Chapter LIII: Front Matter (53)

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; just below the printed word “of” in the line “signature of individual,” there are two vertical indentations which fill about three-fourths of the space available, and there is a diagonal mark slanting from the base of the left vertical to about the midpoint of the right vertical, the total effect being of a printed letter “H,” capital “H.” I also observe just below the second “i” of the printed word “individual” a vertical indentation and just below the third “i” of the word “individual” another vertical indentation. These could be the vertical parts of “d’s” or “l’s.” However, with respect to mention of the letter “d”, I do not observe any corresponding oval or circular part of that letter which would be required for a printed form.

Mr. EISENBERG. You mean a hand-printed form?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are those indentations visible to the naked eye on the card itself?

Mr. COLE. Yes, they are, if the card is held in a special way so that the light strikes the card at an angle.

Mr. EISENBERG. How do you think those indentations might have been caused, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. They could have been made by any sharp instrument, for example, by a ballpoint pen which was not delivering ink at this particular time, or by a stylus-like instrument such as those that are used in preparing mimeograph forms, or even by a toothpick.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning for a moment to the face of Commission Exhibit No. 795, in your previous testimony, as I recall it, you stated that while you could not make out precisely the signature of the member or clerk of local board, it appeared to be the name Good Hoffer, is that correct?

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did that appear to be one word or two words?

Mr. COLE. It appears to me to be two words or two names, capital G-o-o-d, and then the name capital H-o-f-f-e-r.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now how did that compare to the signature of the member or clerk of local board on Commission Exhibit No. 801, the Oswald notice of classification?

Mr. COLE. Well, it is not the same name but it has some parts which correspond, namely, the letter “f.” That is, there are obviously two hand-written letters “f” in the last name of member or clerk of local board on Exhibit No. 801, and we also have a representation of hand-written letters “f” in about the same position on Commission Exhibit No. 795.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. On the record. Do you have any further observations on the comparison of the two names on the two cards, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Yes; I would say that a possible interpretation of the name on the original card, Exhibit No. 801, would be that it begins with either a capital “E” or a capital “G.” There is a very small circular form following that which does not appear to form any intelligible name when linked with the first capital letter. However, the last name suggests to me that it might be the name Schiffen, S-c-h-i-f-f-e-n.

Now, I consider it quite possible that a person looking at this name, which does not have a good legibility, might interpret it to be the name which is finally written on the line for signature of member or clerk of local board as it shows on Commission Exhibit No. 795. Now, as to why a name might be removed by opaquing material and then written in in a similar form by pen and ink, it is my view that this might be done in order to have what would appear to be an original, personally written signature on the final card, Exhibit No. 795, instead of having a photographic reproduction of a signature.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why do you think a person might write back in the same name that he had taken out, rather than a different name?

Mr. COLE. As I say, in order to have on the final card an actual manually written signature with pen and ink which would, one might suppose, carry more validating effect than a photographic reproduction of a signature.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that he would not necessarily be interested in changing the name?

Mr. COLE. Not necessarily.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, on the reverse side of the notice of classification, Exhibit No. 795, there is typed in semilegible form the name and address of the local board which issued the registration certificate, and this seems to correspond to the name and address which had been opaqued out of the Oswald registration certificate, Commission Exhibit No. 802. Is that your observation?

Off the record, please.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. On the record. Now, I now hand you, in order to help you make this judgment, Commission Exhibit No. 799, which is a side light photograph--introduced in connection with your earlier testimony--of the reverse side of Exhibit No. 795, and I wonder whether, with the aid of that side light photograph, you could compare the entry in the space for local board on Commission Exhibit No. 802, as opposed to the entry in the corresponding space on the reverse side of Commission Exhibit No. 795.

Mr. COLE. The typewritten information inserted on the reverse side of Commission Exhibit No. 795 is virtually the same as the printed information which appears on the reverse of Commission Exhibit 802, with just some slight differences. On Commission Exhibit No. 795, and as now being read from the side light photograph, Exhibit No. 799, the inserted typewriting which is read partly by an existing scanty deposit of ink and partly by an indent from the striking of the typewriter keys, the wording is “Texas Local Board 114.” In other words, on that line the abbreviation, No., for number is omitted.

The next line being read from Exhibit No. 799 is “Selective Service.” That means that the word “System” is omitted, which appears on that second line of Exhibit No. 802.

Now, the next line, again being read from Exhibit No. 799, is “Room 2226,” differing only as to the last figure. This read “Room 2227,” on Exhibit No. 802.

The street is given as 400 instead of 300 as it appears on Exhibit No. 802. The name of the street is the same, “W. Vickery St.”

Reading the last line from Exhibit No. 799, there are the words “Fort Worth, Texas,” and this means that there is omitted the zone No. 4, which appears on Exhibit No. 802. Except for the differences mentioned, the material is the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any opinion why a person might have gone to the trouble of opaquing out the original name and address and then typing back in a substantially similar name and address?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I do have an opinion. It is my belief that one might suppose that the insertion of original typewriting on the final blank photographic card would carry more of a validating force or would give a greater impression of being an original card than would the reproduction, photographic reproduction, of printed material.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, reviewing the Exhibits which consist of prints of the negatives we have been discussing, that is, Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, it appears that these prints essentially resemble blank forms, blank printed forms. Can you explain the reason for that?

