Chapter XXX: Part 30

Now I didn't know Oswald. He showed us his picture, but I didn't know him. He had been through there but I didn't recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI showed you Oswald's picture?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you didn't recognize him?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

You see, sir--to my knowledge, I have never seen he or his wife.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear Mr. Taylor discussing this rifle that he bought from this fellow, before the FBI fellow talked to him?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when the FBI man came to the station? Would that have been in about the middle of December of 1963?

Mr. SMITH. I'd be afraid to commit myself. I don't remember when he was there. It's been about 2 or 3 months ago or something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the man's name?

Mr. SMITH. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it refresh your recollection if I suggested that his name was Morris J. White? Do you remember that was his name or don't you remember?

Mr. SMITH. I don't remember.

Mr. LIEBELER. Don't you remember that you told the FBI agent that you had heard conversation that Taylor had purchased a rifle from some customer, and that that customer was thought by Taylor to be Lee Harvey Oswald? Didn't you tell that to the FBI agent?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; absolutely not. I am absolutely positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. The first time you ever heard anything about this rifle that Taylor was supposed to have purchased was when the FBI agent was interviewing Taylor, isn't that your statement?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never heard anything about it from Taylor or anyone else prior to that time?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss this question of the rifle with Taylor after the FBI agent was there?

Mr. SMITH. Nothing more than he told me that let's see now, Bob said he had traded a rifle, and that is about all. We were busy, and he said he traded a rifle, and that was the day that he showed the picture to me, the picture that the FBI man showed me, and that was all that was said about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Taylor told you afterwards that the FBI agent had showed him a picture and this picture was supposed to be a picture of Oswald?

Mr. SMITH. He showed both of us the picture.

Mr. LIEBELER. He showed both of you the picture?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And Taylor told you after the FBI agent left that the picture that the FBI agent showed you was a picture of the man from whom Taylor had purchased the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. He told the FBI man that. He didn't tell me that after he left, but he definitely told him that in my presence. I heard him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussions with Taylor after the FBI agent left about this question?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussions with anybody else about it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see the rifle that Taylor supposedly purchased from this man?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Taylor ever tell you what kind of rifle it was?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you never heard from anybody what kind of rifle it was?

Mr. SMITH. I never heard anything about it at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. How well do you know Taylor?

Mr. SMITH. I never knew him until I went to work there. Just by working with him, that is all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never associated with him outside of work?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I hadn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever formed any opinion as to Taylor's truthfulness or his reliability?

Mr. SMITH. I think he is truthful, and I think he is reliable.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't think he would tell the FBI agent that he got a rifle from this fellow if he didn't in fact get a rifle from this fellow?

Mr. SMITH. I don't. I sure don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where 2515 West Fifth Street is in Irving, Tex.?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever been there?

Mr. SMITH. I have taken a lady home that lived there, to bring a car back to service it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you remember approximately when that was?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, we serviced her car quite often. What I mean, washed it and greased it, and she comes in occasionally now, but not like she used to.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you gone to her house more than once to bring the car back to the station?

Mr. SMITH. To the best of my knowledge, I believe three times.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were all of these times prior to the assassination?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you remember approximately when the first time was that you took this lady home to her house and brought the car back to the station?

Mr. SMITH. Well----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember now that you first started to work for the station in the last of April 1963? Can you remember approximately how long after that it was when you first went to this address on Fifth Street?

Mr. SMITH. I sure don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have no idea?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. A month, or 2 months, or just don't remember?

Mr. SMITH. Possibly 2 or 3 months, something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ever have any conversation with this lady during the time that you drove with her back to her house?

Mr. SMITH. Nothing more than just passing the time of day. The only thing, she made the statement one time, the first time I took her home, that she got a little child and she said the baby, he could speak Russian better than he could English. That is the first time I knew there was any Russian blood there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you they were Russian, or just told you the little child could speak Russian?

Mr. SMITH. That is all she told me.

Mr. LIEBELER. That the child could speak Russian better than English?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see anyone other than this lady and her children at the house on Fifth Street in Irving?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you actually go into the house on any occasion?

Mr. SMITH. I helped her. I carried some groceries in her house one time. She had a carload of groceries, and I helped her put them in the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember how many children were with her at that time?

Mr. SMITH. Three, I believe.

Mr. LIEBELER. Three children?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make any judgment as to approximately how old they were? Did it appear to you that they were all her children, or weren't the ages so that it seemed to you that maybe one was the child of somebody else?

