Chapter XXVIII: Part 28

Mr. SPECTER. Would you pass that to me, sir, so that I may mark that as a Commission Exhibit, and then I will ask you to identify it, please?

Mr. Chief Justice, may I mark as Commission Exhibit No. 400 a document?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be marked.

(The document was marked Commission Exhibit No. 400 for identification.)

Mr. SPECTER. I will ask Doctor Finck to describe it for us, please.

Colonel FINCK. This is a scheme which I prepared before the 22d of November. It is a teaching scheme, but it applies to the case in discussion. It will be of help in understanding how I could identify the entrance and the exit by examination of bone. "A" represents the bony portion of the skull. "B" represents the cavity of the head, the cranial cavity. "C" represents the entrance and "D" represents the exit. The arrows indicate the missile path.

This scheme is based upon observation of through and through wounds of bone, and the same differences apply to a pane of glass. The surface struck first by the missile in relation to the surface struck next by the missile, this one, shows a smaller diameter, which means that if you look at the route of entrance in this case here, C, from the outside you will not see a crater. If you examine it from the inside, you will see a crater corresponding to the bevelling, coning, shelving, previously described by Commander Humes.

In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone.

Mr. SPECTER. Relating then your evaluation of the situation with respect to President Kennedy, and turning to Commission Exhibit No. 388, what is your opinion as to whether point A is a wound of entrance or exit?

Colonel FINCK. My opinion as regards Exhibit 388, letter A, is that this wound is the wound of entrance.

Mr. SPECTER. And what are the characteristics of that wound which lead you to that conclusion?

Colonel FINCK. The characteristics were that seen from the inside of the skull, I could see a beveling in the bone, a beveling that could not be seen when the wound was seen from outside the skull.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other individual characteristics that led you to conclude A was the wound of entrance?

Colonel FINCK. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you present when the three pieces of scalp were reconstructed to form the major portion of the absent part of President Kennedy's skull which Doctor Humes described?

Colonel FINCK. I was present when several portions of bone were brought.

Mr. SPECTER. And what did you observe, if anything, as to a reconstructed hole from those three portions of skull?

Colonel FINCK. May I refer to my scheme?

Mr. SPECTER. Please do.

Colonel FINCK. For the sake of demonstration.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine.

Colonel FINCK. At the level of the wound of exit, E, in my scheme, Commission Exhibit No. 400, when viewed from the inside of the skull, there was no crater, whereas when the wound is seen from the outside of the skull, there was beveling, cratering, or coning--this is possible to determine an exit even if only a portion of the bone is submitted, for the reason that if there was enough bone submitted, there is enough curvature to identify the inside and outside of the skull. Therefore the fragment, to give you an example, this portion at the level of the wound of exit can be oriented, and the outer surface of the skull and the inner surface of the skull may be identified due to the curvature.

And then you look at the direction of the beveling and you do see the beveling when looking from the outside and you can identify an exit wound. And that is what I did, and now I am referring to the actual case in discussion, Commission Exhibit 388.

Mr. SPECTER. That is B?

Colonel FINCK. Letter B. We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on your observations and conclusions, was President Kennedy shot from the front, rear, side or what?

Colonel FINCK. President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest dimension of which was approximately 13 centimeters.

Mr. SPECTER. And as to angle, was he shot from below, from level, from above, or what, in your opinion?

Colonel FINCK. In my opinion, the angle can be determined only approximately due to the fact that the wound of entrance is fairly small and could give enough precision in the determination of the path, but the dimension of the wound of exit, letter B of Exhibit 388, is so large that we can only give an approximate angle. In my opinion, the angle was within 45 degrees from the horizontal plane.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that to say that there was a 45-degree angle of declination from the point of origin to the point of impact, from the point of origin of the bullet where the bullet came from a gun until the point where it struck President Kennedy?

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you mean was he shot from above or below.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Colonel FINCK. I think I can only state, sir, that he was shot from above and behind.

Mr. SPECTER. At this time I move for admission into evidence Exhibit 400, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document was marked Commission Exhibit No. 400 for identification, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. As to Exhibit 385, Dr. Finck, was point C a point of entry or a point of exit, in your opinion?

Colonel FINCK. In my opinion point C of Commission's Exhibit 385 is a wound of entrance.

Mr. SPECTER. And what is the basis for that conclusion?

Colonel FINCK. The basis for that conclusion is that this wound was relatively small with clean edges. It was not a jagged wound, and that is what we see in wound of entrance at a long range.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you present here today and did you hear the entire testimony of Doctor Humes?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. And do you concur in Dr. Humes' statements and opinions regarding the point of entry C, point of exit D, and general angle on the flight of the missile?

Colonel FINCK. I certainly do.

Mr. SPECTER. Then from what direction was President Kennedy shot on entry point C?

Colonel FINCK. From behind and above.

