Chapter XXIII: Part 23

Major ANDERSON. I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean?

Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps I can rephrase it. Would your presumption be that L. H. Oswald, whose test score you have before you, would have received the training such as that which you have just described?

Major ANDERSON. Absolutely. He fired every day according to this. The only exception might be that if he was required to go to the sick bay for some minor treatment, and missed maybe an hour a day or some sort of thing such as that.

Mr. SPECTER. And the basis for your statement on that would be your conclusion based on the fact that L. H. Oswald had undergone a test where he completed these documents under the category of "US Marine Corps Scorebook for US Rifle Caliber .30 M-1 and US Carbine Caliber .30 M-1-A1?"

Major ANDERSON. Yes, sir; this document shows by dates and days as indicated that he fired daily and sighted in his rifle as prescribed.

Mr. SPECTER. Of course, you didn't know Mr. Oswald personally?

Major ANDERSON. I never knew him whatsoever.

Mr. SPECTER. So that your conclusion as to his training is based upon the inference which arises from the document which I have presented to you. That is to say, you know that if a man has one of those scorebooks, that he must have received that training?

Major ANDERSON. Absolutely. He received this in full.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that document have some record of practicing as well as actual scoring in it, Major Anderson?

Major ANDERSON. This record shows that on Thursday of the week preceding the record firing week, he fired approximately 10 rounds which were not scored, appear to be zeroing in shots. There is no day here to indicate any firing on Friday. Monday is shown of the following week with a 10 shot group, and shows that he fires the entire course on Monday throughout.

Mr. SPECTER. Major Anderson, I now show you a letter which I have marked for the purpose of this deposition as Anderson Exhibit No. 1, and ask you for the record to tell us what is the date of that letter, first of all?

Major ANDERSON. 8 January 1964.

(Major Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SPECTER. To whom is the letter addressed?

Major ANDERSON. Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the letter written?

Major ANDERSON. The signature shows it was from A. G. Folsom, Jr., lieutenant colonel, U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity heretofore to examine that letter?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. And whom does that letter concern itself with?

Major ANDERSON. The letter concerns a Mr. Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER. Lee Harvey Oswald?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that letter contain with it the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had while in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON. It so indicates; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the procedure of the Marine Corps in retaining such information on men who were in the Corps and had marksmanship training?

Major ANDERSON. Any time a man goes through any type of live firing, the type of firing, the number of rounds he has fired, the course he has fired is supposed to be and supposedly is entered in his record book in the spaces provided for his training?

Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by live firing, sir?

Major ANDERSON. By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.

Mr. SPECTER. Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates that he is firing the gun.

Mr. SPECTER. Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON. It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.

Mr. SPECTER. By "fam" firing, what does that mean?

Major ANDERSON. This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being armed with said weapon.

Mr. SPECTER. And on what date was the A course registered?

Major ANDERSON. 21 December 1956.

Mr. SPECTER. And what weapon was used?

Major ANDERSON. The M-1 rifle.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was his final qualification there?

Major ANDERSON. 212.

Mr. SPECTER. And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what range of rating is that score?

Major ANDERSON. That should have been a sharpshooter.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?

Major ANDERSON. 400 rounds for recruit firing.

Mr. SPECTER. And during what period was that?

Major ANDERSON. That was to be fired within a 2-week period.

Mr. SPECTER. Did he have exposure on another course for M-1 firing at a later date?

Major ANDERSON. The record shows that 6 May 1959 he fired the B course.

Mr. SPECTER. And what weapon was used at that time?

Major ANDERSON. The M-1 rifle.

Mr. SPECTER. And what score was obtained on that occasion?

Major ANDERSON. 191 for marksman.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?

Major ANDERSON. 200 rounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Would there be any reason why the scores might differ from 212 to 191, based on the layout of the courses or any of the conditions surrounding those tests, Major Anderson?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; the day the 212 was fired appears to be according to the record book to have been an ideal day under firing conditions.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say the record book you meant Commission Exhibit No. 239 that you referred to?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; when he fired that he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle--windy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage.

Mr. SPECTER. What are the differences between the A and B courses, Major Anderson?