Mr. SMITH. I had an idea they were all hers. They were approximately, looked like spaced out about a year or year and a half apart, something like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember which child this lady said could speak Russian better than she could speak English?

Mr. SMITH. The baby.

Mr. LIEBELER. The youngest one?

Mr. SMITH. The youngest one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember hearing this young baby speaking Russian?

Mr. SMITH. I did, but I didn't know what she was talking about. I couldn't understand it, and that is the reason she told me that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did anybody else speak Russian to the child?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear the lady speak Russian?

Mr. SMITH. No, I didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the other two children speak Russian?

Mr. SMITH. They didn't do no talking.

Mr. LIEBELER. In either English or Russian; is that right?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you describe this lady for us?

Mr. SMITH. She is a slender woman, tall, slender woman; has very nice personality, and that is about all that I can say for her. She didn't do much talking either.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she ever make a statement to you that she was Russian herself?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. She just indicated to you that the little baby spoke Russian better than English, is that right?

Mr. SMITH. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you how it came to be that baby spoke Russian?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't ask her?

Mr. SMITH. I didn't ask her.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you curious about that?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I was. I went back to the station and talked to the boss about it. I told him, "I believe those people are Russian people living down there," and he said why, and I told him about the lady telling me the little fellow spoke Russian better than English. And they were curious about it, but nothing was ever said. We didn't say anything to her, because she just come in and got gas and that was all. She never did talk much or anything.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever learn what this lady's name was?

Mr. SMITH. No; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you don't know what it is today?

Mr. SMITH. I do not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this child a boy or girl, or could you tell?

Mr. SMITH. I don't know. I never paid any attention to it. I don't know if it was or not.

Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn't tell whether it was a boy or girl?

Mr. SMITH. Well. I didn't know, because I didn't notice. I didn't pay any attention whether it was a boy or girl.

Ordinarily, when I take a car home out there, I try to get there and back as fast as I can and I don't pay any attention other than the house number and what time it is supposed to be delivered.

Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of car did this lady have?

Mr. SMITH. It is a station wagon. I believe a Plymouth.

Mr. LIEBELER. Approximately what year?

Mr. SMITH. About a '53 or '54.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure it is a Plymouth, or could it be some other car?

Mr. SMITH. No; I am not positive. It is either a Plymouth or a Chevrolet. I am not positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen this lady at any time other than when she brought her car to the gas station to have it serviced, or when you took her to her house?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was there ever anyone with this lady other than the children at any time?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever meet this lady's husband?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever hear anything about him?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever hear that they were separated from each other?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you went into the house this first time to take the groceries in, as I understand it, that was the time when the youngest child was speaking Russian, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you went into the house, you brought the groceries into the kitchen, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. No; I set them down in the living room. She told me to put them on the coffee table, and I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you at that time see anything that would indicate to you that there was someone else in the house?

Mr. SMITH. The house was awfully dirty. Boy, I never saw such a mess in my life. Things were on the floor, clothing and papers and everything else.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea when you went into the house with her that there might be someone else in the house or was someone there in the house when you came in?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell one way or the other? You didn't see into the bedrooms, did you?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. There could have been someone else in the bedrooms and you wouldn't have seen them?

Mr. SMITH. There could have been.

Mr. LIEBELER. The lady didn't speak to anybody or call out when she came into the house to anyone else?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. This lady never indicated to you that this child that spoke Russian was not, in fact, her own child, did she?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. You always assumed it was this lady's child?

Mr. SMITH. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to show you five different pictures that have been marked in a previous procedure as Commission Exhibits 451, 453, 454, 455, and 456. I want you to look at them and tell me if you have seen the individuals depicted in these pictures at any time?

Mr. SMITH. [Looking] No, sir; I sure don't recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize any of these?

Mr. SMITH. I don't ever remember seeing him.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another photograph which has been marked previously as Pizzo Exhibit 453-B. It is a picture of several people, but one of the individuals has been indicated by a green mark on the face of the photo and I ask you if you have ever seen that individual, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not recognize him.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you another photograph which has been marked previously as Pizzo Exhibit 453-C and ask you if you have ever seen that individual, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I haven't.

Mr. LIEBELER. I asked you before, did I not, whether you have ever seen this rifle that Mr. Taylor told you he had purchased?