Mr. SPECTER. Were the bullets used dumdum bullets, in your opinion, Dr. Finck?

Colonel FINCK. In what wound, sir?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, start with the head wound, or the back wound, either one.

Colonel FINCK. In all the wounds considered, on the basis of the aspect of the wound of entrance, dumdum bullets were not used.

Mr. SPECTER. And what characteristics of dumdum bullets were absent, in your opinion--in your evaluation of these wounds?

Colonel FINCK. I would expect more jagged, more irregular and larger wounds of entrance than described in this case.

Representative FORD. With a dumdum bullet?

Colonel FINCK. With a dumdum bullet.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the question of likelihood of Governor Connally having been wounded in the back and chest with the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy in 385, what reduction would there be, if any, in the velocity, considering the relative positions of the two men in the automobile as reflected in photograph, Exhibit 398?

Colonel FINCK. Of course, to reach precise figures we would need experiments and similar circumstances with the same type ammunition at the same distance through two human cadavers, which I did not do.

On the basis that if we assume that this is one bullet going through President Kennedy's body and also through Governor Connally's body, the reduction of velocity would be of some extent after passing through President Kennedy's body, but not having hit bones, the reduction in velocity, after going through President Kennedy's body, would be minimal.

Mr. SPECTER. Would there be sufficient force then to inflict the wound which Dr. Humes described from the Parkland Hospital records as having been inflicted on Governor Connally's back and chest?

Colonel FINCK. There would be enough energy to go through the body of the Governor.

Mr. SPECTER. In expressing your opinion on that subject, Doctor Finck, have you taken into account the assumptions on distance, that we are dealing here with a weapon that has a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of slightly in excess of 2,000, and that the vehicle carrying these two individuals was approximately 150, about 150 feet away from the site of origin of the missile?

Colonel FINCK. At this range, a bullet of this velocity loses very little velocity, and keeps upon impact a large amount of kinetic energy.

Mr. SPECTER. You heard the whole of Doctor Humes' testimony, did you not?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything that you would like to add to what he said?

Colonel FINCK. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Or would you like to modify his testimony in any way?

Colonel FINCK. No.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you subscribe to the observations and procedures which he outlined during the course of his testimony?

Colonel FINCK. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. As having been conducted on President Kennedy?

Colonel FINCK. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. And do you share the opinions which he expressed in their entirety in the course of his testimony here today?

Colonel FINCK. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You might be seated, Colonel.

Mr. McCLOY. Just as truthful seated as standing.

Representative FORD. How many cases did you investigate to develop this theory shown by Commission Exhibit 400?

Colonel FINCK. Among the more than 400 cases I have reviewed, several of them--I cannot give you an exact figure, I do not tabulate them, but many of them had through and through wounds of the skull as well as of flat bones, as, for instance, the sternum, the bone we have in front of our chest, and this would apply also to a through and through wound of the sternum. I have cases like that.

There was a specific case in which I was able to identify the entrance at the level of the sternum on the same basis as the criteria I have given for the skull. Whenever a bullet goes through a flat bone, it will produce that beveling, that cratering, shelving, and that I have seen in numerous cases.

Representative FORD. Is this a generally accepted theory in the medical profession?

Colonel FINCK. Yes, sir; it is. Am I allowed to quote a standard textbook?

The CHAIRMAN. You may; yes sir.

Colonel FINCK. The textbook of legal medicine, pathology and toxicology by Gonzalez, Vance, Halpern and Umberger does not give a scheme like I have shown to you today, but describes similar criteria.

As you know, one of the authors of the book I mentioned is still chief medical examiner of New York City, with 20,000 medical-examiner cases a year.

Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Finck, after the path C-D described in No. 385, would that be a straight line starting with the weapon itself, or was that line deviated in any way or altered when it passed through the body of President Kennedy?

Colonel FINCK. For practical purposes line C-D is a straight line with little or no deviation, the bullet not having hit bony structures.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine Commission's Exhibit 399?

Colonel FINCK. For the first time this afternoon, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And based upon your examination of that bullet, do you have an opinion as to whether in its current condition it could have passed through President Kennedy at point C-D in 385 and then inflicted the wound in the back and chest of Governor Connally?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; I do. This is a bullet showing marks indicating the bullet was fired. The second point is that there was practically no loss of this bullet. It kept its original caliber and dimensions. There was no evidence that any major portion of the jacket was lost, and I consider this as one bullet which possibly could have gone through the wounds you described.

Mr. SPECTER. And could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388?

Colonel FINCK. Through President Kennedy's head? 388?

Mr. SPECTER. And remained intact in the way you see it now?

Colonel FINCK. Definitely not.

Mr. SPECTER. And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

Mr. SPECTER. And is the condition of Exhibit 399 consistent with the type of a wound which Doctor Humes described on Governor Connally's rib?

Colonel FINCK. Yes.