Major ANDERSON. The A course is fired at 200, 300, and 500 yards. The B course is exactly the same course as far as targets, number of rounds and positions are concerned, but it is fired entirely at 200 yards.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there compensations in the scoring to allow for the difference in distances?

Major ANDERSON. Yes; there is.

Mr. SPECTER. What other familiarity with weapons did Mr. Oswald possess according to that document identified as Anderson Exhibit No. 1?

Major ANDERSON. On 17 December 1956 he fired the Browning Automatic Rifle familiarization 75 rounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any score indicated on that firing?

Major ANDERSON. There will be no scores indicated for familiarization firing. It is not scored.

Mr. SPECTER. What other familiarization?

Major ANDERSON. On 11 December 1956 he fired the pistol familiarization 100 rounds. On 2 May 1958 he fired the 12-gage riot gun familiarization 10 rounds, again on 7 May 1958 he fired the .45 caliber pistol 100 rounds for familiarization and on 9 March 1959 he fired the 12-gage riot gun 10 rounds for familiarization.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you, Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?

Major ANDERSON. I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Major Anderson, I now want to show you certain photographs which have been heretofore identified and introduced into the Commission's record as a preliminary to asking your opinion on the difficulty of certain shots which I will identify.

First I show you Commission Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead photograph of an area known as Dealey Plaza, which the record will show is the situs of the assassination of President Kennedy. I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 348 which is a photograph of the Texas School Book Depository Building with the letter "A" pointing to the half-opened window, that is the bottom portion of the window which is half opened, where other witnesses have testified that the assassin stood. Let me add as a factor for you to assume to be true, this the record will show is based upon eyewitnesses at the scene, that the weapon partly protruded from the window identified as letter "A" in Exhibit No. 348 pointing at an angle which is not completely in a straight line but very much in a straight line with the angle of the street being designated as Elm Street, which street runs on a downgrade of approximately 3°.

I now show you a document identified as Commission Exhibit No. 893, and a second document identified as Commission Exhibit No. 895, which depict frame No. 210 and frame No. 225 on photographs in the nature of moving pictures taken by Abraham Zapruder at the assassination site which the evidence indicates was the range of the first shot which struck President Kennedy in the lower portion of his neck, with that bullet striking at a distance from 176.9 feet to a distance of 190.8 feet. Stated differently, the evidence shows that somewhere between these two pictures President Kennedy was shot in the neck, and as the photograph of the rifle scope shows in the left-hand corner lower picture, that is the view through the telescopic lens which the marksman had based on onsite tests which were made in Dallas with a camera mounted looking through the scope on Commission Exhibit No. 139, which is the weapon identified as the assassination rifle. Now assuming those factors to be true for purposes of this next question, how would you characterize the difficulty of a shot at that range, which would strike the President in the lower portion of his neck at a spot indicated by a white mark on the back of the stand-in the photograph marked "Re-enactment"?

My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?

Major ANDERSON. In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot.

Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.

Major ANDERSON. I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that we have been off the record because Mr. Rankin stepped out, but we will proceed now to complete the deposition since he hasn't returned at this time.

Major Anderson, assume if you will that there were three shots fired by the assassin with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in a time span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. Would that speed of firing be within the capabilities of Mr. Oswald based upon the information as to his marksmanship ability from the Marine Corps records?

Major ANDERSON. Yes, sir; it would.

Mr. SPECTER. Major Anderson, are you as familiar with the telescopic sights as is Master Sergeant Zahm?

Major ANDERSON. No, sir; I am not. Sergeant Zahm is far more familiar and much more of an expert on telescopic sights than I am.

Mr. SPECTER. Has the testimony which you have provided here today on the general propositions to which you have testified been within your sphere of specialization?

Major ANDERSON. Yes, sir; they have.

Mr. SPECTER. That concludes the deposition of you, Major Anderson. We very much appreciate your coming.

Major ANDERSON. You are quite welcome.

TESTIMONY OF SGT. JAMES A. ZAHM

The testimony of Sgt. James A. Zahm was taken on July 24, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, will you stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you shall give before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Sergeant ZAHM. I do.

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

Sergeant ZAHM. James A. Zahm.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession or occupation, please?

Sergeant ZAHM. Master sergeant.