Mr. COLE. The reason is that these prints are made from negatives which I believe were a part of a purpose for preparing final photographic prints which appear to be blank forms.

Mr. EISENBERG. And in the case of Exhibits--Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, can you explain the reason why Cole Exhibit No. 6 shows various splotches or splotchylike patterns, whereas Cole Exhibit No. 5 does not?

Mr. COLE. Well, Exhibit No. 6 shows that side of the negative to which the opaquing medium was actually applied, whereas Exhibit No. 5 shows the opposite side. Now, on the opposite side, you can actually read the material that was being opaqued from the negative because the opaquing material is a dull red color and it actually reflects a considerable amount of light. However, it will not transmit any light, and the fact that it will not transmit light is shown by the prints made from these same negatives such as Cole Exhibits Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, then, in examining the negatives by reflected light, the opaquing material on the reverse side would serve as a background, and therefore would not prevent you from reading the material which was eventually opaqued out, is that correct?

Mr. COLE. That is true as to Exhibit No. 5.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Mr. COLE. But you observe on Exhibit No. 6 you cannot read the material opaqued.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is--yes. I should have said when the negatives are examined from their front--is that right?

Mr. COLE. When the negative is examined from the side to which the opaquing material was applied, you cannot read the material that was blocked out by the opaquing.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when it is examined from the other side you can?

Mr. COLE. You can.

Mr. EISENBERG. Because the material serves as a background?

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is my understanding also correct that when the negative is printed by transmitted light, the opaquing blocks the light from passing through those portions of the negative which have been opaqued, therefore blocking those portions from being printed in the final prints?

Mr. COLE. That is correct; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole.

TESTIMONY OF PROF. REVILO PENDLETON OLIVER

The testimony of Prof. Revilo Pendleton Oliver was taken at 2 p.m., on September 9, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President’s Commission. Professor Oliver was accompanied by his attorney, Mr. John Unger.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Reporter, this is Mr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver of Urbana, Ill.

Doctor, would you mind standing so I can swear you.

Do you swear that in the deposition which you are about to give that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Mr. OLIVER. I do.

This is a deposition and not a hearing?

Mr. JENNER. It is the same thing. We call hearings when the Commission, a member of the Commission is present. These are hearings but we call them deposition hearings. And all of your testimony will be published in full in volume XV of the testimony volumes, and without any editing, expurgating, or deletion.

Mr. OLIVER. Will all testimony be published?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir; every bit. It now runs 15 printed volumes.

Mr. UNGER. May I interrupt just a second. I notice that under the resolution adopting the rules that it provides that one or more members of the Commission shall be present at all hearings.

Don’t you intend to have a member of the Commission present at this hearing?

Mr. JENNER. No; unless you desire to have one.

Mr. UNGER. Well, I didn’t understand that it was a matter of preference. I understood that under the rules under which you operated it wasn’t a legal hearing unless you did have one.

Mr. JENNER. It is a hearing; what you are reading is a hearing at which the Commission is sitting as distinguished from a deposition hearing. You will find also in the rules, John, that you have, that they provide for the deposition hearings.

Mr. UNGER. Are you referring now to the second paragraph which says that any member of the Commission or any agent or agency designated by the Commission for such purpose may administer oaths and affirmation, examine witnesses, and receive evidence?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNGER. I wouldn’t normally take that as repealing a previous section that a member be present at all hearings.

Mr. JENNER. It doesn’t repeal it, it supplements it.

Mr. UNGER. You see, the subpena under which Dr. Oliver is here commands him to appear before the President’s Commission.

Mr. JENNER. That is right.

Mr. UNGER. Well, I have made my point. I have some question as to whether or not this would be a proper hearing in the absence of a Commission member, and I have so stated in the record.

Mr. JENNER. But if you--Mr. McCloy happens to be here this afternoon, and if you want Mr. McCloy present, why we will have him present.

Mr. UNGER. We have no preference in the matter.

Mr. JENNER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. JENNER. Dr. Oliver, the nature of the inquiry enjoined upon the Commission in the discharge of which it has been assiduously engaged is to determine the facts and circumstances relating to the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. There has come to the attention of the Commission and its staff an article entitled, “Marxmanship in Dallas,” of which we understand you were the author, published in two parts in American Opinion, a magazine published by the John Birch Society, part I, in the February 1964 issue, pages 13 through 28, and part II in the March 1964 issue, pages 65 through 78.

That article--it is charged among other things that President Kennedy’s assassination was a part of a Communist plot engineered with the help of the Central Intelligence Agency, that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist agent trained in sabotage, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare, including accurate shooting from ambush, in a school for international criminals near Minsk, Russia, under order from Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, the U.S. Army began to rehearse for President Kennedy’s funeral more than a week before the funeral actually took place----

Mr. OLIVER. Now, are we not confusing quite a number of things, here, Mr. Jenner?

Mr. JENNER. Well, you may comment when I finish the statement, if you please.

Mr. OLIVER. Very good.