Mr. McCLOY. I have a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. McCLOY. From your examination of Exhibit 399, can you identify the caliber of that bullet?

Colonel FINCK. The caliber of this bullet, if I could measure it, but I cannot touch it.

The CHAIRMAN. We can.

Colonel FINCK. I would say it is consistent with a 6.5 mm.

Mr. McCLOY. Are you familiar with the Mannlicher 6.5 rifle?

Colonel FINCK. I am familiar with the caliber 6.5. I can draw the calibers for you on the blackboard.

Mr. McCLOY. What is the initial velocity of a 6.5 mm. bullet of that character?

Colonel FINCK. Of the order of 2,000 feet per second.

Mr. McCLOY. And you say there would not be a substantial diminution of that velocity either at the point of impact or at the point of exit?

Colonel FINCK. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. One more question, Mr. Chief Justice.

On 388, point A to B, what is your view, Dr. Finck, as to whether or not that is represented by a straight line going back to the point of origin of the weapon?

Colonel FINCK. The difficulty in interpreting the path in line A-B of Commission's Exhibit 388 is that, one, there is, as stated before, a large wound of exit, and, two, there is a secondary path as indicated by the fragments recovered. So we can have an assumption and state that the general direction, the general path, the general angle of this missile was from behind and above, and that the bullet, markedly fragmented, went out of the President's head on the right side, but that a portion of this bullet which badly fragmented was recovered within the skull.

Mr. SPECTER. In view of the impact on the skull at point A, it is unlikely to be a straight line to B all the way back to the muzzle of the weapon as it is, say, in 385 C-D, all the way back to the muzzle of the gun.

Colonel FINCK. In C-D, Commission's Exhibit 385, due to the fact that there was no fragmentation, I can say that it is a straight line from behind and above, whereas here, due to the fragmentation and to the dual path, I can't give a precise angle, but I can say that the injury is consistent with a wound produced by one bullet producing many fragments.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, have you any questions you want to ask?

Mr. McCLOY. May I ask one?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go right ahead.

Mr. McCLOY. Did you examine any of the fragments which were removed from the President's skull?

Colonel FINCK. I only saw one fragment shown to me when I arrived at Bethesda, and it was an elongated black metallic fragment, and that is the only one I saw to my recollection. I was told that it had been removed from the brain of President Kennedy in the anterior portion of his head.

Mr. McCLOY. From that bullet, that fragment, could you determine, was it sufficiently large to determine from the ballistic evidence the caliber of the bullet?

Colonel FINCK. No, sir; for the reason that to determine the caliber you need the entire bullet, or at least an entire portion. You need a portion of the bullet showing the entire diameter, and I was not shown that. I was shown a fragment which represented a very small portion of the original bullet. Therefore, at that time I could not say anything on the possible original caliber.

Mr. McCLOY. You examined no fragment which did contain those characteristics?

Colonel FINCK. No, sir; I did not see any entire bullet or bullet showing the entire diameter.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford?

Representative FORD. I believe you testified, Colonel, that you concurred in the previous testimony by Commander Humes and Commander Boswell, and that you were one of the co-authors of the autopsy. At any time during this process where you were conducting the autopsy, was there any disagreement between any one of you three, any difference of opinion as to anything involved in the autopsy?

Colonel FINCK. No, sir.

Representative FORD. There has been complete unanimity on what you saw, what you did, and what you have reported?

Colonel FINCK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. Colonel, I would like for you to look at Exhibit 388 and at the possible trajectory of the bullet which entered President Kennedy's head at A and then mark it as a possible point of exit by "out". You remember there was testimony about a portion of the bullet from point A to the place on the diagram marked "fragment" where a fragment was found. I would like to ask if it is possible that the trajectory of the bullet, from the point of origin, could have been A to this point marked "fragment" as well as from A to the place marked "out"?

Colonel FINCK. I don't think so, sir.

Senator COOPER. Why? Would you explain that answer?

Colonel FINCK. I would think that I would consider the midportion of this exit would labeled B, Exhibit 388, as the wound produced by most of the fragments and the major portions of the fragmenting bullet. This is only a small portion of it which makes me say that this is a secondary path.

Senator COOPER. What was the size of the fragment relative to the size of the missile of the 6.5 Mannlicher, fired from the 6.5 Mannlicher rifle?

Colonel FINCK. Approximately one-tenth, or even less.

Representative FORD. From your numerous case studies, is it typical for a bullet, for a missile in this circumstance as shown in 388, to fragment to the degree that this one apparently did?

Colonel FINCK. Yes, it is quite common to find a wound of exit much larger than the wound of entrance for weapons commonly used.

Representative FORD. But is it typical for the missile to fragment to the degree that this one did as shown in Exhibit 388?

Colonel FINCK. Yes; it is.

Representative FORD. Is it typical to find only a limited number of fragments as you apparently did in this case?