Mr. SMITH. I have not seen it.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions, Mr. Smith. If you can think of anything that you know that you think the Commission might be interested in, whether I have asked you about it or haven't asked you, I would appreciate it if you would indicate that.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I don't think I have a thing in the world, because actually I didn't know Oswald or his wife, either one. I don't ever remember seeing them.

And I do want to tell you this. At the time President Kennedy was assassinated, I thought this woman who lived on Fifth Street, right after it happened, I thought that was his wife simply because of her saying that this child spoke Russian and the police arrested Oswald, and I figured in my own mind that this was his wife, but it turned out differently, and that is the only thing that I learned about.

Mr. LIEBELER. You learned that it wasn't this lady's husband that was involved, by reading the newspapers, is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; and as far as if this lady that lived on Fifth Street had a husband, I have never seen a man around there at all, and I have never seen a man with her. Ordinarily, just human nature would cause a man and his wife to be together sometime.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you have never seen this lady with her husband?

Mr. SMITH. I have never seen her with a man.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Smith, for coming in, I appreciate it.

Mr. SMITH. I wish there was something I could do, but I don't know a thing in the world I could help you with, I believe.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you. I appreciate it very much.

TESTIMONY OF W. W. SEMINGSEN

The testimony of W. W. Semingsen was taken at 11 a.m., on March 31, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please rise and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please be seated. Mr. Semingsen my name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission which has been appointed to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. The staff counsel have been authorized by the Commission to take testimony pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress No. 137.

I believe that Mr. Rankin wrote you a letter last week telling you we would be in touch with you to take your testimony, and he sent that letter along with copies of the Executive order and joint resolution of Congress, as well as a copy of the Commission's rules of procedure relating to the taking of testimony is that not correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; I received Mr. Rankin's letter.

Mr. LIEBELER. We want to inquire of you today concerning the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald received money order telegrams through the offices of Western Union here in Dallas, or possibly in Fort Worth or Irving, and also briefly as to a money order telegram sent by Jack Ruby to an associate of his on November 24, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into the details of that, would you state your full name for the record?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. My name is W. W. Semingsen.

Mr. LIEBELER. By whom are you employed, sir?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The Western Union Telegraph Co.

Mr. LIEBELER. In what capacity are you employed?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. As vice president, Gulf Division, headquarters, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the nature of your duties with the Western Union Co. in that position?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. They are administrative and executive in capacity. I have jurisdiction over the operations in eight of the Gulf Division states.

Mr. LIEBELER. What are those States?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.

Mr. LIEBELER. In your capacity as vice president of the Gulf Division, are you generally familiar with the recordkeeping procedures, the manner in which records of telegrams sent or received are kept by the company?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; I am.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are not in direct supervision of the recordkeeping procedure?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I am not. That is delegated to various supervisory employees.

Mr. LIEBELER. But in your capacity as vice president, you are thoroughly familiar with the way records are kept by the company?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. I do have knowledge of recordkeeping, general knowledge of recordkeeping.

Mr. LIEBELER. In anticipation of the fact that your testimony would be taken by the Commission, you have prepared a statement which is dated March 30, 1964, which consists of five pages relating to the efforts made by Western Union in investigating the possibility that money orders payable to Oswald or his alias, O. H. Lee and Alek James Hidell, may have been received in the Dallas or Fort Worth or Irving office of Western Union? And also relating to telegrams sent or received by Jack Ruby during certain indicated periods; is that not correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. I would like to mark that document as Exhibit 3001.

I have marked the memorandum received as Exhibit 3001 on the deposition of W. W. Semingsen, March 31, 1964, Dallas, Tex., and have initialed it, and I will ask you also to initial it, if you would, Mr. Semingsen.

(Witness initials and signs on page 5.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that you did prepare this report in anticipation of giving testimony to the Commission?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; I did, in the interest of expediting the testimony.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are thoroughly familiar with the matters set forth in Exhibit 3001, are you not?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; I am.

Mr. LIEBELER. The material set forth in that memorandum is true and correct, to the best of your knowledge, is it not?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; it is.

Mr. LIEBELER. We should note for the record that Exhibit 3001 has in the left-hand margin certain numerals which I have placed there running from 1 through 7, which refers to attachments to the exhibit, which, in effect, form a part of the memorandum. And, you have marked, have you not, the exhibits running 1 through 7 which you intend should be a part of the memorandum; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. The attachments to the exhibit, which are numbered 1 through 7, are photostatic copies of the originals of certain documents, or of copies of certain documents which you retain in your possession, as are described in Exhibit 3001; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. I refer specifically to the item marked "Attachment 1 to Exhibit 3001," which consists of photostatic copies of four separate documents. Please identify for the record the first one of those documents.