Mr. JENNER. That Lee Harvey Oswald was sent to Dallas where he tried to murder Gen. Edwin A. Walker; that in November, Oswald was sent back from New Orleans, La., to Dallas, Tex., where a job at a suitably located building had been arranged for him and that something went wrong with the Communist conspiracy’s plans, as a result of which Oswald was apprehended and identified.

There has also come to the attention of the Commission various news items and newspapers published in Washington, D.C., Illinois, Mississippi, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, California, and other States, which contain reports of lectures and speeches made by you from time to time, in which you have repeated, elaborated upon, or added to the charges and claims made in your article in the American Opinion which I have summarized.

The Commission is interested, among other things, in obtaining from you the sources of, and the basis for, the foregoing charges and claims appearing in your article and those reported in the news media as having been made by you in lectures and speeches.

John, if you want that, there it is.

Mr. UNGER. Thank you.

Mr. JENNER. I wanted to give you the framework of the examination.

Mr. OLIVER. May I point out that the article to which you originally referred contained no reference to a rehearsal for the funeral, and certainly contained no statement that the CIA had engineered the assassination.

Mr. JENNER. What we will do, I will go into the article. I understand you brought copies of it, and we can put the article in the record and it will speak for itself.

Mr. OLIVER. The entire article will be reproduced in the record?

Mr. JENNER. I beg your pardon?

Mr. OLIVER. Will the entire article be reproduced in the record?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLIVER. All right.

Mr. JENNER. Have I stated your name accurately, that is, Revilo Pendleton Oliver.

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You do reside at 710 West Ohio Street?

Mr. OLIVER. 701, simply Ohio Street there being no West.

Mr. JENNER. You are a professional man. What is your profession, sir?

Mr. OLIVER. I am a professor of classical philology in the University of Illinois.

Mr. JENNER. You have held that position since when?

Mr. OLIVER. I held rank as a full professor, I believe, since 1953, it could be 1954.

Mr. JENNER. You are the holder of a doctor of philosophy degree, are you not?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. From what university, sir?

Mr. OLIVER. The University of Illinois.

Mr. JENNER. When did you receive your doctorate?

Mr. OLIVER. To the best of my recollection, 1940.

Mr. JENNER. Approximately?

Mr. OLIVER. 1940.

Mr. JENNER. Have you resided in Urbana or in Champaign, at least in the university area, from the time you became a member of the faculty of the University of Illinois and a professor?

Mr. OLIVER. Legally, I believe; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you want to explain to me what you mean by “legally”?

Mr. OLIVER. Well, I have lived elsewhere during that time; I have been abroad, and I have lived in Washington, D.C., and in Virginia, but I maintained a legal residence in Urbana.

Mr. JENNER. These, I take it, were either special assignments, or vacations, or sabbatical leaves to which you refer?

Mr. OLIVER. Right, and let us say Urbana and/or Champaign, because during some of those years I lived in the adjacent town of Champaign.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. Urbana/Champaign, they are twin cities, and the university is located in both cities, is that not correct?

Mr. OLIVER. Between the two.

Mr. JENNER. Between the two. Although their boundaries touch?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; in fact, their boundaries so touch they have a problem because cars parked in one city would find the parking meters on the curb of the other city.

Mr. JENNER. Would you give me, but not in great elaboration, your career from your college days. You received a master’s degree, where did you receive that?

Mr. OLIVER. Out at the University of Illinois, also.

Mr. JENNER. Just tell us in summary.

Mr. OLIVER. I took my doctoral degree at the University of Illinois, under Prof. William Abbott Oldfather.

Mr. JENNER. A very great man.

Mr. OLIVER. A very distinguished man. I have been successively instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor of the classics, and I have also been assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor of Spanish and Italian--largely a matter of my giving courses in the Renaissance.

Mr. JENNER. Do you teach Latin and Greek, too, or have you?

Mr. OLIVER. Oh, that is classics.

Mr. JENNER. I see. During the war did you have some special assignment militarily oriented or Government oriented?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; during the war I was on leave from the university for service with the War Department.

Mr. JENNER. And without revealing any secrets, would you tell us the general nature of that?

Mr. OLIVER. The general nature of that was work that is supposedly secret in nature. I can only say I was with the War Department and that the offices in which I principally worked were located on Lee Boulevard in Arlington, and not in the Pentagon.

Mr. JENNER. Was this civilian oriented rather than army oriented?

Mr. OLIVER. I was a civilian expert. It was, however, an Army Establishment under the command of a general.

Mr. JENNER. What was that, research work?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; under the command of a brigadier general, I should say.

Mr. JENNER. This research work, did that involve any work of investigating or inquiring into the commission of crimes or conspiracies, work of that nature?

Mr. OLIVER. Not actual investigation on my part.

Mr. JENNER. But----

Mr. OLIVER. It involved the use of the results of the investigations of others.

Mr. JENNER. So that you had experience in examining investigators’ reports and reaching judgments from those reports?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And reporting your judgment to your superiors.

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Are you a member of the John Birch Society?

Mr. OLIVER. I am a member of the council of John Birch Society.

Mr. JENNER. Would you explain to me what that is? I am frank to say to you I don’t know.