Colonel FINCK. This depends to a great extent on the type of ammunition used. There are many types of bullets, jacketed, not-jacketed, pointed, hollow-nosed, hollow-points, flat-nose, round-nose, all these different shapes will have a different influence on the pattern of the wound and the degree of fragmentation.

Representative FORD. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel, very much for your help.

Colonel FINCK. You are welcome, sir.

Representative FORD. May I ask just one question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; Colonel, we would like to ask just one more question.

Representative FORD. Do these two wounds represent the same or a different kind of bullet?

Colonel FINCK. You are referring to one wound and this other wound here?

Representative FORD. I am referring to the wound shown in Exhibit 388 identified as point of entry A, and wound in Exhibit 385 identified as C.

Colonel FINCK. Due to the difference in the nature of the tissue, difference in the nature of the target, it is perfectly possible that these two wounds came from the same type of bullet, that one hit bony structures and the other one did not, and that explains the differences between the patterns of these two wounds.

Representative FORD. Why one fragmented and one did not.

Colonel FINCK. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, again thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Wednesday, March 18, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. PAINE AND RUTH HYDE PAINE

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on March 18, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel; Dr. Alfred Goldberg, historian; and Charles Murray, observer.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. PAINE

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Mr. Paine, I will just read a brief statement concerning the purpose of the meeting today which is our practice.

The purpose of this hearing is to take the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Michael R. Paine. The Commission has been advised that Mr. and Mrs. Paine made the acquaintance of the Oswalds during 1963, and that Mrs. Marina Oswald lived in the Paine home from late September 1963 up to the time of the assassination.

Since the Commission is inquiring fully into the background and possible motive of Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, it intends to ask the above witnesses questions concerning Mr. Oswald, his associations and relations with others, as well as questions concerning any and all matters relating to the assassination.

You have been furnished a copy of this, have you not?

Mr. PAINE. I have seen something to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seen it.

Very well, will you rise and raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. PAINE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated; Mr. Liebeler will propound the questions to you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your name, please?

Mr. PAINE. Michael R. Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. And your address?

Mr. PAINE. 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving, Tex.

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

Mr. PAINE. June 25, 1928.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where?

Mr. PAINE. New York City.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us briefly your educational background, where you attended schools?

Mr. PAINE. I went to school, high school in New York, went to 2 years of Harvard and a year of Swarthmore, I have not finished college.

Mr. DULLES. What class would you have been in Swarthmore?

Mr. PAINE. 1953.

Mr. DULLES. You would have been 1953 if you finished or did you finish?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not.

Mr. DULLES. Excuse me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are presently married, are you not?

Mr. PAINE. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your wife's name is?

Mr. PAINE. Ruth Hyde Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have two children?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us who your parents are.

Mr. PAINE. Lyman Paine is my father and Ruth Forbes Paine Young, or Young is her present name. Mrs. Arthur Young now. She is my mother.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where is your father living at the present time?

Mr. PAINE. He is in Los Angeles.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your mother?

Mr. PAINE. Philadelphia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any brothers and sisters?

Mr. PAINE. I have a brother in Baltimore.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is his name?

Mr. PAINE. Cameron Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER. By whom are you presently employed?

Mr. PAINE. Bell Helicopter, Fort Worth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a security clearance in connection with your work at Bell Helicopter?

Mr. PAINE. I suppose it is. I don't happen to know what the classification is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you work prior to working for Bell Helicopter?

Mr. PAINE. I worked in Pennsylvania for Arthur Young.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the nature of your employment with Mr. Young?

Mr. PAINE. I had set up a shop in his barn and started work for myself and then he employed me making models, helicopter models for himself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately at what time, what period of time did you work for Mr. Young?

Mr. PAINE. That is very difficult to say. I began more or less gradually first. I was doing other things. I am very vague about the dates.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the year approximately?

Mr. PAINE. I suppose I went to work at Bell in 1958. I have been there 4-1/2 years.

Mr. DULLES. Is this Mr. Young your stepfather?

Mr. PAINE. That is right

Mr. LIEBELER. And you worked for him immediately prior to your going to Bell Helicopter?

Mr. PAINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to working for Mr. Young, did you have any other employment?

Mr. PAINE. I think I came from the Army. Before that I worked at Bartol Research Foundation in Swarthmore.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were going to tell us what that was.

Mr. PAINE. That was mostly a job of setting up a laboratory to--was nuclear research laboratory, Van Der Graaf generators it had there.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the nature of your work with Bartol?

Mr. PAINE. Mostly all the work in making those machines, setting those machines so they would run; making counters, coincidence counters, instrumentation to operate the machine.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you work for Bartol?

Mr. PAINE. That was just about a year, I believe.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to that did you have any other employment?

Mr. PAINE. No, that was Swarthmore.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever work for the Griswold Manufacturing Co.