Mr. SPECTER. And in what branch of the service are you?

Sergeant ZAHM. U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been in the Marine Corps, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Eighteen years.

Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?

Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say NCO, what do you mean by that for the record.

Sergeant ZAHM. Noncommissioned officer.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been so occupied in that particular duty?

Sergeant ZAHM. Two years 4 months.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had if any in marksmanship?

Sergeant ZAHM. I became engaged in competitive shooting in 1952, and I became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches from 1952 through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won the President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup in 1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had with telescopic sights, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. One of my additional duties at the present time is the noncommissioned officer in charge of the long-range team. This consists of about 40 members of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team, and I am charged with training, providing weapons, and hand loading the ammunition for practice and eventual firing at 600 and 1,000 yards in the interservice match.

Mr. SPECTER. Are telescopic sights used regularly in those activities?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Could you characterize for me in some manner your experience then with telescopic sights in the number that you have used or duration of time where you have used telescopic sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, from my own experience, and it is true that the higher powered telescopes are used in the particular type of firing we are doing right now, deliberate slow fire at extreme ranges of 600 and 1,000 yards. We use 12-power to 20-power telescopes. These are unsuitable for moving targets or closer ranges from unsteady positions, because the power of the telescope tends to magnify the shooter's movements and makes a hold more difficult.

In the lower-powered telescope such as four-power telescope at closer ranges ranging from 50 to 200 yards, this is an ideal type of weapon for moving targets or type of telescope for moving targets, and for the closer ranges, things being inherent in the focus of the scopes when you get in too close, the higher power type scopes tend to blur out to a certain degree.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in alining the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in alining the sights.

Now this as opposed to telescope of a four-power nature it is a natural characteristic of a telescope when you are looking for your target, it is a natural thing to center your target in the view of your telescope, and in the center view of your telescope is the aiming crosshairs. This is only one point.

If you get this one point, the crosshairs in the proper relationship to your target, this is an aid in locating, finding your target, because you are using the scope in the sense as binoculars. Once you have found your target, your sights are already alined, and then through good trigger manipulation the shot should be well on the target.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to rapid-fire shooting, how does the telescopic sight on a four-power scope work out?

Sergeant ZAHM. Four-power being a reasonably low-power scope, it has a fairly broad field of view. By this we mean it covers a reasonable amount of area out at about 100 yards, about I think probably around 30 feet or so. Using the scope, rapidly working a bolt and using the scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that target you identify it and the crosshairs are in close relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you characterize it as easy, difficult, or how would you characterize it to use a scope, a four-power scope in rapid fire?

Sergeant ZAHM. A real aid, an extreme aid.

Mr. SPECTER. Suppose in focusing in through the four-power scope you do not get a completely circular view, but instead get a partial view with a corner of the view being blacked out because you don't have the scope in direct alinement, but you are still able to see a sufficient amount of daylight through the scope so that you can see where the crosshairs line up on target. Is it in sufficient alinement at that juncture to permit the marksman to shoot accurately?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And how does that work out that the alinement is sufficient to permit an accurate shot, even though the marksman does not have a completely clear view through the entire circle of the scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, in the assembly of the telescope, the aiming reticle or crosshair is so placed in the scope that it is in the same plane as the focus of the lenses, and regardless of the position of the eye behind the scope, this makes no apparent or no real movement of the reticle on the target itself, so if the shooter can look through the scope and see the juncture of the crosshairs, and it is on his target, if he properly manipulates the trigger he will get a hit.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. 1 to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?

Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

Mr. SPECTER. How much familiarity would a man with Oswald's qualifications, obtained in the Marine Corps, require in order to operate a rifle with a scope such as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a four-power scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. How much familiarity would he require?

Mr. SPECTER. Let me rephrase the question. Would it be very difficult for a man with Oswald's capabilities as a marksman to use a rifle with a four-power scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. No; I feel that the instruction that he had received qualifies him on the basic fundamentals of marksmanship. There are just a few refinements in the operation of the bolt rifle and the scope through a minimum amount of experimenting would make him as proficient with the bolt and the scope as it did with the weapons he received instruction on, and if not it would improve his proficiency actually through the use of the telescope. I feel that this would be an advantage.

