Chapter XXXIV: Part 34

Mr. SLAWSON. In Commission Exhibit No. 911, which is John McVickar's memorandum to files about his conversation with you, he quotes you as saying, "Miss Johnson remarked that although he used long words and seemed in some ways well-read, he often used words incorrectly as though he had learned them from a dictionary."

Was that in reference to these economic discussions you had with Oswald?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. I think really he didn't use long words too much about economics. I felt if I could have, I could have made an impression. Words were important to him. And he was not qualified, mind you, for a technical discussion of economics.

It wasn't that he was qualified for it. If I had been, I felt I would have had a value to him.

Mr. SLAWSON. I wish you would elaborate on this: What kind of knowledge you felt Lee Oswald had on economics, and his general ability to engage in abstract argument and discussion.

Miss JOHNSON. He liked to create the pretense, the impression that he was attracted to abstract discussion and was capable of engaging in it, and was drawn to it. But it was like pricking a balloon. I had the feeling that if you really did engage him on this ground, you very quickly would discover that he didn't have the capacity for a logical sustained argument about an abstract point on economics or on noneconomic, political matters or any matter, philosophical. Actually the conversation kept coming back to him, and this was not only my desire for an interview. It was the way he led it. He really talked about himself the whole time.

Whatever he was talking about was really Lee Oswald. He seemed to me to have really zero capacity for a sustained abstract discussion on economics or any other subject, and I didn't think he knew anything about economics.

In fact, if I had been a little smarter I would have just used the economic words that I could have remembered, compelled his respect and he wouldn't have known that I didn't know anything.

Mr. SLAWSON. You said that you did not get into much political discussion with him.

Miss JOHNSON. No, we didn't. Partly I couldn't engage him directly on the Soviet Union because I had a poor status there as a correspondent. I worked for the weakest of the American agencies. I was always in danger of being expelled with my visa expiring. Even then I was only on a 1 month visa, and at that only because of the spirit of Camp David. I had just barely gotten back in the country.

I was just there on sufferance, and I really couldn't show my hand politically, tell him anything I thought politically. He also didn't seem interested in a pointed political discussion about either society. He seemed to be able or willing to discuss in generalizations rather than in direct terms, a comparison of the two societies or anything like this. The point where I felt I could engage him was on economics, and here we did go in for some comparisons of the two societies. That was all. But politics we hardly discussed, except when he brought it up. And he didn't bring it up in terms of people at all.

(Short recess.)

Mr. SLAWSON. Miss Johnson, I wonder if you would search your memory with the help of your notes and make any comments you could on what contacts Lee Oswald had had with Soviet officials before you saw him, any remarks he made or things you could read between the lines, and so on.

Miss JOHNSON. I was looking for contact between him and the secret police, and I wanted to find out if there had been such contact, and if so, how much and was he aware of it. And I came away impressed only with the fact that he was secretive, and not at all certain what his contacts had been, but assuming that there had been some, whether or not he was aware of it.

He was very reticent as to who he had seen, what agencies they represented. I asked him whether he had told Intourist of his intention, and his answer, which is on the record somewhere, I asked him if they were encouraging him, and he said they treat it like a legal formality. They don't encourage and don't discourage you.

"They do of course warn you that it is not easy to be accepted as a citizen of the Soviet Union." They were investigating the possibility of his studying.

I assumed that the police had told him he wasn't to see any of us, and that they would tell him when he left the hotel at the end of the week not to tell any one before he left. I asked him if Intourist knew about his intentions and he refused to answer.

He said he had had an interview with an official of the Soviet Government a few days later. I assume that means after his arrival. But "official of the Soviet Government" meant nothing and I didn't know what agency that official represented.

Also I had the impression, in fact he said, he hoped that his experience as a radar operator would make him more desirable to them. That was the only thing that really showed any lack of integrity in a way about him, a negative thing. That is, he felt he had something he could give them, something that would hurt his country in a way, or could, and that was the one thing that was quite negative, that he was holding out some kind of bait. That also indicated his extreme naivete, because they have plenty of radar operators, and I doubted that anything in that realm would be of use to them, although perhaps he knew codes and things.

I didn't know anything about that.

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you elaborate a little bit on that radar point. Had you been informed by the American Embassy at the time that he had told Richard Snyder that he had already volunteered to the Soviet officials that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps, and would give the Russian Government any secrets he had possessed?