Mr. PAINE. Oh, I did; yes. That was after--well, after the Army. I think it was only a few months, I don't remember when it fitted in.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the nature of your work with that company?

Mr. PAINE. That was very boring. It was engraving precision scales.

Mr. LIEBELER. You worked in the actual engraving of the scales?

Mr. PAINE. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the nature of your work with Bell Helicopter at the present time?

Mr. PAINE. I am called a research engineer. I work in a lab and design and build and test models of new concepts of helicopter configurations.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you been engaged in that type of work for Bell throughout the entire time you have been employed by them?

Mr. PAINE. I have been in the research laboratory research group that long. It has all been problems----

Mr. DULLES. Are you a helicopter pilot by any chance yourself?

Mr. PAINE. I am an airplane pilot.

Mr. LIEBELER. But your work basically for Bell has been in the research of design and operation of helicopters?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances under which you met your wife and subsequently married her?

Mr. PAINE. I met her at a folk dance party, folk dance meeting, and I had known her for about 2 years before we married.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet her approximately?

Mr. PAINE. We were married, I think, in 1958, it was the end of the year so maybe it was 1957. What was the question again?

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately when you met her.

Mr. PAINE. Two years before that would be, 1957.

Mr. LIEBELER. 1956 or 1957.

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)

Mr. LIEBELER. We understand that you are a Quaker, Mr. Paine, is that correct?

Mr. PAINE. That is not quite correct.

When I was in Philadelphia, I sang in various churches, and Ruth being a Quaker, started going to Quaker meetings. Had I remained there I would have become a Quaker. Moving to Texas there was a very small Quaker community, and I joined the Unitarian Church after a while.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become interested in the Quaker religion; was it about the time you met your wife or was it before that.

Mr. PAINE. No; I think she was instrumental in bringing me into that circle.

Mr. LIEBELER. Give us a brief description of the outside interests that you and your wife and that your wife had during the time subsequent to your meeting and until the time you left Philadelphia. Was she active in church activities?

Mr. PAINE. No; I wouldn't say so. She was active in the Young Friends Committee of North America which was making an effort to bring a group of Russians on tour of this country. It was in the first flush or enthusiasm of East-West contacts, and after a couple of years they did succeed in bringing those Russians on tour. That was the beginning of her interest in Russian, learning the Russian language. I think that was her only activity that I am aware of or remember right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether your wife engaged in a writing campaign or a pen pal campaign between people in the United States and people in the Soviet Union?

Mr. PAINE. That was another part of this East-West contacts committee's duties or tasks they took upon themselves and I think she was chairman, accepted the chairmanship of that committee.

For a while, it was almost moribund, very inactive.

Mr. DULLES. Which committee was that, the committee to stimulate letters between Russia and the United States?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; to find names and addresses on each side to connect people together.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you yourself ever take part in any activity of that group?

Mr. PAINE. No; I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You spoke of the East-West contacts committee as being active in trying to bring a group of Russians to the United States. Did they engage in any activities other than this attempt to bring Russians to the United States that you know of?

Mr. PAINE. That is the only one I know of, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they succeed in bringing some Russians to the United States?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; they did. They brought three Russians, and then the Russians reciprocated by taking a group of Quakers who knew Russian on a tour of Russia.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you married to Ruth Hyde Paine at the time these Russian people came to the United States under the auspices of the East-West contacts committee?

Mr. PAINE. I might have been; I don't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether she actively participated in the program to bring the Russians to the United States?

Mr. PAINE. Well, she participated insofar as going to the meetings. I don't believe she did most of the writing to the State Department and what-not to try to arrange clearances and itineraries and things like that, but she was at the meetings at which those things were discussed.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever discuss them with you in any detail?

Mr. PAINE. We, I would often--I went to several of those meetings myself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know the names of any of the Russians who came to the United States in connection with this program?

Mr. PAINE. I might recognize them if I saw them again, but right now the names have escaped me.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say there were just three of them?

Mr. PAINE. I think there were three; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a member of the American Civil Liberties Union?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you become a member of that organization?

Mr. PAINE. I suppose you become a member as soon as you contribute money, and I may have contributed money a good many years back. I didn't start going to a meeting of the organization until I was--I have only been to about four perhaps, in Dallas, four meetings.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is Dallas the only place you have attended meetings of the ACLU?

Mr. PAINE. To my knowledge.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you acquainted with an organization known as the Friends Peace Committee?

Mr. PAINE. It is a familiar name. I guess not, though. I don't think I have been to a meeting of theirs.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if it is connected in any way with the Young Friends Committee of North America.

Mr. PAINE. I take it to be a Friend, you know, a Quaker committee but I believe it is connected.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Dennis Jamison, who I believe is active in the Friends Peace Committee?

Mr. PAINE. I don't think so.

Mr. LIEBELER. Or George Lakey?

