Mr. LIEBELER. What other type messages are there?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The other types of messages are messages charged to
customers having authorized charge accounts. It is obvious that a
message filed by Oswald would not be found in any of our charge account
message files.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, it is possible to pick up the telephone and call the
Western Union office and instruct that a telegram be sent and have it
charged to the telephone number, is it not?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is that a separate category, or is that a third category?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is a separate category of messages filed by
telephone subscribers and charged to their telephone.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was a search made of those messages?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I believe a search was made of those message, but I
would have to confirm that with Mr. Wilcox, our local district manager
in Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, for the sake of clarity of the record, at this
point let me suggest that we go off the record, and Mr. Wilcox is
available. Would you confer with Mr. Wilcox on that point and let us
indicate on the record what he has advised you?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record indicate that we have conferred off the
record with Mr. Wilcox, and you have consulted with him as to whether
or not a check was made of the records covering messages called in by
telephone and charged to a telephone number. Would you tell us what Mr.
Wilcox indicated?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Mr. Wilcox made reference to notes in these files and
has determined that a search was not made of messages sent and charged
to the telephone, for the reason that it had been indicated that Oswald
had filed messages at our office. In such event, the message would not
be charged to the telephone, and for that reason, a search of the sent
messages charged to the telephone was not made.
Mr. LIEBELER. At the same time you mean to indicate that the thing that
prompted this search by your office in the first place was the story
that Oswald had actually been in the Western Union office and filed the
message in person; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. If he had filed it in person, it would obviously not have
been called in by telephone and charged to his telephone number; is
that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the top of page 3 of your memorandum 3001, the
statement appears "For money orders payable to Lee Harvey Oswald and
his aliases or to anyone at a specific address in Dallas--October
through November 1963--result: Negative." Would you explain that for
us, please?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. As I have indicated in my prepared statement, one
of our employees thought he had recognized Oswald as having received a
money order at our main office sometime during the dates mentioned.
Mr. LIEBELER. October through November 1963?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. It was thought that the money order was payable to
someone at a specific address in Dallas, which was the YMCA.
Mr. LIEBELER. So when you searched through the records indicating money
orders payable during the period October through November 1963, you
determined that no money order had been made payable to Lee Harvey
Oswald, or to these aliases, and in addition to that fact, that no
money orders of any kind had been made payable to anyone at the YMCA in
Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know where the information came from that the
money order was supposed to have been payable to Oswald at the YMCA?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. This information came from one of our night
employees, Mr. C. A. Hamblen.
Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into Mr. Hamblen, I want to cover the rest
of the statements made in your memorandum, and we will try to cover
them generally. The memorandum indicates that certain money orders were
received by Jack Ruby, and that certain telegrams were sent by Jack
Ruby through the Dallas office; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that information was determined as a result of the
search that you have just described?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is, the search of the money order payable file,
plus the telegrams sent file, which search was confined, as you have
indicated, only to the telegrams sent cash paid or sent collect; is
that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct. With respect to the money orders, the
search was made of the received money order file records of which we
have. As to the telegrams filed by Mr. Ruby, knowing that he was a
resident of Dallas, having a business here, we asked the FBI agent
to check with the telephone company to see whether or not their
records indicate any messages had been sent by Ruby and charged to his
telephone. This information was secured by the FBI from the telephone
company and enabled us to readily locate the messages in our files
which were charged to his telephone.
Mr. LIEBELER. You indicated before that when searching for telegrams
sent by Oswald, a general search was made of the chronological dates
that you have described; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. You searched all the chronological records of the two
classifications of telegrams that we have indicated?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. During the time that search was made for telegrams sent
by Oswald, did the person making that search also look for telegrams
sent by Ruby?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. No. The search made for telegrams sent by Ruby was
confined to the dates given to us by the FBI, which dates were obtained
from the telephone company records showing telegrams charged to Ruby's
telephone number or numbers on those dates.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, it is possible that Mr. Ruby may have sent other
telegrams which were not charged to his telephone number or numbers,
and of which we would not be aware as a result of the search made in
connection with Mr. Ruby; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. On page 3 of your memorandum, exhibit 3001, you indicate
that a telegram dated Painesville, Ohio, January 13, 1964, to Mrs. Lee
Harvey Oswald, was received. How did that come to your attention, Mr.