Mr. OLIVER. The John Birch Society was founded by Mr. Robert Welch in Indianapolis, Ind., in December 1958. Very shortly after its foundation a council was organized. The council consists of persons whom the society regards as prominent, and has approximately 30 members. The number fluctuates, of course as a result of deaths, and so on. The council meets with Mr. Welch periodically.

Mr. JENNER. Is it in the nature of a board of managers or a board of governors of a bar association? I am not trying to be technical, but just trying to get a notion of what the council is.

Mr. OLIVER. I am not sufficiently familiar with the board of governors of a bar association but I think as a general analogy that would stand, yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is all I wanted.

And you became a member in 1958, did you say?

Mr. OLIVER. At the foundation.

Mr. JENNER. And you have remained one ever since?

Mr. OLIVER. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have any other official connection with the John Birch Society apart from being a member of the society and of the council?

Mr. OLIVER. No; I write for American Opinion. And I am associate editor of it, I believe. American Opinion, by the way, is published by Robert Welch, Inc.----

Mr. JENNER. Explain that to me, if you please?

Mr. OLIVER. Which is a corporation, some of the stock of which is held by the John Birch Society.

Mr. JENNER. Could I ask you one thing, Doctor?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You tend, and many witnesses do, you tend to drop your voice about three-quarters of the way through a sentence. It would be helpful to me if you could keep it up a little.

Mr. OLIVER. Very good. I didn’t want to seem to be lecturing.

Mr. JENNER. Don’t worry about it.

I see you have before you what looks like a magazine with a colored cover. Does that happen to be a copy of American Opinion?

Mr. OLIVER. It is.

Mr. JENNER. Would you mind if I looked at it?

Mr. OLIVER. Not at all. That is the March issue of this year.

Mr. JENNER. I take it that the document I have in my hand and the other that you have before you contain part I and part II of the article to which I made reference in my opening statement?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right. Will these copies be returned to me?

Mr. JENNER. Are these the only ones you have, sir?

Mr. OLIVER. Those are my file copies.

Mr. JENNER. May I say this to you, any witness who wants the return of his documents is entitled to them. That is our practice. If we have to return them, we duplicate them on a Xerox machine. Some of the material, like the pictures will not be as clear as you will wish. Whereas if you permit us to retain the original copy, then it will be photographed and the photograph of the document in evidence will be quite clear. It occurred to me if acceptable to you, that for purposes of reproduction, the original is to be preferred. May I suggest that you probably will so desire, can you not obtain official copies?

Mr. OLIVER. I will take the chance of obtaining additional copies. The issues were sold out.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. OLIVER. But perhaps I can find extras. So you may have those.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you.

Mr. Reporter, I will mark the copy entitled “American Opinion, An Impartial Review, March 1964,” upon which appears the rubber stamp “R. P. Oliver, File copy,” as Oliver Exhibit No. 1.

(The document referred to was marked Oliver Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Excuse me. Whose picture is that on the cover page?

Mr. OLIVER. Senator Thurmond’s.

Mr. JENNER. I mark the second document which is on its face, the February 1964 issue of American Opinion, likewise stamped “File copy, R. P. Oliver” on which appears a picture of General MacArthur.

(The document referred to was marked Oliver Exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I take it from the discussion we have had, Dr. Oliver, that in Oliver Exhibit No. 1 appears part I.

Mr. OLIVER. Part II.

Mr. JENNER. Have I got them reversed?

Mr. OLIVER. I thought of interrupting at the time you marked those exhibits, and then thought perhaps I should not.

Mr. JENNER. Well, I have got them marked so I will have to leave them that way.

In Oliver Exhibit No. 1, appears part II at pages 65 through 76 of your article entitled “Marxmanship in Dallas,” and that in volume 2 appears part I of the same article at pages 13 through 28.

These two pamphlets, Doctor, are true and correct copies of the issues of American Opinion of the dates that we have described?

Mr. OLIVER. They are the printed copies, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I will refer to Exhibits 1 and 2 in which are contained the parts II and I, respectively of your article. I want to ask you some questions as to the sources of some of the statements made therein.

But before I do that, I will ask whether you are the author of the article?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, that is right.

Mr. JENNER. Part I and part II.

Mr. OLIVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. The picture representation in each of those issues is your picture?

Mr. OLIVER. The picture of myself, yes. I may say I did not choose the other photographs. That was the work of the editor.

Mr. JENNER. I should say that the picture representation on page 13 of Exhibit 2, and the picture representation on page 65 is in each instance your picture?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. I will ask you a general question first. If you want to particularize you may. I will tell you that I will get into particulars as we go along. What was the source, or what were the sources, if there was more than one source, of the statements and claims made in your article. When I say “your article” I mean both parts, unless I distinguish.

Mr. OLIVER. Statements which I make as statements of fact or of reports are taken very largely, perhaps entirely, from printed sources, such as newspapers, periodicals.

The portions in which I reason from those facts are, of course, the deductions which I draw.

Mr. JENNER. Do the articles indicate when you are reasoning and when you are referring to sources?

Mr. OLIVER. I believe so with at least reasonable clarity. It was my intention to make that clear.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then that none of the portions of the article is derived from any personal source of information upon your part, that is personal knowledge as distinguished from reference sources that you have described to me.