Miss JOHNSON. I had no idea that he had told Snyder that, but he did tell me--I got the impression, I am not sure that it is in the notes or not, I certainly got the impression that he was using his radar training as a come-on to them, hoped that that would make him of some value to them, and I----

Mr. SLAWSON. This was something then that he must have volunteered to you, because you would not have known to ask about it?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, again I am not very military minded, and I couldn't have cared less, you know. But somehow along the line, if it is not in my notes then it is a memory, then it is one of the things I didn't write--well, one thing is you know I tend to write what I thought I might use in the story. But I wasn't going to write a particularly negative story about him. I wasn't going to write that he was using it as a come-on so I might not have transcribed it just simply for that reason, that it wasn't a part of my story.

But it definitely was an impression that he--and it was from him, certainly not from the Embassy, that he was using that as a come-on, and I sure didn't like that. But it didn't occur to me he might have military secrets. I just felt, well hell, he didn't have much as a radar operator that they need, although even there I didn't know.

Maybe there was some little twist in our radar technique that he might know. It showed a lack of integrity in his personality, and that I remembered. What he might or might not have to offer them I didn't know.

About the other point, police interest, I assumed the police would be the first people to be interested, and that whether he knew it or not, he had talked to somebody from the police, that he was getting a favorable room rate because of this interest. That is what I was after the whole time. But I was struck only by his secretiveness in answer to this, and I couldn't make out whether he had something to hide, whether he didn't know really what the situation was, or whether he was simply a very secretive person.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he tell you that he had this information which he was, you might say, holding out as bait to the Soviets, or that he had already given to the Soviet Government whatever expertise or information he might have had as a radar operator?

Miss JOHNSON. I think he told me--could you repeat your question?

Mr. SLAWSON. Well, I will put it in a different way. I wonder whether your memory is that Oswald was telling you that he had this information which he had not yet given to the Soviet Government, and hoped to use it as a means of convincing them to take him, or whether he had already given it to them?

Miss JOHNSON. No; he didn't tell me that he had any specific information, that he offered it, that he had told them, or that he would tell them. It was not that explicit. It was something like if his experience as a radar operator would be of any use to them, perhaps they would let him work as a radar operator. It was a little more pointed than that, because I realized that he was going to make available his radar experience, and that he did want to use it as a come-on.

It was a tiny bit, a little bit more pointed than that, but it was more in that category. If anything he learned as a radar operator in the Marines would be useful to them, he would give it to them, and he hoped to continue his training, something like that.

But it is not in my notes. It is memory, and it is the most negative recollection of him I had.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he make any comments to you about having been interviewed by any Soviet newspaper reporters or radio reporters or anything of that type?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, of course that is an obvious question I ought to have asked him, since a visiting foreigner very quickly does get that kind of attention, but I didn't ask him.

Mr. SLAWSON. You did, I think, according to the statements you have made in these exhibits, ask him whether he had had any contacts with American Communists or other Communists before he came to the Soviet Union?

Miss JOHNSON. I wasn't as suspicious about this as I had been on the Soviet police angle, but he awakened my suspicions by his reticence. He seemed to have something to hide, and once again I didn't know whether he had something to hide or whether he was just very secretive, because I asked him what books he had read, and he wouldn't say. Yet he was certainly trying to give me the impression that he was a book-learned boy, and this comes about page 11 of my notes. We were talking about books, and we were talking about his contact with American Socialists or Communists about the same time.

So perhaps the way that the conversation led from one to the other gave me the impression that he wasn't naming books because he didn't want to hurt authors by suggesting that they had had anything to do--he was taking full responsibility--that they had had anything to do with his defection. But you would think he would have mentioned books because he was giving the impression that he was a boy who paid a lot of attention and he really read books.

Then Socialists and Communists, I wasn't too suspicious although I should have been. How did he get there? It wasn't easy at all for him to do. I was more impressed, awed by it, than I was inquisitive about where he might have been coached.

But he awakened me to the point that I should be inquisitive because of the very fact that he eluded, naming names, specified that he had no contacts with American Communists, going out of his way to stress it. I am sure that this part of our conversation was quite a bit longer than came out in my notes. Again you know I had no idea that he was going to ever be at all important. But it was he who put the emphasis on lack of contacts with American Communists. He said American Socialists were to be shunned by anybody with an interest in progressive ideology. I probably brought them up rather than the Communists first, just as his interest in Socialist literature.

He answered, "Well, they were to be shunned." This was an emphatic reply to what was probably a very vague, general, unemphatic question. And he called them "a dormant flag-waving organization."

So that woke me up and I asked him what about American Communists, and he said--he was very emphatic here and again probably at more length than was in the notes--that only through reading literature and observing, but he wouldn't name what literature, American Communists "(I never saw an American Communist)" he said, and I put that in parentheses because I was that uninterested, really. I didn't make it anything but a parenthetical observation, but only through reading did he conclude it was best. In other words it was he who had tried to emphasize that there had not been people involved.