Semingsen?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That telegram was brought to my attention by District
Manager Wilcox, it having been shown to him by one of our main office
employees who handled the message.
Mr. LIEBELER. It was shown to Mr. Wilcox because of the nature of the
message which the telegram contained; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to which reference has just been made is
attached to the memorandum as attachment No. 4. Your memorandum also
indicates negative results when a search was made of the office in
Irving. Tex., in Fort Worth, Tex., and in New Orleans, La., for money
orders payable to Oswald or to his aliases, or in the case of New
Orleans for money orders sent or received by Oswald and aliases through
the periods indicated in the memorandum. Were these statements made in
your memorandum as a result of searches made similar to that in the
Dallas office, do you know?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you personally instruct the New Orleans office to
conduct the search of their records or cause such instructions to be
given?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The search at New Orleans with respect to received money
orders was authorized by our district manager in New Orleans. Later
a request was made for a similar search of sent money orders, which
was referred to my office. And in this instance I authorized our New
Orleans office to make the search.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, as far as you know, the search concerning received
money orders was instigated by a direct request to the New Orleans
office by the FBI or some other investigatory agency, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. I notice that the period for which a search was made in
the Fort Worth office is confined to July 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, and
29, 1963. Can you tell me the reason for that?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The request for the search for money orders payable to
Oswald on those dates was made by local FBI agents in Fort Worth of our
district manager there. The FBI agents requested the search because
they had information to the effect that the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald
was a tenant at this address during that time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which address is that?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The address was the Rotary Apartments, 1501 West Seventh
Street.
Mr. LIEBELER. Fort Worth?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Fort Worth.
Mr. LIEBELER. In answering the last question, you referred to a
memorandum in your file from a Mr. T. R. Coates to you, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is dated December 9, 1963; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. The memorandum indicates that a Mr. Meyers of the FBI
came to the Fort Worth office of your company and requested that a
check be made of the received money orders for the last 2 weekends of
July to determine if a money order had been received addressed to Lee
Harvey Oswald, or anyone at the address of the Rotary Apartments, 1501
West Seventh Street, Fort Worth, Tex.; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Coates says that the FBI agent said that the FBI
had information that Lee Harvey Oswald's mother was a tenant at that
address during that time, and Mr. Coates also indicates that a search
of the received money orders of July 19, 20, 21-22, 26-27 and 28-29
were made, but no record was found of any having been received; is that
correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would it have been possible for Oswald to have received
money orders at any offices in Dallas other than a Dallas main office?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. He could have received money orders at the branch
offices.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would the records of received money orders for the branch
offices be filed at the Dallas main office or at the Dallas branch
offices?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am not certain about that, but the search of all
received money orders was made covering both the main and branch
offices.
Mr. LIEBELER. In Dallas?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. In Dallas.
Mr. LIEBELER. What about suburban offices? We have noted that a
specific search was made of the Irving office. Are there other suburban
offices at which Oswald could have received money orders, which would
not have been uncovered by the search which was made?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; it is possible he could have received money orders
at such places, for example, at Garland or Grand Prairie.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is there only one office in Irving?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; there is one office in Irving.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not the records of received money
orders for suburban areas of Dallas are kept in the local suburban
office or kept in the Dallas main office?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. They are kept at the branch office.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you are absolutely certain that the records relating
to the money orders received at the Dallas branch office are either
kept at the Dallas main office or would the search that was made
include a search of the branch offices; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes; and in addition, Irving, Tex.
Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned a moment ago the fact that one of your
employees, Mr. C. A. Hamblen, who is presently a night manager in the
Dallas main office--is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am not sure what his title is.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Hamblen said that he thought he recognized Oswald as
a customer in that office, is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes. He had indicated that he had thought he had seen
Mr. Oswald or someone that looked like him in the office on some
occasion, either receiving the money order or sending a telegram.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us the background of Mr. Hamblen's
involvement in this matter. In your own words tell us the story of the
events that prompted this search. What investigation was made as to Mr.
Hamblen's activities, and what conclusion the company came to in this
respect?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Perhaps it would be best to get that testimony direct
from Mr. Wilcox. However, I did participate in a very thorough
questioning of Mr. Hamblen and can furnish you with this information.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you indicate for us briefly, and we will perhaps go
into greater detail with Mr. Wilcox after lunch.
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Sometime shortly after the killing of Oswald by Ruby,
which was shown on television, Mr. Hamblen indicated or mentioned to
Mr. Wilcox that he thought he had seen someone who appeared to look
like Oswald in our main office, either receiving a money order or
sending a telegram. When Mr. Wilcox learned of this information, he
had a search made of our files for certain dates which he is in better
position to testify on.
Mr. LIEBELER. He caused the search to be made for a telegram that might
have been sent by Oswald or money order received by Oswald; is that
correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct. There were two specific instances in
which Mr. Hamblen thought that he had seen Oswald in the office. One
having to do with a received money order, and the other instance having
to do with the filing of a telegram. The search made by Mr. Wilcox
revealed no such transactions.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was this search made before or after Mr. Hamblen's views
became known to the press?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The first search was made before the information reached
the press. The second and more intensive search was made following
appearance in the press concerning the alleged filing of telegrams and
receiving of money orders by Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand the chronology of events here, Mr.
Hamblen first indicated to Mr. Wilcox that he, Hamblen, thought he
recalled Oswald having been in the Western Union office, the main
office in Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Subsequent to that time, as I understand it, Mr. Wilcox
observed a story in the newspaper that indicated that Oswald had been
in the office and had received a small amount of money by telegram
money order; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. As I understand it, Mr. Wilcox at that point concluded
that the story must have gotten to the press through Mr. Hamblen, and
after that time, Mr. Hamblen was questioned by Mr. Wilcox and also
by yourself, and gave to Mr. Wilcox certain statements relating to
his alleged recollection of Oswald having been in the office; is that
correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have given me copies of two statements by Mr.
Hamblen, dated December 2, 1963, and December 5, 1963, respectively.
Did you have any personal involvement in the preparation of these
statements to which I have referred?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I did not. At a meeting in Mr. Wilcox's office
following my receipt of copies of these statements, I personally
interrogated Mr. Hamblen and other employees whom Hamblen had thought
had handled the transactions in question.
Mr. LIEBELER. Specifically, that would have been a Mrs. D. J. McClure?
Is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. McClure is an employee of the company who Mr.
Hamblen said had had trouble with Oswald and had requested him,
Hamblen, to assist in handling Oswald; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make any written report to the file, or for any
other officer of the company, of your interrogation of Mr. Hamblen or
Mrs. McClure?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. No; I did not.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you state for us at this time the general nature of
the interrogation and the conclusions to which you came as a result of
your questioning of Mr. Hamblen and Mrs. McClure?
We will note at this time for the record that while Mr. Semingsen is
referring to copies of the two statements made by Mr. Hamblen, dated
December 2 and December 5, 1963, they will not be marked at this time,
since Mr. Semingsen had no direct involvement in the preparation of
these statements. They will be marked subsequently upon the examination
of Mr. Wilcox.
You may refer to those statements, if you wish.
Perhaps the record should also note that a statement was given to Mr.
Wilcox, apparently by Mrs. McClure, on December 4, 1963. Mr. Semingsen,
you indicated that you had questioned both of those employees. I assume
that when you did question them, you had these statements before you;
is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Please state the general nature of your questioning and
the conclusions to which you came as a result of your questioning.
Mr. SEMINGSEN. As previously indicated, I questioned both of the
employees separately, individually, and together in the presence of
Mr. Wilcox, my purpose being to reconcile the differences in their
statements.
