of local board, this also presented quite a problem of retouching;
that is, in an effort to remove the signature or opaque it from the
negative 803, it was necessary to retouch or deform certain parts of
the original printing as represented by that negative, one word being
the word “President” at about the center of the right side of the card.
The letter “r” has been mutilated by the opaquing material and this
mutilation comes through on the final print, which is Exhibit No. 795.
Also where an effort was made to opaque the lower extension of the two
letters “f” of the signature previously referred to, which intersects
the word “violation,” here also there was a mutilation of certain
letters of that word, namely, the “v” and “i” and the “a.”
This mutilation also comes through on the final print, Exhibit No. 795.
So that there is a clear record from the original card, Exhibit No.
801, through to the negatives, exhibits 803, 804, and 805, and then to
the final print, Exhibit No. 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, did you attempt to determine whether the
negative 811 was a negative of the reverse side of the registration
certificate in the name of Oswald, Commission Exhibit No. 802?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. I did make such a determination.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. That the negative, Exhibit No. 811, is in fact a photographic
reproduction made from the original card, Exhibit No. 802. That is
referring to the reverse of this card.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you also make a print from that negative, Mr.
Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is that print Cole Exhibit No. 7, which I now hand
you?
(Cole Exhibit No. 7 was marked for identification.)
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are the sections of Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 which
are labeled 811, photographs taken of that negative by reflected light?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to determine, Mr. Cole, whether the
negative 811 had been used to make the reverse side of the Notice of
Classification in the name of Hidell?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did make such a determination.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the negative 811 was actually used
to make the photographic reproduction, that is, a photographic print,
which is the reverse of Exhibit No. 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you tell us how you were able to link up the
Oswald registration certificate, the negative 811, and the reverse side
of the Hidell notice of classification?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Returning to Commission Exhibit 802, the reverse
side shows the original insertion of certain descriptive words, color
of eyes, blue, complexion, medium, weight, 150, height, 5′11″. Now,
with particular regard to the word “blue”--excuse me. I believe I
didn’t mention the abbreviation, Brn, or color of hair. And referring
to that abbreviation, and the insertion of the typewritten word “blue,”
the insertion of the figure 150 for weight, it is observed that each of
these intersect the dotted lines provided on the original printing of
this card.
Now, here also an effort was made to opaque out the typewritten
material just mentioned. Since the typewritten material intersects
these ruled dotted lines, the opaquing material was brought very close
to the lines and in some cases caused small imperfections of the dots.
Now, these imperfections are present on the photographic print, Exhibit
No. 795, that is referring to the reverse of that exhibit, in exactly
the same position that they appear on the opaqued negative 811. And
from that I concluded that this very negative was used to produce the
photographic print which forms the reverse of Exhibit No. 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you attempt to determine, Mr. Cole, whether the
two negatives, Commission Exhibit No. 812, have been produced from the
certificate of service in the name of Oswald which is Cole Exhibit No.
1?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the two negatives, Commission
Exhibit No. 812, actually reproduce the card, Cole Exhibit No. 1.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make prints of these negatives?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are those prints Cole Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9, which I
now hand you?
(Cole Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 were marked for identification.)
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do the sections of Cole Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6
labeled 812 represent photographs of the negatives in 812 taken by
reflected light?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; they do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine, Mr. Cole, whether
Commission Exhibit No. 806, the certificate of service in the name of
Hidell, had been produced from the negatives in 812?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that Exhibit No. 806 was in fact prepared
from or represents a photographic print made from the negatives,
Commission Exhibit No. 812.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us how you were able to link up Cole
Exhibit No. 1, the negatives in 812, and Commission Exhibit No. 806?
Mr. COLE. With respect to Cole Exhibit No. 1, as compared with the
negative, Exhibit No. 812, that one representing the face of the
document, it is observed that the opaquing medium which was used to
block out the name Lee Harvey Oswald and the number 1653230 still makes
it possible to read that name and number from the face of the negative,
and it is observed that this typewritten material has precisely the
same relationship on the negative as observed on the card, Cole Exhibit
No. 1. Now there are no intersections of the opaquing with the original
printed material of the card, Cole Exhibit No. 1. However, this
negative gives an exact reproduction of all of the printed material on
the card, including the form number which is DD Form 217 MC 1 January
1951. Now, this amount of connection, of course, is not as conclusive
as one where an imperfection resulting in the application of an
opaquing medium is observable, but yet as far as a comparison can be
made, there is a perfect agreement and there are no differences.
Now, with respect to the reverse side of Cole Exhibit No. 1, it is
observed that the original signature, Lee Harvey Oswald, intersected a
part of the printing of the word “signature” just above that signature
mentioned. The intersection affects chiefly the left side of the
letter “u” of the word “signature.” In other words, a part of the
opaquing medium affected that particular letter and this imperfection
is also shown in the final photographic print which is the reverse of
Commission’s Exhibit No. 806.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 810, Mr. Cole.
Is this a side-light photograph you took of the reverse side of Hidell
certificate of service, that is, Commission Exhibit No. 806.
Mr. COLE. Yes; it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any traces of a signature or letters in the
box for signature of individual?
Mr. COLE. I did find some indentations in that area.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe to us what you believe those
indentations might represent?
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?