Mr. PAINE. For practical purposes; no. The names seem a little familiar but I can't place them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any recollection of the connection in which it is familiar to you?

Mr. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with the Committee for Non-Violent Action?

Mr. PAINE. Many of these things sound familiar. I don't--I really am saying no.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you a member or have you ever attended any meetings of the John Birch Society?

Mr. PAINE. I am not a member. I have been to one or, I guess chiefly one meeting of theirs.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where was that?

Mr. PAINE. That was in Dallas?

Mr. LIEBELER. When?

Mr. PAINE. That was the night Stevenson spoke in Dallas.

The CHAIRMAN. When?

Mr. PAINE. The night Stevenson spoke in Dallas, U.N. Day.

Representative FORD. Was that 1963?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the circumstances of your attendance at that meeting and what happened?

Mr. PAINE. I had been seeking to go to a Birch meeting for some time, and then I was invited on this night so I went. It was an introductory meeting.

Mr. DULLES. On the 9th of November?

Mr. PAINE. It was November something, I don't know what, a Wednesday or Thursday night.

Mr. LIEBELER. For the record I think the record should indicate that Mr. Stevenson was in Dallas on or about October 24, 1963. Who invited you to this meeting?

Mr. PAINE. I had tried once before to go to a meeting which didn't occur. There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying--so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. I suppose, I don't remember for certain but I suppose she was the one who told me where and when.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did this meeting have anything to do with the activity that occurred at Mr. Stevenson's meeting in Dallas?

Mr. PAINE. No. You see they were taking place at the same time. It was rather sparsely attended, most of them were down spitting on Stevenson.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Birch meeting which you were down to was sparsely attended?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Representative FORD. Was this an evening meeting or afternoon?

Mr. PAINE. This is evening.

Representative FORD. Evening.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask, did you go out of curiosity rather than sympathy or rather how did you happen to go?

Mr. PAINE. I am not in sympathy.

Mr. DULLES. So I gathered.

Mr. PAINE. I have been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas. I was interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left; there isn't much liberal out there and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears--and be familiar with their feelings and attitudes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there any discussion at this meeting as far as you can recall of Mr. Stevenson's appearance in Dallas?

Mr. PAINE. No; I don't believe there was any.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there any discussion of the policy of the Kennedy administration?

Mr. PAINE. There was no discussion at that meeting. It was a 2- or 3-hour lecture on a movie by Welch, and then a young man gave a few more explanations about the organization. It was mostly an introductory meeting. I think for newcomers.

Mr. LIEBELER. Telling them about the John Birch Society itself?

Mr. PAINE. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Welch was not there, was he?

Mr. PAINE. No; he was not.

Representative FORD. Was this a movie in which he participated?

Mr. PAINE. He was the speaker at a lectern in this movie.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any knowledge of the political attitudes or activities of your father, George Lyman Paine?

Mr. PAINE. I have very little specific knowledge of what he does.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what you do know about your father's political activities?

Mr. PAINE. I have seen my father rather rarely. Since I have been in Texas, I have seen him more frequently. I think I have been out there three times now in the last 5 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you say out there--you mean Los Angeles?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; I have seen him twice. He was out to Texas. I have been to Los Angeles twice, and he came at least once to Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please fix the time when you went to Los Angeles?

Mr. PAINE. Last summer, 2 weeks in August or something. I was there for 3 days, the first, the middle of August.

I would guess it was about 2 years before that that I had been there. I could be off by a year both ways. I can't even remember whether he came--I think he probably interspersed his visit between mine.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall that he visited Irving on two different occasions, once in Christmas, 1962?

Mr. PAINE. One was a Christmas party, that is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And once in the summer of 1961.

Mr. PAINE. I don't remember '61. I do remember pictures now, we have pictures showing us outside so that was balmy weather.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that in the period that you have been living in Texas you have gone to Los Angeles on two different occasions and visited your father there and he has been in Irving on two different occasions, is that correct?

Mr. PAINE. That seems, I think, to be right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you go on and tell us what you know about your father's political activities?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Well, we would have to go back to a little to when I lived in New York as a school student in school, grammar school and high school. There I would see him very infrequently considering our close proximity and the fact that I found him stimulating and I liked him.

He took me to a few, one or possibly two, Communist meetings at my considerable insistence. He didn't urge this upon me. I wanted to go, to get the feeling of the--I asked him what he did or something and I wanted to know all this, my mother said he was on the radical left.

So, I went to a few of those meetings, and didn't--was unfamiliar with the issues and questions they were debating. I got the feeling, I came away with the impression, that these people, there were three Communist groups apparently in New York at the time, and they were most up in arms with each other, or there----

Mr. DULLES. Excuse me, how old were you at this time approximately?

Mr. PAINE. This was somewhere from eighth grade to high school.

Mr. DULLES. Yes.

Representative FORD. What year about, what time span would that be?