Retrospectively I see that this was important, that there may have been people involved.

Mr. SLAWSON. You say retrospectively you see that it was important. Do you mean by that that you see now it was very important to him that he establish to you that he had come only on his own?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, I saw then that it was important to him to establish this to me. My story reflects whatever importance I gave it at the time. But if I knew about him then a tenth of what I know now, I would have tried to pin him down even more on it, that he might have had coaching.

It is also the sort of thing that comes out more clearly when you look at your notes and you think about a person afterwards, just-how-did-he-get-here kind of a thing.

How does a boy like this who doesn't know his way around Moscow find his way here? But at the time I was talking to him, I had less interest really than in any help he may have had on the Soviet side.

Mr. SLAWSON. Trying to divorce what you now know from what you knew then, did he go into any detail at all about his life before he came to Russia, his life in the Marine Corps particularly?

Miss JOHNSON. The only details there were about his experience abroad. He said literally nothing about his experience in the Marine Corps in the United States except that he was studying Russian then. He did speak about his experience in the Marine Corps abroad in Japan, in the Philippines, and he indicated that he hated to be part of it, you know, "oppressing power." He said he had been part of an invasion of Indonesia in March 1958, that there was a Communist-inspired social turnover, that they had to sit off the coast in ships with enough ammunition to intervene. He was told that they might have had to go in in Suez in 1956.

He had been in Japan and the Philippines, and he hated to participate in what he viewed as American imperialism, but details of his life in the Marine Corps he didn't go into at all.

Mr. SLAWSON. At that time did you yourself speak a fair amount of Russian?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. SLAWSON. Were you able to judge his facility in that language?

Miss JOHNSON. No; because our conversation was totally in English. It was he who volunteered about his linguistic competence, and I think that he said that while the Berlitz method had helped him learn to read and write, and I queried "write" because writing is even harder than speaking, it hadn't taught him to speak. And he indicated considerable helplessness in the language. There are a number of things not in the notes, such as perhaps this, about the language, there was more than is in the notes.

His helplessness about the city, the fact that he had only been on one walk by himself is not in my notes, but it is in my story. There are a few things like that that weren't in the notes, but that came across very clearly. I had the feeling that he felt quite helpless in Russian, not that he hadn't studied it but he simply didn't find the study was useful in his day-to-day getting around the city.

Mr. SLAWSON. Your article quotes Oswald as saying that he used Berlitz methods in learning the language. Does your memory have anything to add to that as to what exactly he might have meant?

Miss JOHNSON. Yes. This was another point where he struck me as really rather elusive about an innocent enough subject. I see on page 3, he said, "I started learning Russian a year ago along with my other preparations."

Well, his saying "along with my other preparations" took my interest at the time. What were they? Whether I tried to find out more about what they were and failed and therefore that is not in the notes, but he threw it out and he then didn't really deliver as far as detailing them. He said, "I was able to teach myself to read and write from Berlitz. I still have trouble speaking."

So I said, "Well, how did you teach yourself to read and write from Berlitz? Did you just get a textbook or did you go into some city nearby for lessons at a school?" And he wouldn't answer, and that struck me as one hell of a--I mean a strange thing to be elusive about. Why, learning a language is just something you can tell somebody, so I thought.

So I said, "Practice or a teacher? Did you have a teacher or did you just do it from practice?" And he wouldn't say. And then that got me sufficiently curious that I asked him on what money he had come to the Soviet Union. That was my next question. He did have a way of a little bit piquing your curiosity and then failing to deliver.

He liked to play cat and mouse with your curiosity.

Mr. SLAWSON. Can you go into and describe what kind of assurances Oswald said he had been given at that time about his ability to stay indefinitely in the Soviet Union, or lack of assurances?

Miss JOHNSON. This was a point on which his anxiety was patent, and he said almost at the beginning of the interview, "They have confirmed the fact that I will not have to leave the Soviet Union, be forced to leave even if the Supreme Soviet refuses my request for Soviet citizenship."

This came up repeatedly in the conversation, that he was anxious, that he had been very anxious that he would be forced to go--what was your question exactly again?

Mr. SLAWSON. I think you are already addressing yourself to it. I am interested in what Oswald told you about how sure he was at that time that he would be permitted to stay in the Soviet Union.

Miss JOHNSON. Well, he had by that time been told that he wouldn't have to leave, and as it had obviously been very recently that he had been told. It was obviously also an enormous relief to him but he hadn't quite recovered from the anxiety he had felt before the assurance, because it kept coming up again and again. In fact, he even----

Mr. SLAWSON. Could you state for the record what kept coming up again and again? I mean, what did he tell you he had been told?