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The first one of the documents on page 1 of the attachment is the original money order application prepared and filed by Jack Ruby in Dallas, Tex., on November 24, 1963, at 11:17 a.m., as noted by the automatic time stamp shown on the application.

Mr. LIEBELER. We will mark that as Exhibit No. 5118, and note for the record that we are marking these at the request of Mr. Hubert, who has the responsibility for area 5 of the investigation, relating to Mr. Ruby.

I have marked the document referred to as Exhibit 5118 on the deposition of Mr. W. W. Semingsen, March 31, 1964, in Dallas, Tex., and have initialed it, and ask you to initial it also, if you would, Mr. Semingsen.

Mr. SEMINGSEN. [Initials.]

Mr. LIEBELER. The next document forming a part of attachment No. 1 to Exhibit 3001, is what, Mr. Semingsen?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. It is the duplicate or carbon copy of the original money order receipt given to Jack Ruby at the time he filed the money order application. The original of this receipt was given to Mr. Ruby and found in his possession by the police at the time of his arrest.

Mr. LIEBELER. We will mark the copy which you have just described as Exhibit 5119 on the deposition of Mr. W. W. Semingsen, Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. [Also introduced as Lane Exhibits Nos. 5118 and 5119.]

I have initialed the copy which you have just described, and ask that you also initial it, please.

Mr. SEMINGSEN. [Initials.] I have so done.

Mr. LIEBELER. The next document forming a part of attachment No. 1 to Exhibit 3001, is what, sir?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. This is the original money order receipt, showing the signature of the money order payable to Karen Bennett at Fort Worth, Tex., on November 24, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have marked the third document to which we just referred as Exhibit 5120 on the deposition of Mr. W. W. Semingsen, Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964, and have initialed it. I notice that you have already initialed that exhibit; is that not correct, Mr. Semingsen?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. The next document forming a part of attachment No. 1 to Exhibit 3001, is what, sir?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is a copy of the original money order message received in Fort Worth authorizing the payment of the money to the payee.

Mr. LIEBELER. We will mark that telegram as 5121 on the deposition of Mr. W. W. Semingsen, Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. I have initialed it and ask you, sir, to do the same. [Also introduced as Strong Exhibits Nos. 5120 and 5121.]

Mr. SEMINGSEN. [Initials.] And I have so done.

Mr. LIEBELER. On page 1 of your memorandum, Exhibit 3001, you indicate that a search of your records in the Dallas, Tex., office show that no money orders payable to Lee Harvey Oswald or his aliases, O. H. Lee or Alek James Hidell, went through that office during the period June through November 1963; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us how you came to that conclusion?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. A search was made of our "Received money order file" for the period mentioned by supervisory employees, and no "Received money orders" were found. The "Received money orders" are filed in date order.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it a fact, Mr. Semingsen, that the receiving office of your company--in this case, Dallas, Tex.--actually keeps records showing the receipt of money orders payable to any person who received money orders through that office?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; that's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who issued instructions that this search be made?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I issued the instructions at the request of the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you personally satisfied that the search was carried out in a thorough manner and that there are in fact no records in the possession of the Western Union Telegraph Co. that would indicate that any money orders payable in the names mentioned above during the period June through November 1963, exist?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am satisfied that a very thorough search was made by competent supervisory personnel who are familiar with our records.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are in fact satisfied that there are no records in the possession of your company that would indicate that money order telegrams had been received by Oswald under his own name or other names during that period; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am satisfied as to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, also on the bottom of page 1 of your memorandum you indicate that no telegrams were sent by Lee Harvey Oswald or by any person under the name of the two aliases which we have mentioned, through the Dallas, Tex., office during the period September 1 to November 22, 1963; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us how you came to that conclusion?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The same supervisory personnel who made the search for the "Received money orders" made the search for any telegram sent by Lee Harvey Oswald and alias already mentioned. The search was confined to "Sent paid cash message" and to "Sent collect messages."

Mr. LIEBELER. Those messages are filed chronologically, is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Those messages are filed in date order.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned two categories of messages to which the search was confined, and those were "Sent paid messages," or "Sent collect messages"?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. "Sent paid cash messages," and "Sent collect messages."