Mr. OLIVER. Certainly nothing concerning the assassination is derived from any personal knowledge of mine. I was not present, and as a matter of fact, have seen none of the persons involved. By “seen,” of course, I mean seen personally, not in pictures or films.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

I direct your attention to part I, on page 13. You make the statement, “Lee Harvey Oswald was a young punk who defected to the Soviet taking with him the operational codes of the Marine Corps and sufficient other secrets as a fledgling traitor had been able to steal while in military service.”

What is the source of your statement that Lee Harvey Oswald took with him or even had the operational codes of the Marine Corps?

Mr. OLIVER. The principal source certainly is a statement made by a former officer of the Marine Corps and reported widely in the press at the time, that after Oswald’s defection the Marine Corps found it necessary to change all of their operational codes, and further had to make certain other changes evidently involving radar frequencies, and quite possibly the location of radar stations.

The officer, naturally, was not too explicit on that point. He stated, however, that this work involved, I believe, many thousands of man-hours of work.

Well, I think that a reasonable inference is that no organization would expend without reason the many thousands of man-hours of hard work and the other effort and expense that would be necessary to make those changes without good and sufficient reasons to believe that their codes had been compromised.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then that the source of your information, to pinpoint it, was a newspaper report?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Of a statement made by an officer of the Marine Corps?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. That was your sole source of information?

Mr. OLIVER. To the best of my recollection it was.

Mr. JENNER. Do you happen to have a copy of that newspaper account? Did you bring one with you by any chance?

Mr. OLIVER. I believe that I have. You people have the American Eagle reprint of the assassination story, do you not?

Mr. JENNER. Would you describe that more definitely for the record?

Mr. OLIVER. The American Eagle reprint is a reprint by photo offset of clippings from the two Dallas newspapers and, I believe, possibly two other sources.

Mr. JENNER. May I interrupt you? Now I know what you are talking about.

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. It is published by the American Eagle Publishing Co.

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Of which Robert A. Surrey is president?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Of Dallas, Tex.

Mr. OLIVER. I believe he is president.

Mr. JENNER. He has so testified. When you first mentioned this document it didn’t click with me, but now I recall. It is tall, newspaper-sized yellow-covered----

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Document.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Reporter, that has been received in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 1015. If you have a copy with you in your bag, Doctor, would you please get it out and then refer me to the page?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Please make your references to the Commission Exhibit No. 1015 and the record will be much clearer.

Mr. OLIVER. That is, the Commission Exhibit No. 1015 is the American Eagle reprint?

Mr. JENNER. That is right. You will notice, if you will turn to the back page Doctor, that Robert Surrey is listed as president of the American Eagle Publishing Co.

Mr. OLIVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Would you have the record show, Mr. Reporter that Dr. Oliver is now examining a copy of Commission Exhibit No. 1015 to see if he can locate the news source on which he based the statement in Oliver Exhibit 2 that Oswald took with him the operational codes of the Marine Corps and sufficient other secrets as a fledgling traitor had been able to steal in the military service.

Mr. JENNER. All right, Doctor. Would you identify the page if you have located it?

Mr. OLIVER. This is the page of reprints from the Dallas Morning News with the date 12/4 at the very top of the page in heavy writing.

Mr. JENNER. We are now looking at the back of page 12. It has a dateline Wednesday, December 4, 1963. You are referring, sir, to a particular item?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read the headline?

Mr. OLIVER. This particular item is an Associated Press Dispatch, and in this paper is headlined, “Oswald a ‘wise guy,’ ex-Marine officer says.” And in it, John E. Donovan, a former Marine officer, is reported as saying, the Oswald’s defection “compromised all our secret radio frequencies, call signs and authentication codes. He knew the location of every unit on the west coast, and the radar capability of every installation. We had to spend thousands of man-hours changing everything, all the technical frequencies”--“all the tactical frequencies,” I am sorry--“and verify the destruction of all of the codes.” That I regard as the significant part of the statement.

Mr. JENNER. Is there any other newspaper clipping contained in Commission Exhibit No. 1015 upon which you relied in making the statement in question or to which I have referred in part 1 of your statement?

Mr. OLIVER. It is possible that the same dispatch is reproduced from another newspaper also in this document, but to the best of my recollection it would be the same in both.

Mr. JENNER. So it is a fair statement that the quotation I read into the record from your article was based upon that news report of Officer Donovan’s statement or a repetition of that news item in some other newspaper?

Mr. OLIVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And no other source?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. No other source meaning yes, there was no other source?

Mr. OLIVER. Meaning there was no other source.

Mr. JENNER. Then, follow me in your article again. You say a sentence later, “He was then trained” the “he” referring to Lee Harvey Oswald, “in sabotage, terrorism and guerrilla warfare (including accurate shooting from ambush) in the well-known school for international criminals near Minsk, and while there he married the daughter of a colonel in the Soviet military espionage system (and possible also in the Secret Police.)”

That is starred, indicating a footnote. The footnote reads, “If you missed the detail about Mrs. Oswald’s father, see the Congressional Record for December 4, page 22215.” Have I read it correctly?

Mr. OLIVER. I believe so.

Mr. JENNER. What is the source of your statement that Oswald was trained in sabotage, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare, including accurate shooting from ambush in the well-known school for international criminals near Minsk?