Miss JOHNSON. The fact that he could stay in the Soviet Union as a resident alien even if he did not receive Soviet citizenship, that he wouldn't have to leave the country. It came up almost as a leit motif of this conversation, his anxiety about staying, and his recent reassurance by them that he could remain as a resident alien had not altogether quelled the anxiety which was still alive, even though the assurance was there.

He was holding on to it and repeating it, you know, reiterating it as though it gave him something to hold on to. In fact, he did give this as a reason for his talking to me, that he no longer was afraid that by talking to a foreigner he would be compromising his ability to stay. In other words, all the time I was also curious really as to just what he was. Was he a publicity seeker? Was he doing it for that reason? And so he said he wouldn't have talked, that he would have given no statement to the press, which was a rather pretentious way I guess of describing his utterances up to that time, if the Embassy hadn't already released it, and he wouldn't have said anything to anyone if they hadn't released it.

This was another reason for his being mad at the Embassy. Then he went on to say as another reason for talking--he was already inconsistent there--he would like to give his side of the story and give the people of the United States something to think about.

And then on top of that, that having been assured "I would not have to return to the United States I assumed it would be safe for me to give my side of the story," and at the time I underlined the word "safe." Why did he think it would be unsafe, and "my side of the story"? He is assuming that the Embassy is giving out a negative story about him. He was paranoid. I mean he assumed that they were saying nasty things about him and he wanted to set the record straight. This told me something about him already at the beginning of the interview, that he really was a little bit paranoid.

Mr. SLAWSON. I have intentionally asked you of your impressions on this point, without giving you some other information that we have, and I now want to give that information to you and see whether in the light of this, what is your interpretation of Oswald's attitude at that time.

His historic diary, which is Commission Exhibit No. 24, has an entry that on November 15 he interviewed Aline Mosby. That is incorrect, probably a day late. It was probably the 14th or the 13th. On November 16, which he places as the day after he interviewed her, he has the following entry:

"A Russian official comes to my room, asks how I am, notifies me I can remain in U.S.S.R. 'til some solution is found with what to do with me. It is comforting news for me."

Miss JOHNSON. That was the 16th.

Mr. SLAWSON. But I say, do not take the dates correctly except that one date comes after another, because he also placed the interview with Mosby the 15th, which we know must have been at least as early as the 14th, and possibly as early as the 13th.

Miss JOHNSON. In other words--yes; but that might help account for the fullness. Either he is lying; i.e., really he is misled, or not lying but confused about his reason for talking to me, and I think he was.

Mr. SLAWSON. But I think that the significance of the entry is that the promise that he could stay was very distinctly qualified.

Miss JOHNSON. "Until some solution----"

Mr. SLAWSON. "Is found what to do with me."

Miss JOHNSON. That is interesting: "until some solution." The way he put it to me was, and he put it more than once, it is in the notes, "even if they refuse that, I won't have to leave."

I imagine that his talking to me for so long, however, could be partly because he did feel the heat was off him in some way. That might be one reason. Another thing is that leads me to date my own interview the 17th, because for some reason I have the feeling that that information has been conveyed to him on the day before I talked to him.

Mr. SLAWSON. I don't think this is a basis for your dating your interview on the 17th, because I think he has everything moved up a day here. He puts the Mosby interview on the 15th which we know was on the 14th, so he probably puts the Russian officials coming to his room on the 16th when it probably occurred on the 15th.

Miss JOHNSON. That would be a Sunday. But Soviet officials do do things on Sundays. They definitely do. But even so, it is more likely that that happened on the 14th, Mosby on the 13th. That is possible, too.

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes.

Miss JOHNSON. So they had just simply said until--in other words, he is inexact for all his legalism. Either he is confused and inexact, or he was misleading purposely. He may have misunderstood the official, thought the official was promising more than he was.

Mr. SLAWSON. It could be, except that this of course is his diary entry, so he must have known what he was writing there, unless he wrote it down much later. In other words, it is possible that he made the entry in the diary at a much later time when he then realized that the promise had been qualified, and was under the impression when he spoke to you that he had received an unconditional promise. But the reason I brought this up was whether with the insight that he may have known when he spoke to you, that he had not quite received the unconditional promise he purported to have received, does this give you any further insight on him? I don't want you to just speculate here.

Miss JOHNSON. Well, whether he viewed publicity as actually perhaps helping his case, or whether enjoying the sense of importance that publicity gave him, he was rationalizing it by thinking that he was manipulating the situation to his advantage by having a little more publicity.