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.

Mr. SPECTER. Would dry runs be an aid to a man like Oswald in learning how to operate a rifle with a scope on it.

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe for the record what is meant in marksmanship terms by a dry run?

Sergeant ZAHM. Dry firing is working the bolt and manipulating the trigger and alining the sights, whether it be scope or iron, without any ammunition. The advantage in the scope in dry firing is that when he snaps the trigger or squeezes the trigger, he can see any apparent error in his trigger manipulation, movement of the piece, by the jump of the crosshair much easier than he can with iron sights.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the use of a four-power scope be a real advantage to a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities or of a slight advantage, or how would you characterize the advantage that he would obtain, if any, from the use of such a scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it a real advantage, particularly at the range of 100 yards, in identifying your target. It allows you to see your target clearly, and it is still of a minimum amount of power that it doesn't exaggerate your own body movements. It just is an aid in seeing in the fact that you only have the one element, the crosshair, in relation to the target as opposed to iron sights with alining the sights and then alining them on the target. It is a real aid.

Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, I am now going to show you the same photographs which I showed to Major Anderson in setting the basis for asking you a hypothetical question on capabilities here. As the record will show, we have heretofore before the President's Commission entered into evidence Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza. Commission Exhibit No. 348, which I am now displaying to you, is a photograph of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence in the record indicates that the marksman stood at the point designated "A" with the lower half of the window being raised halfway, and the gun protruding out of that window pointing down the street called Elm Street in approximately the angle of my pencil which is virtually although not exactly straight down the street. Elm Street declines 3° as it slopes under the triple underpass.

As the evidence will further show, Commission Exhibits Nos. 893 and 895 respectively depict frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film which is a range of the first shot from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet. In the lower left-hand corner under designation "Photograph through rifle scope" there is shown the view of the marksman from the sixth floor of the depository building as he looked down at President Kennedy with this picture being taken of a stand-in for President Kennedy, with the white mark designating the spot on the President where the first bullet struck him.

Now assuming that the President was struck under those circumstances at a distance of from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet, using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a four-power scope, would a man with Oswald's marksmanship capabilities be able to complete such a shot and strike the target on the white mark there?

Sergeant ZAHM. Very definitely.

Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?

Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Now taking a look at Commission Exhibit No. 902, which as the record will show, has been introduced into evidence to depict the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from the rifle in the window to the part of the President's body being 265.3 feet. Assuming the same factors about using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and pointing it down Elm Street as shown on Commission Exhibit No. 347, would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a 4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head? Would Mr. Oswald possess the capability to complete such a shot which did, in this situation, strike the President in the back of the head?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I think that aiming at the mass of what portion of the President is visible at that distance and with his equipment, he would very easily have attained a hit, not necessarily aiming and hitting in the head. This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass to the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace, and the fact that he hit him in the head, but he could have hit, got a hit.

Mr. SPECTER. So you would have expected a man of Oswald's capabilities at a distance of 265.3 feet to strike the President someplace aiming at him under those circumstances?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And within the range of where you would expect him to hit him, would that include the President's head?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And how would you characterize that shot with respect to whether it was difficult or not difficult?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SPECTER. Let's go back on the record. May the record show that Sergeant Zahm has questioned the appearance of the "photograph through rifle scope" which appear on Exhibits Nos. 895 and 902. And as the record will show, there are only four photographs on Exhibit No. 895 whereas there are eight on Commission Exhibit No. 902, so that necessarily the photograph through the rifle scope is much smaller as it is depicted on Exhibit No. 902, and I want you to bear that in mind, Sergeant Zahm, in answering the question as to whether you consider the shot at a distance of 265.3 feet to be difficult or not difficult; or characterize it for me in your own words.

Sergeant ZAHM. I consider it still an easy shot, a little more difficult from the President's body position and increase in distance of approximately 40 feet, but I still consider it an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability.

Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that there were three shots fired in a range of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, would that speed of firing at that range indicated in the prior questions be within Mr. Oswald's capabilities as a marksman?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What effect if any would the alinement of the street have on the moving vehicle in the way that it is shown on the picture, Exhibit No. 348?