Mr. LIEBELER. What other type messages are there?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The other types of messages are messages charged to customers having authorized charge accounts. It is obvious that a message filed by Oswald would not be found in any of our charge account message files.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, it is possible to pick up the telephone and call the Western Union office and instruct that a telegram be sent and have it charged to the telephone number, is it not?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that a separate category, or is that a third category?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is a separate category of messages filed by telephone subscribers and charged to their telephone.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was a search made of those messages?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I believe a search was made of those message, but I would have to confirm that with Mr. Wilcox, our local district manager in Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, for the sake of clarity of the record, at this point let me suggest that we go off the record, and Mr. Wilcox is available. Would you confer with Mr. Wilcox on that point and let us indicate on the record what he has advised you?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record indicate that we have conferred off the record with Mr. Wilcox, and you have consulted with him as to whether or not a check was made of the records covering messages called in by telephone and charged to a telephone number. Would you tell us what Mr. Wilcox indicated?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Mr. Wilcox made reference to notes in these files and has determined that a search was not made of messages sent and charged to the telephone, for the reason that it had been indicated that Oswald had filed messages at our office. In such event, the message would not be charged to the telephone, and for that reason, a search of the sent messages charged to the telephone was not made.

Mr. LIEBELER. At the same time you mean to indicate that the thing that prompted this search by your office in the first place was the story that Oswald had actually been in the Western Union office and filed the message in person; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. If he had filed it in person, it would obviously not have been called in by telephone and charged to his telephone number; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. On the top of page 3 of your memorandum 3001, the statement appears "For money orders payable to Lee Harvey Oswald and his aliases or to anyone at a specific address in Dallas--October through November 1963--result: Negative." Would you explain that for us, please?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. As I have indicated in my prepared statement, one of our employees thought he had recognized Oswald as having received a money order at our main office sometime during the dates mentioned.

Mr. LIEBELER. October through November 1963?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. It was thought that the money order was payable to someone at a specific address in Dallas, which was the YMCA.

Mr. LIEBELER. So when you searched through the records indicating money orders payable during the period October through November 1963, you determined that no money order had been made payable to Lee Harvey Oswald, or to these aliases, and in addition to that fact, that no money orders of any kind had been made payable to anyone at the YMCA in Dallas; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where the information came from that the money order was supposed to have been payable to Oswald at the YMCA?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. This information came from one of our night employees, Mr. C. A. Hamblen.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into Mr. Hamblen, I want to cover the rest of the statements made in your memorandum, and we will try to cover them generally. The memorandum indicates that certain money orders were received by Jack Ruby, and that certain telegrams were sent by Jack Ruby through the Dallas office; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. And that information was determined as a result of the search that you have just described?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is, the search of the money order payable file, plus the telegrams sent file, which search was confined, as you have indicated, only to the telegrams sent cash paid or sent collect; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct. With respect to the money orders, the search was made of the received money order file records of which we have. As to the telegrams filed by Mr. Ruby, knowing that he was a resident of Dallas, having a business here, we asked the FBI agent to check with the telephone company to see whether or not their records indicate any messages had been sent by Ruby and charged to his telephone. This information was secured by the FBI from the telephone company and enabled us to readily locate the messages in our files which were charged to his telephone.

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicated before that when searching for telegrams sent by Oswald, a general search was made of the chronological dates that you have described; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You searched all the chronological records of the two classifications of telegrams that we have indicated?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. During the time that search was made for telegrams sent by Oswald, did the person making that search also look for telegrams sent by Ruby?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. No. The search made for telegrams sent by Ruby was confined to the dates given to us by the FBI, which dates were obtained from the telephone company records showing telegrams charged to Ruby's telephone number or numbers on those dates.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, it is possible that Mr. Ruby may have sent other telegrams which were not charged to his telephone number or numbers, and of which we would not be aware as a result of the search made in connection with Mr. Ruby; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. On page 3 of your memorandum, exhibit 3001, you indicate that a telegram dated Painesville, Ohio, January 13, 1964, to Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, was received. How did that come to your attention, Mr. Semingsen?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That telegram was brought to my attention by District Manager Wilcox, it having been shown to him by one of our main office employees who handled the message.

