognize the handwriting on the face and reverse side of that postcard?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. JENNER. Whose handwriting is it?

Mr. OSWALD. Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive that postcard in due course or about the cancellation date appearing on the face of the card?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. And that cancellation date is January 13, 1963, is it not?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; that is not correct. It is January 10, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. This photostat makes a 10 look like a 13.

This postcard was written to you, sent to you by your brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, thanking you for a Christmas gift, was it not?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And is the postcard in the same condition now as it was when you received it?

Mr. OSWALD. Exactly, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 324 the document which we have so marked.

Mr. DULLES. It may be received.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 324 was received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. We will return, Mr. Oswald, to the period about which inquiries were made of you by Representative Ford and Representative Boggs yesterday. That is, you had testified, as you will recall, of efforts on the part of your mother to reach your brother by telephone in Russia when news reached America of his alleged defection. I am merely seeking to orient you at the moment.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Mr. JENNER. In due course, you received a letter communication from him, did you not?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Including the letter of November 8, 1959, about which I questioned you yesterday.

Now, I wish to proceed to the next letter, which is the letter of November 26, 1959, a rather long letter.

As a matter of fact, it consists of eight pages.

Would you get that letter before you, please?

Mr. OSWALD. All right, sir.

I have the letter before me now, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you will note from the letter that it purports to be, and from its contents it is indicated that your brother Lee is responding to correspondence that he had in turn received from you.

I ask you this question first.

As to all of these letters which you have now identified this morning, or substantially all of them, had you been in correspondence with your brother in the sense that you also wrote him?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did you by any chance happen to retain a copy of, or copies of any of the letters you sent him?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, I did not.

Mr. JENNER. So that at the moment we would have to call solely on your recollection as to what you might have written during this period of time while he was in Russia?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. You made no copies of the letters yourself when you sent them--you just sent an original? There was no copy?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, no copies were made.

Mr. JENNER. I suggested that you might, during the evening, read the letter of November 26th so as to refresh your recollection as to whether you had written him posing questions to which he responded. Have you had that opportunity?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I have not had that opportunity to read this letter.

Mr. JENNER. I would prefer to pass this letter, then, Mr. Chairman, until the witness does have an opportunity to read it. Would you try and do so at your first opportunity?

Mr. OSWALD. All right, sir.

Mr. McKENZIE. It won't take but a minute here to do it.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. We will recess for lunch at this time.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT EDWARD LEE OSWALD RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 1:15 p.m.

Mr. DULLES. You may proceed, Mr. Jenner.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Oswald, I have asked you--may I inquire of you whether during the noon hour recess you have read Commission Exhibit 295, which is a letter of November 26, 1959, from your brother to you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. JENNER. And have you also read the letter that preceded that one, to wit, the letter of November 8, 1959, which is to you from your brother, which is Commission Exhibit No. 294?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. JENNER. Now, Mr. Chairman, the letter of November 8, which is the earlier of these two letters--this was written by Lee Harvey Oswald shortly after he arrived in Moscow in 1959. In substance, he said in the letter that he supposed his brother Robert, the witness here, did not wish to speak of his decision, that is, of Lee Harvey Oswald's decision to remain in the Soviet Union and apply for citizenship there, since Robert would not be able--and now I quote--"to comprehend my reasons"--that is Lee Harvey Oswald's reasons. "You really don't know anything about me. Do you know for instance, that I have wanted to do this for well over a year? Do you know that I speak a fair amount of Russian, which I have been studying for months?"

The letter also said that he would not leave the Soviet Union under any conditions, and would never return to the United States, "which is a country I hate." He made reference to the fact that he received a telegram from Robert in which Robert had apparently said that he thought Lee "was making a mistake."

Now, directing your attention to the November 8 letter first, would you please state your reaction when you read that letter?

(At this point the letters of November 8, 1959 and November 26, 1959 were physically set forth in the transcript of testimony. In order to achieve consistency in the handling of the exhibits upon the printing of the testimony, those letters are not reproduced in the printed transcript. They are reproduced in the exhibit section as Commission Exhibits Nos. 294 and 295.)