Sergeant ZAHM. This is a definite advantage to the shooter, the vehicle moving directly away from him and the downgrade of the street, and he being in an elevated position made an almost stationary target while he was aiming in, very little movement if any.

Mr. SPECTER. How would the fact that the street had a 3° decline affect the difficulty of the shot.

Sergeant ZAHM. It would make it easier because Oswald was in an elevated position, and therefore if the car was traveling on a level terrain, it would apparently--he would have to keep adjusting by holding up a little bit as the car traveled. But by going downgrade this just straightened out his line of sight that much better.

Mr. SPECTER. So that if the car had been proceeding on a level, the assassin would have had to have raised his weapon as the distance between the rifle and the car increased to allow for trajectory?

Sergeant ZAHM. No; just to allow for the movement of the targets, the travel. Assume that you are aiming standing at ground level and aiming down a little at somebody walking straight away from you, and you could hold your finger and point to him and never have to move it. But when he gets to the bottom of the hill and the ground levels out, then as he continues on you have to point your finger----

Mr. SPECTER. Raise your finger as you are indicating with your finger now?

Sergeant ZAHM. Right; you would have to raise your finger to track the target.

Mr. SPECTER. So that if you were aiming at a man in a moving car driving on the horizontal, as he got farther away from you, would you (a) hold your rifle at the same level, (b) lower it, or (c) raise it?

Sergeant ZAHM. If you were in an elevated, a slightly elevated position, and he was driving on straight level terrain, you would have to continually track and raise your weapon as he increased his distance from you.

Mr. SPECTER. And if he was going down in an angle of descent, would that decrease the necessity for you to raise your rifle in tracking him?

Sergeant ZAHM. Right; it would slow the movement down. There still might be a slight movement, but it wouldn't be as fast. Therefore, not affecting the aiming or possibly having to introduce a lead in your aiming, because the target is staying relatively in the same position on the line of sight.

Mr. SPECTER. So then it would have been an aid to the assassin to have had the President's car going on a downgrade because that would have taken into consideration some of the adjustment necessary by virtue of the greater distance between the rifle and the victim?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add, Sergeant Zahm, which you think might be helpful in this analysis?

Sergeant ZAHM. No, sir; I don't think so.

Mr. SPECTER. Thank you very much for appearing before the Commission today, sir.

TESTIMONY OF C. A. HAMBLEN

The testimony of C. A. Hamblen was taken at 2:50 p.m., on July 23, 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. You may remain seated. Will you 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. HAMBLEN. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to it by Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress, No. 137. You are entitled under the rules of the Commission governing the taking of testimony of witnesses to have an attorney present, should you wish. I understand that you are present pursuant to a subpena that was served on you some days ago by the U.S. Secret Service, and I presume since you don't have an attorney with you at this time, you are prepared to proceed with your testimony without an attorney?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I don't need an attorney. You might wish to make a little correction. This should be C. A. Hamblen instead of C. R.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your name is C. A. H-a-m-b-l-e-n?

Mr. HAMBLEN. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. How old are you?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I will be 50 in December.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are employed by the Western Union Telegraph Co.; isn't that right?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long have you worked for them?

Mr. HAMBLEN. It will be 38 years the 6th day of August.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to come right to the point in this deposition. I think you know basically the reason we have asked you to come over. It is my understanding that you had a conversation with a newspaper reporter by the name of Bob Fenley shortly after the assassination, in which you told him, in substance, that you thought that a man who you thought looked like Lee Oswald had been in your office and had either sent a telegram or cashed a money order telegram that he had in his possession; is that correct?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Not exactly.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is it exactly?

Mr. HAMBLEN. During that time, I came in contact with newspaper correspondents from all over the world. In my years of service to the company, I have never disclosed the contents of a telegram, who they were addressed to, who they were from, or anything pertaining to them.

I don't think I told Mr. Fenley that a Lee Oswald had been in there, because talking with those correspondents, I wouldn't divulge any patron coming into the telegraph office in search of any of our services, money orders, telegrams, collateral services, collection services, anything that we have to offer. I believe there is some misunderstanding on Mr. Fenley's part there. Perhaps I did tell him that I thought I had seen someone that looked like the man that I saw over television.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember----

Mr. HAMBLEN. I thought he was the assassinator.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember talking to Mr. Fenley about this?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I don't remember telling anyone that, of anyone filing a telegram with us. I remember talking with Fenley, but I wouldn't disclose any information.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you say to Fenley?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Just in general conversation like I would with Wes Wise or any of the other reporters that I come in contact with.