This is the only thing I wonder. Or possibly it was simply relief. He did use the word "safe," that he felt it would be safe.

Mr. SLAWSON. I think we have about got out all on that point we can. Could you elaborate a little more on Oswald's attitude toward the Embassy's reluctance to permit him to renounce his citizenship, on what he felt the Embassy was doing here, and what your impression was what the Embassy was doing?

Miss JOHNSON. My impression from talking to John McVickar was that the Embassy had tried to give him a cooling off period, to be sure he knew what he was doing, but that it had also written him, informed him in writing that he could renounce his citizenship and he had a perfect right to come in and do so. The Embassy's behavior had been correct, and on the side it was trying to be humane, giving him time to think out what he was doing.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he show you the letter the Embassy had written him?

Miss JOHNSON. He showed me two letters, and I think he asked me something about them. I was very amused, because the Embassy was his scapegoat, and he did keep bringing it up. But this contrasted with really the correctness of the letters that he showed me from them, and it contrasted with the rather kindly attitude that Mr. McVickar had. And then on top of that he kept saying he shouldn't be too mad at them, but he indicated that he was very very mad at them indeed.

He said November 1 he had written a letter of protest to the Ambassador protesting the way Snyder had carried out his duties, and had received a letter back, and he then gave me, showed me the letter. But my impression is that he showed me two letters.

Mr. SLAWSON. Perhaps I can refresh your recollection a little. I am now on page 6 of your exhibit No. 5, in which you quote from a letter from the State Department which he showed you.

Miss JOHNSON. This is Mr. Thompson's letter. He did show it to me. I remember now that he showed me the letter.

Mr. SLAWSON. A letter from Mr. Thompson?

Miss JOHNSON. From Ambassador Thompson. Well, I am not sure. He said he wrote a letter of protest to the U.S. Ambassador, and he received this letter back. But it may have been that the letter was signed by Mr. Snyder.

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes. Do you think that your recollection of two letters may be that one he wrote and the other he received, or do you distinctly remember that he received two which he showed you?

Miss JOHNSON. I thought he showed me two things, but the only one I wrote anything about was the Embassy's reply, and either my memory has miscarried and he only showed me one letter, or I simply don't recollect what the other one was.

Mr. SLAWSON. Is it correct that the Embassy reply you are referring to is the one that is quoted on page 6?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. Of your exhibit No. 5?

Miss JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he show you any communications he had received from his family or anybody else?

Miss JOHNSON. No. He told me that--again there is a little more here than is in the notes but it is partly a matter of impression. He was avoiding hearing from them, and they called him, and he said it was to ask him to come back, and he wouldn't answer. How did he know they were asking him to come back if he didn't answer? He was full of those kinds of contradictions, but that he was avoiding them. As far as I recollect he didn't show me anything from his family.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he tell you why he was avoiding communications with his family?

Miss JOHNSON. No.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he----

Miss JOHNSON. Well, maybe he felt his resolve was shaky. I felt his resolve was shaky, and maybe he felt so too, and he was afraid if he talked to them they would talk him out of it.

Mr. SLAWSON. In one of your exhibits you comment on his reply to one of your questions, that if he was so adamant on wanting to renounce his American citizenship, he could do so by going back to the Embassy, and that he had been so informed in the letter. His reply to that, according to your exhibits, was that they would simply give him the same runaround again. Do you have anything to add to that?

Miss JOHNSON. Well, it has come up. It is in the notes several times here, and I may not catch it each time. But I think I have already spoken for the record my impression that he was really not consistent about the Embassy, or I might say just putting it a little more strongly and editorially, he was not quite honest, because he claimed he was so mad he wouldn't go back, yet he was so firm in his resolve as a great big man, that he was going to give up his citizenship, you know.

But I pointed out to him that this seemed to me to be pique, boyish pique. Whether I actually said it, you know, I probably didn't quite, but that is what I thought. He was indulging himself. If he was really so resolved to give up his citizenship, then why let a little thing like annoyance over his October the 31st interview stand in the way of doing this, which he felt was an important principle and act? And I did point out to him the discrepancies in a gentler way than I honestly thought. The answers in my notes reflect his response to this, not the way that I put it to him, that he wouldn't go back because of this and that.

He did show me the letter, but my impression is that he wanted to know whether I thought that the letter was proper treatment. Showing it to me was to me an indication of his very legal approach, legalistic approach to things, and it seemed to me of course nothing exceptional about the letter. You see there he knew what he could do, and he was in light of that refusing to go to the Embassy. That seemed to me very immature, and from the standpoint of his stated principles, very inconsistent.