Mr. OLIVER. It would be a number of sources. The first, a radio broadcast on an international hookup made, as 1 recall, on the Saturday following the assassination from Vienna by a reporter----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, that would be the next day, the 23d of November, 1963. The 22d was a Friday. That is the day of the assassination. The 23d was a Saturday. The 24th was Sunday, and was the day on which Mr. Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. All I am seeking to clear up, Doctor, is I gather, that the Saturday you have in mind is the day immediately following, or in other words, the day after the assassination, rather than the succeeding week.

Mr. OLIVER. That is right. In other words the Saturday and Sunday immediately following that Friday. This was a broadcast from Vienna by a correspondent for, I believe, the Hearst newspaper named Flieders.

Mr. JENNER. Would you spell it for me, please?

Mr. OLIVER. As I heard it, I would assume that it was F-l-i-e-d-e-r-s or F-l-i-e-g-e-r-s, I was not quite sure, which. Who stated----

Mr. JENNER. Your understanding, it was a broadcast from Germany?

Mr. OLIVER. No; Vienna.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you.

Mr. OLIVER. The man stated that he had learned from underground sources that Oswald under cover of employment in a factory at Minsk, was trained in the school for sabotage and terrorism--that I believe was the phrase used--at Minsk. That was, of course, an extremely plausible statement. It has been a matter, I believe, of general knowledge for some time, that such a school was operated in the vicinity of Minsk. It is comparable perhaps to the school in the vicinity of Prague at which Raul Castro was trained. It would be difficult for me to say where I first learned of the existence of such a school.

Mr. JENNER. When you say “such a,” you mean this particular one? This one at Minsk?

Mr. OLIVER. It is my recollection it was in connection with some inquiries I was making into the careers of some Communists in Latin America, but I do not recall it clearly. I believe that references to that school are also to be found in the memoirs of some defectors. I am thinking particularly of Granovsky, the author of a book entitled “I was an NKVD agent.”

Now, Granovsky himself was trained at Bykova. But my recollection is not clear in what connection he mentions the school at Minsk, and I cannot be sure that he mentions it at all. There are a large number of memoirs, as you know, of people who were associated in one way or another with the Russian secret police.

Mr. JENNER. Or at least claimed.

Mr. OLIVER. It would take me quite some time because most of those books do not have indices. It would be quite some time to run down the references, but the statement that he was trained at Minsk seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable statement.

Mr. JENNER. Is this a fair statement of the import of your testimony, that when you heard the broadcast during the morning or late evening hours of the 23d-24th from Vienna, that that awakened in your mind so far as the school at Minsk is concerned, some things that you had read prior to that time?

Mr. OLIVER. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Other than having read the memoirs you have mentioned and hearing the broadcast to which you have referred, did you have any other source, that is personal in nature, let us say, that there actually existed while Mr. Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald was there, or since or prior, a school for international criminals in which sabotage, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare was taught?

Mr. OLIVER. No personal knowledge. I never attended the school.

Mr. JENNER. I didn’t mean that, sir. What I am seeking to do is narrow down the source of your statement. What I am seeking is sources and to determine whether there is any source of information which this Commission has not itself investigated and should investigate.

Mr. OLIVER. Again, my recollection will be vague. There was some discussion several years ago among “Sovietologists”--of a Russian--of a report from Russian sources that this school had been closed.

Mr. JENNER. Was there a publication?

Mr. OLIVER. I am virtually certain it must have been a publication; yes. I believe it was mentioned in connection with some one of these stories that the Russians were “mellowing” and so on.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Unger, I apologize to you, I should have stated for the record the fact that you are here representing Doctor Oliver. Would you give the reporter your full name and where you reside and practice law?

Mr. UNGER. Yes; John Unger, in Danville, Ill., is where I practice.

Mr. JENNER. And you appear here as counsel for Dr. Oliver.

Mr. UNGER. Yes.

Mr. OLIVER. You will find that school also mentioned in the statement that Congressman Ashbrook read into the Congressional Record on the pages cited there.

Mr. UNGER. May I interject here that I think that what Dr. Oliver is trying to do is to try to furnish you as many sources as possible for information about the existence of the school in or near Minsk, because I was told your conversation with me on the telephone, that you were not aware of that information but I suspect what you are primarily concerned about is the information he had of Lee Harvey Oswald attending that school.

Mr. JENNER. I want his sources for all the statements he has made. I was about to get to that.

Mr. UNGER. Yes; and I take it that he has answered that question as fully as he can when he told you about this broadcast which he heard.

Mr. JENNER. You have heard Mr. Unger’s statement, Doctor. Do you accept that, that your sole source of information as to Lee Harvey Oswald’s having attended, as you state, in part 1 of your article, having attended this school, was the broadcast from Vienna the night of November 23–24?

Mr. OLIVER. No; there was also the statement in Congressman Ashbrook’s article in the Congressional Record, as I recall. A further statement by Congressman Ashbrook in an article, a short article, more or less summarizing what he had read into the record, which appeared in a publication of the Liberty Lobby.

Mr. JENNER. Liberty Lobby?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is that publication, sir?

Mr. OLIVER. I believe it was the Liberty Letter, as it is called.