Mr. LIEBELER. Didn't you tell Fenley that you thought you had seen somebody that reminded you of Oswald in your office?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes; I did tell him that I had saw Oswald. I may have told him that. I don't recall what all was said--as many of those correspondents that I talked to during that period of time. Then the employees under me, we never discuss any telegrams unless it is necessary for them to ask me to pass upon a telegram so it could be transmitted.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling Fenley that when you saw the picture of the alleged assassin on television, that he looked very much like a man that had caused you a hard time on several instances in your office?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I don't remember telling Fenley anything like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember signing a statement to that effect for Mr. Wilcox on December 2, 1963, and I show you a copy.

Mr. HAMBLEN. That I told Fenley that I saw that man in there?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.

Mr. HAMBLEN. I told Wilcox that I thought I saw him, but I don't think I told Fenley.

Mr. LIEBELER. Read the first paragraph of that statement.

Mr. HAMBLEN (reading). I don't think I told Fenley that. I remember telling Mr. Wilcox that I thought a party had been in there that resembled Oswald, on several different occasions.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now the statement that I have shown you here, which is Wilcox Exhibit No. 3005, is a copy of a statement that you signed on December 2, 1963, isn't it? That is your signature?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes; that is my signature.

Mr. LIEBELER. Could I have it back, please? Now, that statement says, and I quote:

"I was in conversation with a reporter at the counter and remarked to him that I was watching my TV, enjoying the Ernie Ford show, when word was flashed that the President had been shot and that I thought to myself what a coincidence it was that I recognized the picture of the accused gunman when I recognized it when he was slain in jail. He asked me how I could remember so vividly the photo and my answer to him that the picture was or was the spit image of a party that had caused me a hard time on several instances in his transactions of business within the past several months. (Mr. Bob Fenley was the reporter.)"

Mr. HAMBLEN. Well, now, if I gave Bob any information like that, I don't recall it now. I might have at the time that I wrote the statement.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now you had several conversations with Mr. Wilcox about this whole matter over a period of time?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Wilcox and the company conducted a thorough investigation of the files?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I am sure they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. And tried to find the telegrams that you thought this man that was in there may have sent; isn't that right?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Were you able to find them?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I wasn't able to detect any one.

Mr. LIEBELER. After this investigation was made, Mr. Wilcox showed you these telegrams that you have associated or thought might be associated with Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. They were brought to me in the presence of Mr. Wilcox and the vice president of the company in charge of this investigation.

Mr. LIEBELER. You weren't able to identify any of those telegrams as having been sent by this man you thought looked like Oswald; isn't that right?

Mr. HAMBLEN. That's right. And I think I am pretty good on recognizing handwriting after handling as many as I have over those years of time.

Mr. LIEBELER. To the best of your recollection at this time, do you think that Lee Oswald was ever in your office?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I wouldn't say that it was Lee Oswald. I would say it was someone that resembled him from the picture that I had seen in the paper and on TV.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to state positively that it was Lee Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a photograph that has been marked Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A, and ask you if you can see anybody in that picture that you think might have been the man that was in your office that we have been talking about.

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Bringuier Exhibit No. 1, and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture.

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

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall specifically that Mr. Aubrey Lee Lewis at one time in the fall of 1963 had some trouble paying somebody a money order because this fellow expected to get the money order without proper identification; that you became involved in this and helped Mr. Lewis handle it?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember what the fellow looked like?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No; I can't tell you what he looked like.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if it was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I wouldn't say that it was.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think he resembled Oswald in any way?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No; I don't. Different ways people dress and everything, they come in one time and we pay them money orders and the next time they come in we hardly recognize them. I remember it was a very small money order, too small to quibble over. I can't remember where it was from. I know it was under $10, I know that.