Mr. SLAWSON. I just have one final question here. I would like to bring together----

Miss JOHNSON. Excuse me, could I add something there?

Mr. SLAWSON. Yes.

Miss JOHNSON. And that really was one more thing that led me to think that he was less than certain about his attempt to defect. Well, leaving himself this loophole was it seemed to me important, it seemed important at the time, and he knew he was doing it, because I pointed it out to him. He knew he was doing it, and he got out of it by whatever it was he said to me. I can't isolate all the comments in the notes, but they are all there. He got out of it, but he knew he was doing it.

Mr. SLAWSON. But you felt that all these comments then were more or less excuses made up in his own mind, either consciously or unconsciously, that he was--excuses for not going back to the Embassy to make this final step of dissolving his citizenship?

Miss JOHNSON. And that behind what appeared to me to be boyish pique lay something else. He was leaving himself a way out, and I was fully aware of it at the time.

Mr. SLAWSON. We previously have discussed how much he probably was paying for his hotel room at various times, and for his meals. I bring to your attention one of your statements in the exhibits, that he said he had been living on Intourist vouchers for 10 days, and we have already gone into what 10 days probably meant. Did he make any other comments that would relate to how much money his attempt to defect was costing him?

Miss JOHNSON. Finance was certainly something I talked to him about, and it was something he was notably elusive about, and again he said he was paying the standard rate. "I want to make it clear they are not sponsoring me." Naturally I wanted to know on what money he got there, and it was in response to this that he told me the itinerary by which he came, by which he said he came, that is from New Orleans to Le Havre, to Helsinki. He gave me his route.

Whether it was the true route I don't know, but he gave me what he said was the route, and the method of transport. He said he left from New Orleans September 19. I wasn't absolutely sure that was the date he gave me, on a Friday by ship. Actually the 19th was a Saturday. And he might have left on the 18th. That it took him 12 days to get to Le Havre, that he booked a flight to Helsinki but you couldn't fly to Helsinki from Le Havre. You would have to fly from Paris.

Mr. SLAWSON. Actually he flew from London. He went from Le Havre to London and then Helsinki.

Miss JOHNSON. By the same ship?

Mr. SLAWSON. No; by airplane I believe. Anyway he disembarked on the ship at Le Havre, as he told you, then went from there to London I believe by airplane, although I am not certain. But then he went by airplane from London to Helsinki.

Miss JOHNSON. Yes; actually he got his visa in London probably.

Mr. SLAWSON. Well, I do know some of these facts, but I would like you to go on the best of your recollection.

Miss JOHNSON. He said nothing about London at all. I never was sure how the hell he got to Helsinki, but he said he went by train from Helsinki to Moscow, and he repeated that for 10 days he had been on those vouchers.

Mr. SLAWSON. Did he indicate to you anything about how he got his visa?

Miss JOHNSON. No; not at all. I may well have asked him too. A question and a nonreply, though, are not recorded in my notes, but I may well have asked him. On the other hand I think I would have remembered if he had said anything. If he just evaded the way he evaded a lot, I might not have put it down, because evasion was really quite characteristic of him. But of course I was curious where he got it, and how. And I do have $30 written down here as the rate. You know there was a businessman's rate of $12 a day at that time, and also the $30 rate I am telling you is as of that time because it is now $35. But I do have $30 written down, so I assumed that he specified that he was there at the $30 rate those 10 days, not the $12. No; he said nothing about a visa, and of course I was curious.

Mr. SLAWSON. I have no more specific questions, Miss Johnson. If you have anything at all to add, or any further comments you want to make, please go ahead and do so.

Miss JOHNSON. No; I don't.

Mr. SLAWSON. Thank you very much for coming here.

Miss JOHNSON. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF ERIC ROGERS

The testimony of Eric Rogers was taken on July 21, 1964, at the Old Civil Courts Building, Royal and Conti Streets, New Orleans, La., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Eric Rogers, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Rogers, I am an attorney on the staff of the President's Commission. I think I met you one day.

Mr. ROGERS. I remember you; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. I wanted to ask you a few questions about Oswald. I am questioning you under authority granted to me by the Commission under Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress, No. 137.

You are entitled to have an attorney if you want to and you don't have to answer any questions if you feel that they are incriminating.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can't answer what I don't know. I will tell you just what I told them, you see. That's all I saw.

Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Rogers, am I correct in understanding that you lived at 4907 Magazine Street during the period last summer when----

Mr. ROGERS. I did; a few months.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did you move there?

Mr. ROGERS. It was around in the--in July, around July.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald there?

Mr. ROGERS. He was there for a short period of time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You lived right next door to Oswald?