Mr. LIEBELER. It was shown to Mr. Wilcox because of the nature of the message which the telegram contained; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to which reference has just been made is attached to the memorandum as attachment No. 4. Your memorandum also indicates negative results when a search was made of the office in Irving. Tex., in Fort Worth, Tex., and in New Orleans, La., for money orders payable to Oswald or to his aliases, or in the case of New Orleans for money orders sent or received by Oswald and aliases through the periods indicated in the memorandum. Were these statements made in your memorandum as a result of searches made similar to that in the Dallas office, do you know?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you personally instruct the New Orleans office to conduct the search of their records or cause such instructions to be given?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The search at New Orleans with respect to received money orders was authorized by our district manager in New Orleans. Later a request was made for a similar search of sent money orders, which was referred to my office. And in this instance I authorized our New Orleans office to make the search.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, as far as you know, the search concerning received money orders was instigated by a direct request to the New Orleans office by the FBI or some other investigatory agency, is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. I notice that the period for which a search was made in the Fort Worth office is confined to July 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 29, 1963. Can you tell me the reason for that?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The request for the search for money orders payable to Oswald on those dates was made by local FBI agents in Fort Worth of our district manager there. The FBI agents requested the search because they had information to the effect that the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald was a tenant at this address during that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which address is that?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The address was the Rotary Apartments, 1501 West Seventh Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Fort Worth?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Fort Worth.

Mr. LIEBELER. In answering the last question, you referred to a memorandum in your file from a Mr. T. R. Coates to you, is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is dated December 9, 1963; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. The memorandum indicates that a Mr. Meyers of the FBI came to the Fort Worth office of your company and requested that a check be made of the received money orders for the last 2 weekends of July to determine if a money order had been received addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald, or anyone at the address of the Rotary Apartments, 1501 West Seventh Street, Fort Worth, Tex.; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Coates says that the FBI agent said that the FBI had information that Lee Harvey Oswald's mother was a tenant at that address during that time, and Mr. Coates also indicates that a search of the received money orders of July 19, 20, 21-22, 26-27 and 28-29 were made, but no record was found of any having been received; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been possible for Oswald to have received money orders at any offices in Dallas other than a Dallas main office?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. He could have received money orders at the branch offices.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would the records of received money orders for the branch offices be filed at the Dallas main office or at the Dallas branch offices?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am not certain about that, but the search of all received money orders was made covering both the main and branch offices.

Mr. LIEBELER. In Dallas?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. In Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. What about suburban offices? We have noted that a specific search was made of the Irving office. Are there other suburban offices at which Oswald could have received money orders, which would not have been uncovered by the search which was made?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; it is possible he could have received money orders at such places, for example, at Garland or Grand Prairie.

Mr. LIEBELER. Is there only one office in Irving?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; there is one office in Irving.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not the records of received money orders for suburban areas of Dallas are kept in the local suburban office or kept in the Dallas main office?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. They are kept at the branch office.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you are absolutely certain that the records relating to the money orders received at the Dallas branch office are either kept at the Dallas main office or would the search that was made include a search of the branch offices; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; and in addition, Irving, Tex.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned a moment ago the fact that one of your employees, Mr. C. A. Hamblen, who is presently a night manager in the Dallas main office--is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am not sure what his title is.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Hamblen said that he thought he recognized Oswald as a customer in that office, is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. He had indicated that he had thought he had seen Mr. Oswald or someone that looked like him in the office on some occasion, either receiving the money order or sending a telegram.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the background of Mr. Hamblen's involvement in this matter. In your own words tell us the story of the events that prompted this search. What investigation was made as to Mr. Hamblen's activities, and what conclusion the company came to in this respect?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Perhaps it would be best to get that testimony direct from Mr. Wilcox. However, I did participate in a very thorough questioning of Mr. Hamblen and can furnish you with this information.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you indicate for us briefly, and we will perhaps go into greater detail with Mr. Wilcox after lunch.

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Sometime shortly after the killing of Oswald by Ruby, which was shown on television, Mr. Hamblen indicated or mentioned to Mr. Wilcox that he thought he had seen someone who appeared to look like Oswald in our main office, either receiving a money order or sending a telegram. When Mr. Wilcox learned of this information, he had a search made of our files for certain dates which he is in better position to testify on.