Mr. PAINE. Well 1947, I think I got out of high school, so it is 1943 to 1947.

Then I didn't--I got the flavor of those meetings. I found sort of an intense people, people of high intensity. I didn't feel very much at home there, and I guess I didn't go to any more.

Mr. DULLES. Did they try to recruit you at all or to get you to be a member or attend or join meetings?

Mr. PAINE. No; they were glad to meet Lyman's son. That is he would introduce me to friends or people he knew there, and I liked--I had some favorable attitudes to the zeal of the group or the zeal of the assembled people.

They were fully committed to what they believed in. I had my own dreams of how I would like to see society at the time and it wasn't along the same line.

So, I felt happy to have them there and I would go my course and just--I didn't feel opposed to them; neither did I feel drawn to them, although I tried to read some of Das Kapital at that time and Communist manifesto.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever join any of these organizations?

Mr. PAINE. Well, I didn't know of any organization as such.

I went to this meeting in downtown New York. I didn't know--so therefore I knew three groups. Maybe it was the Socialist group and the Stalinist group and I think the group that Lyman was in, I don't know, maybe he was a Socialist.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which was the second group, was it the Stalinist?

Mr. PAINE. I mentioned the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky, was the only name I remember aside from Stalin, was a name I remember there, and I can't now remember whose side who was on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any clear recollection of what particular group your father was associated with?

Mr. PAINE. No; I never had--never knew what the name of any group he might be associated with.

Now, I suppose it was Trotsky. Trotskyite was a different distinct group at that time. They probably wouldn't be mentioning their own group. They would be mentioning their opponent's group.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to your attendance at the meetings of these groups at the time you have spoken of did you ever attend any other meetings of similar groups either in New York or any other place?

Mr. PAINE. I can't remember anything of a similar nature.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know of your father ever using any aliases?

Mr. PAINE. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not familiar with the name Thomas L. Brown or Lyman Pierce?

Mr. PAINE. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was the----

Mr. PAINE. I was aware that my father didn't talk readily about his affairs. When we met we would talk at great length and we always do talk. There is an amazing similarity in our natures. I have almost thought there was one person trying to live in two bodies.

But we have always been completely absorbed in subjects that were closer to my--without going into what he was doing day to day or what he was--I was aware that I didn't know, and I didn't pry or probe as to what he might be doing there.

Mr. LIEBELER. So far as you know, however, he was actively participating in the meetings and activities of this group?

Mr. PAINE. Oh, yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that your father and mother were divorced when you were about 4 years old?

Mr. PAINE. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were at that time living in New York City?

Mr. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequently you and your mother.

Mr. PAINE. She got a divorce in Reno, Nev., she had a house in Virginia City.

The CHAIRMAN. In New York you were living with your father or mother?

Mr. PAINE. They lived together in New York. Then there was a year, a part of a year, we moved to Philadelphia. They may have separated and he tried to come back or something like that, and then we went to Reno, Nev.

Mr. LIEBELER. During the time you lived in Philadelphia, was your father living with the family?

Mr. PAINE. I think he was there part time. I don't remember that for sure. We had two houses there. One I think I remember him slightly and the other one I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your father was not present during the time that you stayed in Nevada?

Mr. PAINE. No; he was not.

Mr. LIEBELER. You and your brother stayed in Nevada with your mother?

Mr. PAINE. And a housekeeper also.

Mr. LIEBELER. After you left Nevada where did you live?

Mr. PAINE. We went over to California. Santa Barbara.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who lived there at that time with you?

Mr. PAINE. A friend of hers, Kathleen, now she was originally Kathleen Schroeder, a sister of my uncle, now Kathleen Forbes, and a distant cousin of my mother's, and I think my grandfather, grandparents, would come out occasionally.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was your father present at that time?

Mr. PAINE. No; he was not.

Mr. LIEBELER. He wasn't there at any time during your stay in Santa Barbara?

Mr. PAINE. I don't remember that. I am not certain of it.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long did you live in Santa Barbara, Calif.?

Mr. PAINE. Each year my grandfather paid our way back across the country to Naushon Island in Massachusetts. We lived there 3 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you go after that?

Mr. PAINE. Cambridge, Mass.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long were you there?

Mr. PAINE. From the third to the sixth grade.

Mr. LIEBELER. With whom did you live?

Mr. PAINE. With my mother on Fairweather Street.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this of particular importance to the investigation, it is very lengthy, and I don't know particularly what it bears upon. If it is in relation with his father, let's get at that and get it over with, but I don't see what this man's history from the time he was born--I don't see how it bears on it. It just takes altogether too much time for an extraneous purpose, it seems to me. Let's get on with the thing.

Mr. LIEBELER. It bears on the point only on what connection he has with his father.