Usually I pay people without identification when it is a small money order, which the clerks are not allowed to do. They have to get my permission before they can make payment on a money order where a person is unable to furnish proper identification. But on small amounts, I take it upon myself to assume the responsibility, hoping that I will pay the right man.

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture that we have looked at, and after reviewing your recollection, you are not able to identify any of the people who you saw in your office during that period as being Lee Harvey Oswald, isn't that a fact?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in assuming that you are quite certain that Oswald was not a regular customer, in any event? He was never coming into your office at regular intervals, is that correct?

Mr. HAMBLEN. Well, I wouldn't say Lee Oswald came in there at regular intervals. We have patrons that visit us sometimes once a week, sometimes half a dozen times a week. If it was him, he was very infrequent. I will say if it was him, he wasn't there over three times, that I recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. There was a fellow that you thought resembled Oswald to some extent that did come in on occasion, or at least two or three times, but you are not able to positively state that it was Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Am I correct in understanding that in your discussions with Mr. Wilcox and with the other officials of the company, you did the best that you could to straighten this whole matter out and determine whether it was Oswald or not?

Mr. HAMBLEN. I certainly did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You were unable, after working with Mr. Wilcox, to pin down any of these telegrams or money orders that would indicate that it was Oswald?

Mr. HAMBLEN. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, specifically, I show you a picture marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C," and ask you if that looks like that man who was in your office.

Mr. HAMBLEN. No; I wouldn't say that that was the man that was in there. No resemblance.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to cut your testimony as short as I possibly can, because you are not feeling well. We appreciate your cooperation in coming in when you don't feel well like you have.

Mr. HAMBLEN. I appreciate it. I was in the X-ray all morning and yesterday morning for 2 hours.

Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamblen, for coming in. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. HAMBLEN. If I can help you any further, well, you have my address.

Mr. LIEBELER. We will get in touch with you.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GENE FENLEY

The testimony of Robert Gene Fenley, was taken at 9:45 a.m., on July 14, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex. by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Sam Kelley, assistant attorney general of Texas, was present.

Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Robert Gene Fenley. Mr. Fenley, my name is Leon Hubert. I am a member of the advisory staff of the general counsel of the President's Commission.

Under the provisions of Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of procedure adopted by the President's Commission in conformance with that Executive order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission's inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In particular as to you, Mr. Fenley, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine what facts you know about the death of Oswald and any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry. Now, I understand that you are appearing here today by virtue of a letter request mailed to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff of the President's Commission, which you received about 4 days ago?

Mr. FENLEY. That is correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you please rise so I may administer the oath? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. FENLEY. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name?

Mr. FENLEY. Robert Gene Fenley.

Mr. HUBERT. G-e-n-e is your middle name?

Mr. FENLEY. Correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Where do you live, sir?

Mr. FENLEY. 3701 Strayhorn Drive, Mesquite, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation, Mr. Fenley?

Mr. FENLEY. Reporter for the Dallas Times Herald.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so employed?

Mr. FENLEY. Nine years.

Mr. HUBERT. How old are you?

Mr. FENLEY. Thirty-six.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you in newspaper work before you joined the Times Herald?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. With what newspaper?

Mr. FENLEY. Prior to the Times Herald, I was with the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, the Denton Record Chronicle, and the Pryor, Oklahoma, Times Democrat.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you go to college, sir?

Mr. FENLEY. I went to Oklahoma University.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you graduate?

Mr. FENLEY. Four years. No; I did not graduate.

Mr. HUBERT. Study journalism?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; part of the time.

Mr. HUBERT. Your whole adult experience, I gather, therefore, has been in newspaper work?

Mr. FENLEY. That is true.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, do you know a Mr. Hamblen connected with the Western Union Co. here in Dallas?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I have talked with him on one occasion. I don't know him personally.

Mr. HUBERT. What was that one occasion?

Mr. FENLEY. The date is rather vague in my mind.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us perhaps the occasion?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; I am a stringer.

Mr. HUBERT. A what?

Mr. FENLEY. A stringer. A correspondent for Time magazine, and I had written a long piece which we transmitted by Western Union, and I had gone into Western Union to hand this over for transmitting, and I fell in conversation with Mr. Hamblen.

Mr. HUBERT. Had you known him prior to that time?