Mr. OSWALD. I recall my reactions to this letter, sir. It was something I more or less expected in general, since this was, more or less in general what the newspapers had been publishing.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the only reason you make that remark--that you had expected it in general solely because of what you read in the newspapers, or had there been any other factor that led you to have that expectation?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; there was no other factor that led be to believe that anything like this was going to happen prior to the happening. My reaction to the letter, as I have stated, was solely in general expecting from what I read in the newspaper that the letter would be something of this nature when I did hear from him.

Mr. JENNER. Had you had any conversation prior thereto during your lifetime and that of your brother Lee in which he expressed his views of the character that he wrote in this letter of November 8, 1959?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; I most certainly did not.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever discussed with him, in any conversation between you and your brother Lee, with or without your brother John present or your mother, in which his feeling toward or reaction to the government of the United States had been discussed?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; at no time, as I stated yesterday, have we ever discussed politics, and most assuredly I did not have any inclination in any degree that anything of this nature was in his mind.

Mr. JENNER. So the views expressed by your brother in the letter of November 8 came to you as a complete surprise?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; with the qualification that this is what I expected after reading the newspapers.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question there.

When your brother left, after that short stay following his service in the Marine Corps, did you know that he was going to Russia--did he say anything to you about going to Russia at that time?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; he did not.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say to you as to his plans?

Mr. OSWALD. That he was going to New Orleans, Louisiana, to visit my Aunt Lillian.

Mr. JENNER. Your Aunt Lillian whom?

Mr. OSWALD. Murret.

Mr. JENNER. The family you identified yesterday--the Murret branch of your family?

Mr. OSWALD. I don't recall identifying them.

Mr. JENNER. There was one occasion yesterday.

Mr. OSWALD. All right. Yes, sir; that is correct. And that he was----

Mr. JENNER. That is an Aunt on which side--your father's or mother's?

Mr. OSWALD. My mother's side. And that he was going to visit with them, and at the same time find a job in New Orleans, and make his home in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Mr. JENNER. Did he give you any indication at any time during his stay--this was in Fort Worth?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. During his stay in Fort Worth, upon his return and discharge from the service, and while he was there, that gave you any indication whatsoever of any intention on his part to leave the country?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; none whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Whether he was going to go to Europe, Russia, or anywhere else?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. The only information he gave me was that he was going only to New Orleans, Louisiana, from Fort Worth, Texas.

Mr. JENNER. Did you spend a good deal of time with him while he was in Fort Worth, Texas, in this interim period?

Mr. OSWALD. Approximately one day out of the two or three days he was there.

Mr. JENNER. Are you suggesting that most of your contact with him during this period was on one of those days, or that the total amount of time that you spent with him during that period aggregated one day?

Mr. OSWALD. I believe, sir, that I at least talked to him on the telephone on one day, and then the next day he spent the day at our home.

Mr. JENNER. And that is the day that you went off hunting, which you testified about yesterday?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And never during any of the contact that you had with him did he imply or state directly that he had any contemplation of a trip which would take him out of the United States?

Mr. OSWALD. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. You didn't know about his having applied for a new passport?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, I did not know he applied for any passport.

Mr. JENNER. During the day that he visited you, did your mother visit at your home on that day?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; she did not.

Mr. JENNER. At any time during the period between his discharge from the Marines and his arrival in Fort Worth, and his departure, was there any occasion on which both you, your mother, and your brother Lee were together?

Mr. OSWALD. None that I recall, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any discussion between you at any time during that period of the reason, if any special reason, for his discharge from the Marine Corps, earlier than he might have been discharged in normal course, which as I understand would have been in December of that year?

Mr. OSWALD. I believe, sir, we had a brief discussion on that.

Mr. JENNER. Who initiated it?

Mr. OSWALD. I feel certain like I did.

Mr. JENNER. And what did you do? Ask him--just tell us what you asked him. And why you were curious, if you were.