Mr. PAINE. Let me go to that. I have seen him on a few times, once a year would be a frequent--we felt great affinity in our bent, not in the actual application of the way we would like to do things but in a concern for the value of people. I know very little about what he does, and he has not tried to proselytize me, and he has not volunteered information about what he did.

I think a certain change has come over him since. For many years or years in college or something I thought he was still interested in his revolutionary groups and that was a pity because that wasn't going to happen, and it was to be a dead end, a blind, he would come to the end of his life and his cause had fizzled out.

When I went out to California more recently, the last time we were talking about the civil rights movement and, shall we say, the revolution occurring in this country spearheaded by the Negroes' demand for dignity, that was a subject that completely absorbed the weekend and there were various Negroes who came around the country, who happened to pass through at that time.

You probably might be interested in regard to Cuba. I was surprised sometime in the conversation someone there had spoken favorably of the revolution in Cuba. This was a surprise to me, I didn't realize that this was part of the--was the present thrill, shall we say. I don't know whether that applied to Lyman also or whether--I think he went along with that. We didn't get around to arguing on that point. I only mention that in passing. That was about the full extent of it.

She mentioned Cuba in this favorable way, and it was a subject I didn't----

Mr. DULLES. Who was this she?

Mr. PAINE. It was Grace somebody, I have forgotten.

Mr. DULLES. One of the people present in these conversations?

Mr. PAINE. Yes. So that was my only knowledge that he was, or the people around him were, interested in Cuba, and that is the only thing I can see has any bearing in your interest here.

Mr. LIEBELER. To what extent would you say that your father has influenced your own political views and attitudes?

Mr. PAINE. I would have guessed it was almost negligible. I was aware that sometime in the beginning of college or something I used the language of the masses or I used jargon which I recognized, came to perceive was of quite leftist nature, and I think that at the time I used to get The Nation, that was in high school. I probably picked it up more from the magazines and things of that sort than from him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your father called you?

Mr. PAINE. Yes; he called me, yes. He didn't suppose it was true, I told him I thought it probably was true. And I told him to keep his shirt on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember anything else about that conversation?

Mr. PAINE. No. It was chiefly both he and Freddy, his wife, had to be calmed down. They thought it was a steamrollered job of injustice or something. And I didn't think their admonitions were--I think not to say anything, not to join the hubbub or jump on the things I said or I took it to be things I said would be distorted and blown up and added to the hullabaloo to lynch Lee.

Representative FORD. Did they infer or imply that the allegations or accusations against Oswald bore the semblance of a lynching? And I use lynching in the broad sense.

Mr. PAINE. They did not use lynching at all. I added that. They thought he was----

Representative FORD. Being railroaded?

Mr. PAINE. No; he said that no one, no member of the Friends of Cuba would want to assassinate the President. That was a crazy idea.

Representative FORD. You said that was a crazy idea?

Mr. PAINE. No; he said that. Therefore, he concluded, and this was the same, similar to my feeling, that I first didn't think Oswald had done it because I didn't see how it fitted in, how it helped his favorite ideals.

And Lyman then said the same thing. Therefore, including himself, Lyman, that Lee couldn't have done it, and that this must be--Lee was the ideal person to hang it on.

Representative FORD. How soon was this phone call after the assassination?

Mr. PAINE. I think it was--he did not know, I think, that we had Marina staying with us, but he was one of the first to connect, guess that it was us. He called and asked us, "Is this you?"

Representative FORD. "Is this you?" What? I don't quite understand the context here.

Mr. PAINE. He heard it on the news and he heard Mrs. Paine, and Marina had been staying with a Mrs. Paine and he called to ask, "Are you the Paines?"

Mr. LIEBELER. Had you discussed Lee Oswald with your father prior to this time?

Mr. PAINE. No; I don't think I mentioned him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether your father knew Lee Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. No; I do not know. Or I gather since he had such a funny idea of him over the phone.

Mr. LIEBELER. To the best of your judgment the only way your father heard of Lee Oswald, connected Lee Oswald to you, was through a news broadcast that he had heard connecting Oswald with somebody named Paine?

Mr. PAINE. Or Marina had stayed with the Paines.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Oswald never asked you about your father in any way or did he indicate that he knew of your father?

Mr. PAINE. No; he did not. I think Ruth came closer to revealing that my father had--you will have to ask her about that question. I did not mention my father to Lee.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you meet Lee Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. I met him sometime in the spring of 1963.

Mr. DULLES. This is Oswald?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; Lee Oswald.

Mr. PAINE. We were invited to a party, Ruth and I were invited to a party, given by Everett Glover. I had a cold and wasn't able to go. Ruth went at that time and subsequently went once or twice to see Marina. And she invited Marina and Lee to our house for dinner, and here the date that comes to mind is April 10.

Mr. DULLES. Where was Marina staying at this time?

Mr. PAINE. Berry Street.

Mr. DULLES. Berry Street in Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Berry Street or would it be Neely Street?