Mr. ROGERS. My apartment was in the front and my window was right next--near his apartment.

Mr. LIEBELER. You met Oswald and came to know him? Did you ever meet him?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I never met him. He didn't bid the time to anyone.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him or anything?

Mr. ROGERS. No; never did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you know what his name was?

Mr. ROGERS. Just by mail coming in the box on the front.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to his wife?

Mr. ROGERS. She spoke Russian. She did bid the time of day, that's all, but he didn't. He wouldn't bid the time to no one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they ever have any arguments that you know of?

Mr. ROGERS. Some spats, but in Russian, looked like. You know what I mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. They spoke Russian and you couldn't understand what they were saying?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald have any visitors at his apartment?

Mr. ROGERS. He had no one. Had some kind of a dark fellow asked where he lived.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he appear to be a Cuban?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; Spanish type of person.

Mr. LIEBELER. Was that in August, do you remember?

Mr. ROGERS. Around that time. I believe it was around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you remember anybody else that visited Oswald at his apartment?

Mr. ROGERS. Probably at the time they had this--you know--Fair Play for Cuba, something like that. I think they were radio interviewers, I think. Looked like local people. Didn't look like--heard him saying something about wanting to play on radio. That's all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You don't remember any other ones?

Mr. ROGERS. Not that I know of unless I was at work. I wasn't there all the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your wife was in the hospital part of this time, is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you work at that time, sir?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I wasn't working at that time. See, Mr. Liebeler, I am on pension, you see. I am only allowed to make so much a year because of the pension, you see.

Mr. LIEBELER. I see. Did you ever see Oswald sitting on the front porch?

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, yes; with books, reading.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he read a lot?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see any rifle or firearms of any type in his possession at that time?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I never. We did see one time some--the mailman brought a big package in. I wouldn't say what it was, of course. I guess they checked that through the mail.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was that?

Mr. ROGERS. It was in the summer, some time before he left, somewhere around that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Oswald's apartment had a little porch in the front?

Mr. ROGERS. Screened porch.

Mr. LIEBELER. It had blinds in it, too, that you could let down, did it not?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it would have been possible for him to have sat in that porch and you couldn't see him very well from the street?

Mr. ROGERS. He wouldn't discuss anything on the porch. He would go in the house.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been possible to sit in that porch and drop the blinds so that people couldn't see you?

Mr. ROGERS. It could be possible. I don't know. I never--I seen him sitting down there and go in and out, coming in and out.

Mr. LIEBELER. We talked to you previously out at the apartment, and my recollection is that you told us that some time in September, I believe, that a station wagon came and picked up Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. ROGERS. That was the time he left town.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.

Mr. ROGERS. The station wagon was visible. I called my wife. I said "Well, he must be leaving." They were packing all the things. Probably left the next night or sometime like I told you, the following night after. Had the two things in his hand and goggles on like he was running out of there. I don't know what he was doing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about those goggles. Were they something like sunglasses? Describe them.

Mr. ROGERS. I don't know. I couldn't say that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see what license plates the station wagon had on it?

Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Liebeler, I couldn't tell you on that. Kind of a gray station wagon. He was putting the packing, everything in that himself.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know when the station wagon left?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I told my wife--she said she might have left early in the morning before we got up, with the lady.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think that she might have left with the lady?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Then he left that night or late afternoon. Went out in a hurry. Left all the lights on.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who was in the station wagon? Was there another lady?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the station wagon leave?

Mr. ROGERS. We didn't see it leave, but it wasn't there when he left. There was nobody else evidently.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see Oswald at all after the station wagon left?

Mr. ROGERS. No; I didn't see him until that night. He slipped out of there. He was going out to catch the bus across the street. The bus stop is right across the street from us.

Mr. LIEBELER. You did see Oswald come out of the apartment in the evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. We was sitting on the porch at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. So it is clear to you that Oswald did not leave with the ladies in the station wagon?

Mr. ROGERS. No; he didn't leave with them in the station wagon. It was the following evening he left on the bus with these two handbags.

Mr. LIEBELER. That was in the evening?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. He ran across the street and got on the bus?

Mr. ROGERS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he get on the bus at the bus stop?

Mr. ROGERS. Bus stop on the corner right opposite.

Mr. LIEBELER. Toward the center of the city?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the bags that he had in his hand when he went out?

Mr. ROGERS. My wife seen some of them.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing pictures to witness). Let me show you some pictures and see if these look like it.

Mr. ROGERS (indicating). This middle one, I know that ain't the type there. That's not the type.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture of a bag that has been marked as "Commission Exhibit No. 126," and ask you if that looks like the bag.