Mr. LIEBELER. He caused the search to be made for a telegram that might have been sent by Oswald or money order received by Oswald; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct. There were two specific instances in which Mr. Hamblen thought that he had seen Oswald in the office. One having to do with a received money order, and the other instance having to do with the filing of a telegram. The search made by Mr. Wilcox revealed no such transactions.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was this search made before or after Mr. Hamblen's views became known to the press?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The first search was made before the information reached the press. The second and more intensive search was made following appearance in the press concerning the alleged filing of telegrams and receiving of money orders by Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand the chronology of events here, Mr. Hamblen first indicated to Mr. Wilcox that he, Hamblen, thought he recalled Oswald having been in the Western Union office, the main office in Dallas; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, as I understand it, Mr. Wilcox observed a story in the newspaper that indicated that Oswald had been in the office and had received a small amount of money by telegram money order; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand it, Mr. Wilcox at that point concluded that the story must have gotten to the press through Mr. Hamblen, and after that time, Mr. Hamblen was questioned by Mr. Wilcox and also by yourself, and gave to Mr. Wilcox certain statements relating to his alleged recollection of Oswald having been in the office; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have given me copies of two statements by Mr. Hamblen, dated December 2, 1963, and December 5, 1963, respectively. Did you have any personal involvement in the preparation of these statements to which I have referred?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I did not. At a meeting in Mr. Wilcox's office following my receipt of copies of these statements, I personally interrogated Mr. Hamblen and other employees whom Hamblen had thought had handled the transactions in question.

Mr. LIEBELER. Specifically, that would have been a Mrs. D. J. McClure? Is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. McClure is an employee of the company who Mr. Hamblen said had had trouble with Oswald and had requested him, Hamblen, to assist in handling Oswald; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make any written report to the file, or for any other officer of the company, of your interrogation of Mr. Hamblen or Mrs. McClure?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you state for us at this time the general nature of the interrogation and the conclusions to which you came as a result of your questioning of Mr. Hamblen and Mrs. McClure?

We will note at this time for the record that while Mr. Semingsen is referring to copies of the two statements made by Mr. Hamblen, dated December 2 and December 5, 1963, they will not be marked at this time, since Mr. Semingsen had no direct involvement in the preparation of these statements. They will be marked subsequently upon the examination of Mr. Wilcox.

You may refer to those statements, if you wish.

Perhaps the record should also note that a statement was given to Mr. Wilcox, apparently by Mrs. McClure, on December 4, 1963. Mr. Semingsen, you indicated that you had questioned both of those employees. I assume that when you did question them, you had these statements before you; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please state the general nature of your questioning and the conclusions to which you came as a result of your questioning.

Mr. SEMINGSEN. As previously indicated, I questioned both of the employees separately, individually, and together in the presence of Mr. Wilcox, my purpose being to reconcile the differences in their statements.

After having informed Mr. Hamblen of the extensive search that had been made for the telegram which he so vividly recalled having been filed by someone who looked like Oswald, and calling to his attention that all of the cash messages that had been handled by Mrs. McClure had been accounted for and no such message located, I asked for a further explanation from him. After questioning him, he would give no further explanation in the presence of Mrs. McClure.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he still stick to the proposition that to the best of his recollection Oswald or someone that he thought looked like Oswald, had, in fact, been in the office and had these difficulties with Mrs. McClure?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I similarly questioned Mrs. McClure, and I am satisfied from the answers that she gave that her story is the correct one. Particularly in the absence of any such message in our files.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. McClure's version is that no such person as Oswald ever came in the office, and she had no difficulty with anyone as a result of which she requested assistance from Mr. Hamblen; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you satisfied that is a correct story?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am satisfied that that is the correct story as indicated by Mrs. McClure in her statement that Mr. Hamblen was confused, possibly had Oswald mixed up with someone else who looked very much like him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Hamblen particularly mentioned a message that this person who he thought looked like Oswald was supposed to have sent to Washington, D.C.; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. To the Secretary of Navy in particular; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. The message that he had reference to was supposedly a night letter addressed to Washington. D.C., as indicated in his statement of December 5. In that statement he also indicated that the telegram was a cash telegram, accounted for by Mrs. McClure as a night letter. Such accounting would have to appear on her record of cash telegrams accepted.

Mr. LIEBELER. This is the telegram with respect to which Hamblen said Mrs. McClure had difficulty with a customer and requested his assistance; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have caused a thorough search of Mrs. McClure's records to be made and you have not found any night letter to Washington, D.C.; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct during the period searched. We did locate several messages to Washington, D.C. I do not recall that they were accepted by Mrs. McClure, but Mr. Wilcox can testify as to that. In any event, a telegram to Washington, D.C., and several other cities fitting the description that Hamblen had given were shown to him and he could not identify any of them as the telegram he had referred to, which Mrs. McClure was supposed to have accepted.