Mr. JENNER. Would you identify it for me, who publishes it?

Mr. OLIVER. The Liberty Lobby is an organization here in Washington of which I understand Willis Carto is an active member and possibly officer, I do not recall clearly. Its purpose as stated, is to lobby for American interests in Congress.

Mr. JENNER. Doctor, I have a copy of the daily Congressional Record for Wednesday, December 4, 1963, pages 22215 and 22216 (bound volume 109, part 18, page 23331). I have marked it as Oliver Exhibit No. 3. I hand that to you. Would you tell me if that is the Congressional Record source to which you made reference?

(The document referred to was marked Oliver Exhibit No. 3 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. It may help you that the footnote of your article refers to page 22215 of the December 4 issue of the Congressional Record.

Mr. OLIVER. Yes; that is the statement by Congressman Ashbrook to which I referred. I was, of course, referring particularly, to the statement about his wife.

Mr. JENNER. About Oswald’s wife?

Mr. OLIVER. Oswald’s wife; yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it, then, that is the portion of the matter I quoted in which it is stated that “He” meaning Oswald, “married the daughter of a colonel in the Soviet military espionage system (and possibly also in the secret police).”

Mr. OLIVER. I have since learned that that statement was somewhat inaccurate. The girl now known as Marina Oswald, as I understand it, lost her father when she was about 2 years old. Her mother remarried and died when Marina was in her teens, and at the time that Oswald met her Marina was living, evidently, in the capacity of a daughter, in other words, an adopted daughter for practical purposes, with the colonel of the Soviet military intelligence.

Mr. JENNER. What is your source for that supposition?

Mr. OLIVER. That I base on a report from a man whose research I use a great deal in my work, Mr. Frank Capell. Mr. Capell, is a private expert on Communism and Communistic infiltration, who, I understand, has the cooperation of many former intelligence officers of the Army and former members of the FBI.

Mr. JENNER. When you say army you mean the United States Army?

Mr. OLIVER. United States Army; yes. And other very good sources. He has very elaborate files and among the research workers whose work I use Mr. Capell’s work has been particularly important to me in connection with these articles.

Mr. JENNER. I take it then that the sources of the statement which I have quoted from your article, all portions of it, were, may I use the term, secondary sources, that is, the broadcast you have mentioned, newspaper items, research reports of Mr. Capell or either that you saw published or which he transmitted to you as the case may be, which came to your attention?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Here again your information was not, if I may use the term, direct source, of your own?

Mr. OLIVER. No; in the sense that I never met Oswald, knew nothing of his career.

Mr. JENNER. Or you never knew that this school existed other than as reported through these secondary sources?

Mr. OLIVER. True, and of my own personal knowledge I do not even know that Minsk exists.

Mr. JENNER. You have never been there?

Mr. OLIVER. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Have you now given me all the sources of that statement to which the Commission may turn its attention if it has not already done so?

Mr. OLIVER. You are now referring to the marriage of Oswald to the daughter of the Soviet Colonel?

Mr. JENNER. I am referring to the whole sentence beginning, “He was then trained”, and ending “secret police.”

Mr. OLIVER. Did I mention that the adopted father was her uncle, was the uncle of Marina?

Mr. JENNER. I don’t think you called him an adopted father.

You mean in the sense she went to live with him?

Mr. OLIVER. She went to live with him in the capacity of a daughter.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I lost your thought. Would you repeat? You did mention something, you said?

Mr. OLIVER. Did I mention that the colonel in the Soviet military intelligence with whom Marina was living at the time that Oswald married her, was, according to her statement, her uncle?

Mr. JENNER. I don’t think you mentioned that.

Mr. OLIVER. I did not want to intrude any other implication into the record.

Mr. JENNER. No; of course not. Here again the reference to him as her uncle is in turn based on either a newspaper source or a news broadcast or some other secondary source?

Mr. OLIVER. In this case I believe I am relying principally on research done by Mr. Capell.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Also, as a source would be the daily Congressional Record for December 4, 1963, page 22215.

Mr. OLIVER. It is, I think, relevant to the Commission’s inquiries that excerpts published from the diary of this man Oswald indicate two things: First, that he was receiving a salary of approximately 700 rubles from the Russian Government through a Red Cross--Russian Red Cross--cover; and, second, that he was on terms of such intimacy with the colonel in the military intelligence that he could boast of their drinking parties together.

Mr. JENNER. Here, again, your statement is based on what?

Mr. OLIVER. On----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, may I amend my question by asking the source of your information?

Mr. OLIVER. Principally certainly research reports from Mr. Capell. I saw, of course, certain excerpts published in the newspapers.

Mr. JENNER. Recently?

Mr. OLIVER. But I am relying principally on Mr. Capell’s research.

Mr. JENNER. You have reference, I assume, I don’t know when it was published, Oswald’s autobiography? Did you see that?

Mr. OLIVER. Not with that title on it. I am thinking of newspaper reports that quoted not more than two or three paragraphs.

Mr. JENNER. I see.

Mr. OLIVER. Containing excerpts from the diary.

Mr. JENNER. But you saw no such newspaper reports of excerpts at or prior to the time you wrote and published this article, did you?