After having informed Mr. Hamblen of the extensive search that had been
made for the telegram which he so vividly recalled having been filed
by someone who looked like Oswald, and calling to his attention that
all of the cash messages that had been handled by Mrs. McClure had
been accounted for and no such message located, I asked for a further
explanation from him. After questioning him, he would give no further
explanation in the presence of Mrs. McClure.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he still stick to the proposition that to the best of
his recollection Oswald or someone that he thought looked like Oswald,
had, in fact, been in the office and had these difficulties with Mrs.
McClure?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I similarly questioned Mrs. McClure, and I am satisfied
from the answers that she gave that her story is the correct one.
Particularly in the absence of any such message in our files.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. McClure's version is that no such person as Oswald
ever came in the office, and she had no difficulty with anyone as a
result of which she requested assistance from Mr. Hamblen; is that
correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you satisfied that is a correct story?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I am satisfied that that is the correct story as
indicated by Mrs. McClure in her statement that Mr. Hamblen was
confused, possibly had Oswald mixed up with someone else who looked
very much like him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Hamblen particularly mentioned a message that this
person who he thought looked like Oswald was supposed to have sent to
Washington, D.C.; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. To the Secretary of Navy in particular; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. The message that he had reference to was supposedly
a night letter addressed to Washington. D.C., as indicated in his
statement of December 5. In that statement he also indicated that the
telegram was a cash telegram, accounted for by Mrs. McClure as a night
letter. Such accounting would have to appear on her record of cash
telegrams accepted.
Mr. LIEBELER. This is the telegram with respect to which Hamblen
said Mrs. McClure had difficulty with a customer and requested his
assistance; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have caused a thorough search of Mrs. McClure's
records to be made and you have not found any night letter to
Washington, D.C.; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct during the period searched. We did
locate several messages to Washington, D.C. I do not recall that they
were accepted by Mrs. McClure, but Mr. Wilcox can testify as to that.
In any event, a telegram to Washington, D.C., and several other cities
fitting the description that Hamblen had given were shown to him and
he could not identify any of them as the telegram he had referred to,
which Mrs. McClure was supposed to have accepted.
Mr. LIEBELER. What dates were searched for the specific message to
Washington, D.C.?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. All cash messages sent to Washington, D.C., from the
latter part of October through November 22, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you be more specific as to what the latter part of
October might be?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Whether or not accepted by Mrs. McClure. In addition, a
search of all cash messages accepted by Mrs. McClure during the period
November 1 to November 21, 1963, inclusive, was made, and all messages
accepted by her were matched out with her cash sheet and all messages
have been accounted for. All cash messages accepted by her have been
accounted for. None could be identified as the message in question
referred to by Mr. Hamblen.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you said it could not be identified, you mean it
could not be identified by Mr. Hamblen? When shown to Mr. Hamblen, he
could not identify them?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, you are perfectly satisfied in your own mind based
on the investigation which your company has conducted, and your
questioning of Mr. Hamblen and Mrs. McClure, that Oswald did not
receive any money order through your Dallas office or any of the other
offices indicated in your memorandum, Exhibit 3001, and that Oswald did
not, in fact, send a message to Washington, D.C., or give a message to
Mrs. McClure as indicated by Mr. Hamblen; is that correct?
Mr. SEMINGSEN. That is correct, and I am satisfied of that conclusion.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no more questions at this point, Mr. Semingsen.
I think that some of the details of the searches made and of other
aspects of this matter will be taken up with Mr. Wilcox after lunch.
If you have anything else that you would like to add, or you think I
should ask you that I haven't asked you, I would appreciate if you
would so indicate on the record at this point.
Mr. SEMINGSEN. I can think of nothing at this time, but if anything
further does occur to me, I will be glad to bring it to your attention.
I am sure that Mr. Wilcox will be more helpful in answering any
questions that you may wish to ask him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Thank you very much, Mr. Semingsen.