Mr. LIEBELER. What dates were searched for the specific message to Washington, D.C.?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. All cash messages sent to Washington, D.C., from the latter part of October through November 22, 1963.

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you be more specific as to what the latter part of October might be?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Whether or not accepted by Mrs. McClure. In addition, a search of all cash messages accepted by Mrs. McClure during the period November 1 to November 21, 1963, inclusive, was made, and all messages accepted by her were matched out with her cash sheet and all messages have been accounted for. All cash messages accepted by her have been accounted for. None could be identified as the message in question referred to by Mr. Hamblen.

Mr. LIEBELER. When you said it could not be identified, you mean it could not be identified by Mr. Hamblen? When shown to Mr. Hamblen, he could not identify them?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So, you are perfectly satisfied in your own mind based on the investigation which your company has conducted, and your questioning of Mr. Hamblen and Mrs. McClure, that Oswald did not receive any money order through your Dallas office or any of the other offices indicated in your memorandum, Exhibit 3001, and that Oswald did not, in fact, send a message to Washington, D.C., or give a message to Mrs. McClure as indicated by Mr. Hamblen; is that correct?

Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct, and I am satisfied of that conclusion.

Mr. LIEBELER. I have no more questions at this point, Mr. Semingsen. I think that some of the details of the searches made and of other aspects of this matter will be taken up with Mr. Wilcox after lunch. If you have anything else that you would like to add, or you think I should ask you that I haven't asked you, I would appreciate if you would so indicate on the record at this point.

Mr. SEMINGSEN. I can think of nothing at this time, but if anything further does occur to me, I will be glad to bring it to your attention. I am sure that Mr. Wilcox will be more helpful in answering any questions that you may wish to ask him.

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

TESTIMONY OF LAURANCE R. WILCOX

The testimony of Laurance R. Wilcox was taken at 2 p. m., on March 31, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before I start, I want to swear you in as a witness.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. WILCOX. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Wilcox, my name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the Commission appointed by President Johnson to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy.

Staff counsel have been authorized to take the testimony of witnesses by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission under Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and Joint Resolution of Congress No. 137.

The Commission rules of procedure require that copies of that Executive order and the congressional resolution, as well as copies of the Commission's rules and procedures relating to the taking of testimony be provided to each witness prior to the time his testimony is taken. I now provide you with copies of those documents. The general nature of the testimony that we wish to get from you today relates to investigations made by Western Union Telegraph Co. concerning the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald received money orders through the offices of your company, either in Dallas or the surrounding area, and the possibility that he may have sent telegrams to other persons through the facilities of your company.

Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into the details of your testimony, would you please state your full name for the record?

Mr. WILCOX. Laurance R. Wilcox.

Mr. LIEBELER. By whom are you employed?

Mr. WILCOX. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Mr. LIEBELER. In what capacity?

Mr. WILCOX. District manager.

Mr. LIEBELER. What are your duties as district manager?

Mr. WILCOX. Administrative; in charge of the operation for Western Union in the city of Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are general manager then of the area which includes just the city of Dallas; is that correct?

Mr. WILCOX. District manager.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of just the city of Dallas; is that correct?

Mr. WILCOX. Yes; and immediate surrounding towns such as Garland, Mesquite, Grand Prairie, Irving, and Lancaster. That is all I can think of right now.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are generally in charge of the operations of the company within that particular area; is that correct?

Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did there come a time, Mr. Wilcox, when you caused a search to be made of the records of the Western Union Telegraph Co. to determine whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had ever received or sent any telegrams through the offices under your jurisdiction?

Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us about that?

Mr. WILCOX. Can I refer to these papers?

Mr. LIEBELER. You may refer to any papers that you wish.

Mr. WILCOX. I want to so that I will have this exactly right as to what took place. My first knowledge of the message that was supposed to have been sent by Oswald was when Mr. Hamblen, early night manager at my office, visited with me telling me----

Mr. LIEBELER. Is that Mr. C. A. Hamblen?

Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead.

Mr. WILCOX. Telling me that he had been watching the television, and when he saw the picture of Oswald, he recognized that as being a man that had been in our office and had filed a message.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when Mr. Hamblen told you this?

Mr. WILCOX. This was on a Wednesday following the assassination--following the shooting of Oswald. He told me that he was positive that he had seen Mr. Oswald in our office.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you this on Wednesday following the Sunday on which Mr. Oswald was shot by Ruby; is that correct?

Mr. WILCOX. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 27, 1963? Thanksgiving was on November the 28th.