Mr. FENLEY. No; I had not.

Mr. HUBERT. Could you tell us about what time of day it was?

Mr. FENLEY. It was at night. I forget the exact time of night, but I believe I had driven from Mesquite with the story to give it to Western Union. It might have been 11 or 12 o'clock.

Mr. HUBERT. It happened that Hamblen was the clerk or employee of the Western Union in service?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us how you came to engage him in conversation?

Mr. FENLEY. He noticed the wire or press message which I had, and it had to do with the assassination, or Oswald, frankly. I can't remember the content of the wire, but we sort of chatted there for a moment, and he recalled that he was certain that Oswald had come into the office on occasion.

I don't know whether he used the word several. I took it to mean that. And received some various small amounts of money orders. And certainly this was interesting to me. We kept chatting and I asked him, now how big were the amounts of the orders, and he said, "I don't think there would be anything over $15, $10 or $15." And I asked him, "Now, you are pretty sure this was Oswald? I mean, the guy you have seen in the pictures and things like that?" And he replied he was. He said, "He used to come in and would give the girls a hard time. He was a cantankerous individual."

Mr. HUBERT. Did he mention what girls?

Mr. FENLEY. No; not by name. So he said, "I believe the last time"--and he couldn't recall the date or anything--"that he came in, he went himself to wait on the fellow because he knew that he was sort of difficult to deal with." Well, this was certainly interesting to me as a newspaperman.

Mr. HUBERT. Had you heard that story before?

Mr. FENLEY. No; I had not.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, your coming upon this story was something of a gratuity?

Mr. FENLEY. It certainly was. I was slightly amazed. And the other thing, there was a marble countertop there in the office, and he said, or he recalled that Oswald had written in what he described a curious sort of printing with, as best he could tell, he wrote out some letters. For instance, an "N" he said as printed by Oswald would have a high rising right side to it. He said it was a rather curious sort of printing.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he demonstrate that to you?

Mr. FENLEY. He demonstrated this on the marble.

Mr. HUBERT. Hamblen did so?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he indicate that it was in a foreign alphabet?

Mr. FENLEY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. Just a peculiar art?

Mr. FENLEY. I took it to be certainly the English alphabet, but with a peculiar sort of printing.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he indicate what was the nature of the difficulty that he had had on previous occasions with the man he said was Oswald?

Mr. FENLEY. Nothing other than an indication that Oswald was difficult to deal with.

Mr. HUBERT. But he didn't say how he was difficult to deal with?

Mr. FENLEY. No; not specifically. Well, at this moment I thought, well, this sounds like quite an interesting story. And Hamblen gave me his card. So I went home, and the next day----

Mr. HUBERT. How long was the conversation?

Mr. FENLEY. Oh, not over 10 minutes long. I asked him also, which I failed to mention, how could we get the records, or how could anyone get the records, and he indicated it would be very difficult.

Of course, this would be very helpful if you would get the names or the identification of people who had sent any money orders to Oswald, and he indicated that there were so many of that type of money order coming in that they just couldn't keep all the records. And I got the impression that it would be either impossible or almost impossible to run it down.

Mr. HUBERT. You mentioned, I think, that you were particularly interested as to the certainty of his identification of Oswald as the man, and that you made some inquiry along that line?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. What did you do by way of testing him, as it were, on that identification?

Mr. FENLEY. Well, as I said, I went home that night, and, of course, we don't have--we are an afternoon newspaper and don't have deadlines until the morning.

The next morning I went to talk to our police reporter, whose name is George Carter, and I hold him what Hamblen had told me. I said I am not too sure of it. I think it needs a double check. And he said, well, I know the guy.

Mr. HUBERT. Meaning Hamblen?

Mr. FENLEY. Yes; he said he knew the fellow over at Western Union, and he said, "I know he is in at Mike's, which is a little barbecue stand across from the city hall." Hamblen would come into Mike's on occasion, and George knew him.

And I said, "George, why don't you go talk to him and see if he will tell you the same thing?" And George did. When he did, we compared notes, and he had told George just precisely, as best we knew, the same content he told me. So George wrote the story.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you yourself make any notes contemporaneously with the conversation with Hamblen or later?