Mr. OLIVER. I believe not; no. I mentioned that as merely pertinent to the scope of your inquiry, as you could find.

Mr. JENNER. Then you go on in your article and say, “In 1962 after he had been trained for 3 years in Russia, the Communist agent and his Communist wife were brought to the United States in open violation of American law by our Communist-dominated State Department.” Now, I take the statement “had been trained for 3 years in Russia,” the sources thereof are the sources you have already mentioned?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. In connection with the previous sentence. What is your source for the statement that he was a Communist?

Mr. OLIVER. A man who can----

Mr. JENNER. If you will forgive an interruption, Doctor----

Mr. OLIVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. First, tell me the source, I have no objection to your elaborating after you have given the source.

Mr. OLIVER. For the statement that he was a Communist agent, I rely on what I regard as certain inference from, A, his training in this school; B, the circumstance he was a man who had been accorded most extraordinary privileges in Russia; C, that he had been permitted to marry and take with him the adopted daughter of a man in the Russian intelligence service.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, sir, are you now using adopted in the technical sense, that the uncle you have identified adopted her?

Mr. OLIVER. I am using it loosely because I for that matter do not know whether there is legal adoption in the Soviet.

Mr. JENNER. I didn’t want you to utter something that you perhaps did not intend.

Mr. OLIVER. No; I was merely reluctant to say “purported father” because that would have another implication. D, that he had been permitted to return to the United States by the Soviet with his wife; E, his activities in the United States after his return, all of which were quite obviously in the Communist interest. I believe that summarizes the principal points on which I based my deduction. It is, of course, true that I had no personal knowledge that he was a Soviet agent.

Mr. JENNER. Now, were the sources of these points A through E, the news reports, Commission Exhibit 1015, the Congressional Record, newspaper clippings, and other secondary sources of that nature?

Mr. OLIVER. Together with, here also, reports from Mr. Capell.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have with you copies of any of the reports of Mr. Capell that you considered?

Mr. OLIVER. No; I do not.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have with you the sources that you considered in connection with making of the statement we have now immediately quoted?

Mr. OLIVER. I beg your pardon, I did not hear your last words.

(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

Mr. JENNER. That is, the sentence commencing at the bottom of page 13 of Oliver Exhibit No. 2 and concluding at the top of the right-hand column.

Mr. OLIVER. I strongly imagine that most of the details regarding Oswald’s return to this country are to be found in the news clippings here.

Mr. JENNER. In Commission Exhibit No. 1015?

Mr. OLIVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And that is the source that you considered?

Mr. OLIVER. That and similar news clippings. I would not want to say they were all in this collection.

Mr. JENNER. I don’t wish to put those words in your mouth either, but those are the sources upon which you base the statement?

Mr. OLIVER. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Does that include the statement that he and his wife “were brought to the United States by our Communist-dominated State Department.”

I am seeking here to emphasize only the point of your statement that they were brought to the United States by the State Department.

Mr. OLIVER. They were brought in the sense that they were given passports and that their passage was paid for with money from the State Department in the sum of something less than $500 as I remember it.

Mr. JENNER. Monies advanced by the State Department. You are aware those monies were repaid?

Mr. OLIVER. I do not know whether they were repaid or not. I believe that I have heard that they were never repaid. But that is something I certainly would not say without a checking.

Mr. JENNER. Well, just for your information they were repaid by January of 1963.

Mr. OLIVER. They were. May I further ask whether it is known from what source they were repaid?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir; when the report is published this month you will see it.

Mr. OLIVER. Very good.

Mr. JENNER. Your statement that he was brought back or permitted to come back in open violation of American law is a statement of your opinion only, I take it?

Mr. OLIVER. Of my opinion, based, I believe, on the import of legislation intended to prevent the coming of known Communists to this country.

Mr. JENNER. It is your interpretation of Federal statutes and regulations?

Mr. OLIVER. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Then you continue in your article in the right-hand column on page 13, “Upon his arrival in this country Oswald took up his duties as an agent of the conspiracy, conspiracy with a cap C, spying on anti-Communist Cuban refugees, serving as an agitator for Fair Play for Cuba, and participating in some of the many other forms of subversion that flourish openly in the defiance of law through the connivance of the Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy.”

Here again, I take it, your statement that he was an agent and he took up duties as an agent of the conspiracy, was the same source you relied upon in connection with the previous sentence that he was a Communist agent.

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. In the sense that this spying on Cuban refugees could scarcely have had any other purposes. Fair Play for Cuba is very obviously a Communist enterprise.

Mr. JENNER. This statement, in turn, is based on newspaper reports and radio broadcasts or television broadcasts, as the case may be?

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. I should perhaps add, yes; that I heard a personal account in, as I recall, Tulsa, Okla., from a man who was connected with a Cuban group that Oswald tried to infiltrate.

Mr. JENNER. Was that Carlos Bringuier?

Mr. OLIVER. Bringuier, I believe so, yes. And I also heard from the publisher of the Independent American of an attempt by Oswald to obtain employment on that newspaper.

Mr. JENNER. Would you identify that person, please?

Mr. OLIVER. The Independent American is a newspaper published by Kent Courtney, or I should say edited by Kent Courtney, in New Orleans.

It is C-o-u-r-t-n-e-y.