Mr. ROGERS. That's it. That's it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Does that look like one of the bags?

Mr. ROGERS. That looks to me like it was.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). Now I show you a picture which we will mark Rogers Exhibit No. 1, showing two views of a bag. Does it look like the one Oswald had?

Mr. ROGERS. You mean--he had two of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many did he have?

Mr. ROGERS. He had two of them in my estimation, each one in one hand. They looked like these here to me, to my knowledge. I mean, yes. I don't think it was this type [indicating]. I would say this type [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. And you are pointing to No. A-1, which is a picture of Commission Exhibit No. 126 and do you think he had two bags that looked like "Commission Exhibit No. 126." Did he carry both in one hand?

Mr. ROGERS. One in each hand.

Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you can tell, he did not have a bag similar to Rogers Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. ROGERS. No, no. It was kind of daylight. You could see. You know what I mean?

Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you sure that he didn't have one like Rogers Exhibit No. 1? Is it a different size?

Mr. ROGERS. It was--they both look like the same size, and they were well packed. They were well stuffed. I know they wasn't light. I don't know what he had in them.

Mr. LIEBELER. So in your estimation, he had two bags like Exhibit 126?

Mr. ROGERS. If I am not mistaken, they are the two bags that my wife and I identified when they came over to the house, somebody from Oklahoma. He was transferred down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. An FBI agent?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. They actually brought the bags over?

Mr. ROGERS. They had the pictures like this.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he show you pictures like these two that I have got here?

Mr. ROGERS. Sure did.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had bags like Exhibit 126?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. This is the type. That's the green type of looking luggage.

Mr. LIEBELER. You say again that he did not have a bag that looked like Rogers Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did Oswald leave as far as you can tell on the same day that the station wagon left, or on the next day?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, they packed that night and, yes; they left on the same day, the following evening.

Mr. LIEBELER. They packed the station wagon on one day and the next day you looked out and the station wagon was gone?

Mr. ROGERS. He left that following evening. I figured he was moving. I don't know. If he was moving, he was supposed to tell the landlord.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he talk to the landlord about it?

Mr. ROGERS. No; but she knew about it. He didn't talk to her. He didn't talk to nobody. He would give you the money and wouldn't say nothing. He was quiet himself, that's all.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I am going to show you a picture that has been marked "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize anybody in that picture.

Mr. ROGERS. Wait. Let me get my glasses on. I can see better this way. [Examining picture.] No, Mr. Liebeler, I don't think. I don't think. No; I don't think I know any one in there.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that has been marked "Garner Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize any individual that is in that picture.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, maybe he did identify him, but I never saw this man. No. That's when this happened? Mr. Garner did, but I didn't. No, I--if he did come around, I wasn't there. If I did, I would tell you, you know.

Mr. LIEBELER (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture that has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A," and ask you if you recognize that man.

Mr. ROGERS. No. I seen plenty people, but I don't know him either. If I did, I would tell you.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Under oath, I tell you just exactly what I tell you, the same thing. As far as the boy is concerned, you know, he never spoke to anybody. Go in and out, eat and clean. Didn't nobody knew his business.

Mr. LIEBELER. He kept pretty much to himself?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES LEHRER

The testimony of James Lehrer was taken at 10:45 a.m., on July 24, 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. Will you please stand and take the oath? 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. LEHRER. I do.

Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the staff of 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 President Johnson's Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and joint resolution of Congress, No. 137. Under the Commission's rules governing the taking of testimony, you are entitled to 3 days' notice and to have an attorney here if you want to, and you are entitled to the usual privileges and rights concerning self incrimination and that sort of thing as far as answering my questions are concerned. I know that you have not had 3 days' notice of this, but I understand that you are here voluntarily and that you are prepared to proceed without an attorney; is that correct?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. Please state your name.

Mr. LEHRER. James Lehrer [spelling], L-e-h-r-e-r.

Mr. LIEBELER. When and where were you born?

Mr. LEHRER. May 19, 1934, Wichita, Kans.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where do you live?

Mr. LEHRER. Dallas; 3709 West Beverly.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you outline your educational background for us, please?

Mr. LEHRER. High school, graduate of Victoria College, University of Missouri.

Mr. LIEBELER. What did you major in at the university?

Mr. LEHRER. Journalism.

Mr. LIEBELER. Are you presently employed by the Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. LEHRER. Yes.

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

Mr. LEHRER. Nearly 3 years.

Mr. LIEBELER. What is your job over there?

Mr. LEHRER. I am a reporter.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you cover a specific beat?

Mr. LEHRER. I cover the Federal beat, labor, and politics--some politics.