Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Lewis' statement refers to that portion of Mr.
Hamblen's statement, dated December 2, 1963, which we just read, does
it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And Mr. Lewis says that he does recall the difficulty he
had paying a small money order to a gentleman who struck him as being a
feminine type of person, but says he cannot remember the name of that
person; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember discussing that with Mr. Lewis to any
extent other than as reflected on this statement?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell us what you said and what Mr. Lewis said
about this?
Before you tell us what was said, this discussion that you are
referring to was held on December 4, 1963, or some other time?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir; at that time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us what that conversation was?
Mr. WILCOX. The conversation with Mr. Lewis had to do with trying to
identify the person that he was supposed to have paid this money order
to, and the one with which he had some difficulty in establishing
identification.
Mr. LIEBELER. I want you to tell me exactly what happened in as great
detail as you can remember it.
Now, at this conversation with Mr. Lewis, the possibility that this
money order was to be delivered to someone at the YMCA on Ervay Street
in Dallas was discussed, was it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us all that you can remember about that
aspect of the discussion that you had with Mr. Lewis?
Mr. WILCOX. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Lewis regarding the
money order which he was having difficulty in paying. He could not
pay the money order because the recipient could not produce suitable
identification.
Mr. Lewis was a little hazy on the details about it, but was under the
impression that it was a money order or a message in the nearby area,
possibly on Ervay Street or at the YMCA.
We instituted a search for all money orders during this period, that
might be the message to which Mr. Hamblen was making reference.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was the one with which Mr. Lewis had difficulty in
paying; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes. Now, we found some messages. One in the amount of $65.
One in the amount of $35. But neither of these were the money orders
that Mr. Hamblen had reference to.
Mr. LIEBELER. How did you establish the fact that they were not the
money orders?
Mr. WILCOX. He looked at them and decided it wasn't the one, because
we couldn't find anything that had reference to this particular
identification that Hamblen was talking about.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Lewis looked at these telegrams; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does the telegram indicate what sort of identification
was produced by the person to whom the money order was paid?
Mr. WILCOX. Well, there are several others in here.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are looking through a number of telegrams covering
money orders; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Going to different people at the YMCA, but none of them was
the money order message. None of them was a money order message that
Lewis could identify as being a money order of the type Hamblen was
describing. In other words, he couldn't find anything that fitted into
that pattern at all.
Mr. LIEBELER. You discussed these money orders with Mr. Lewis after you
obtained them from the files; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right. Mr. Lewis later told me that it might have
been a money order draft that could have been paid to some individual
in our town, and that the party holding the draft had presented it
at our office for payment, but was having difficulty in producing
suitable identification for us to cash the draft. In that event, we
would not have any message or record of message in our file locally.
Mr. LIEBELER. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Wilcox, the situation
which you just described would occur when a money order telegram had
been delivered to some party at some other office, some office other
than the Dallas central office?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And he would have the draft in his hand that would have
been delivered to him by the telegraph company in some other office,
and then he would come to the Dallas central office and attempt to cash
that draft; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And Mr. Lewis said it is possible that the transaction
with which he had such difficulty could have been a transaction such as
the one we have described; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. In that event, you would not have any record of it in the
Dallas office?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is it correct that you would not have any record of it in
the Dallas office even when the draft had been successfully cashed, as
it apparently subsequently was in this case?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You would still not have any record of it?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you have produced 11 money orders in the form of
telegrams, transmitting money to individuals living at the YMCA here
in Dallas. Is it correct that these are the only 11 telegrams which
you were able to find addressed to the YMCA or to anyone at the YMCA
during some period beginning on or about October 1963, and running up
to approximately the end of November 1963?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you, yourself, personally authorize or instruct that
the search be conducted which produced these telegrams?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been a search through every single money
order delivered through the Dallas office through the month of October
or November, 1963, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. These 11 telegrams are the only 11 that were addressed to
the YMCA?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, the dates covered by the search would be October
1 through the 17th of November 1963? Or what was it, as best you can
recall?
Mr. WILCOX. The end of November, as I remember.
Mr. LIEBELER. Beginning when?
Mr. WILCOX. Beginning the first part of October.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is a fact, is it not, that none of these 11 telegrams
are addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir; none of them are.
Mr. LIEBELER. Or to anybody using any of Mr. Oswald's known aliases?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think that we had better, for the record, indicate
the names of the people to whom these telegrams are addressed. There
is a telegram dated October 4, 1963, addressed to George McMurray,
transmitting $15, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is also a telegram dated October 10, 1963,
addressed to Michael C. Robinson, transmitting $100 to Mr. Robinson at
the YMCA, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And there is a telegram dated October 11, 1963,
transmitting $150 to James McGinley, is that right?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Also for the record we better indicate who sent these
telegrams. The telegram to Mr. McMurray was sent by Mrs. Mildred
McMurray in Plainsfield, N.J.; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to Mr. Robinson was sent by Mrs. S. R.
Robinson, of Charleston, S.C.; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The telegram to Mr. McGinley was sent by Cornelius
McGinley of Chicago; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a telegram dated October 15, 1963, to Mr. Jack
Burge from Rosalie A. Burge, Tulsa. Okla., transmitting $10; is that
correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is also a telegram dated October 19, 1963, to John
A. Casber from John Casber of Midland. Tex., transmitting $35?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. A telegram dated October 28, 1963, to Gary Aue from Mrs.
G. C. O'Quinn, Ft. Morgan, Colo., transmitting $65.
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a telegram dated October 31, 1963, to Stanley S.
Qupiec from Stayea Houston of Ware, Mass., transmitting $50; is that
correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is also a telegram dated November 22, 1963, to
Welton Hayes from Louis W. Hayes, of Rome, N.Y., transmitting $25; is
that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And a telegram dated November either 27 or 28.
Mr. WILCOX. It would be November 7. This is a transmission, November 7.
Mr. LIEBELER. 1963 to John M. Brandes, Jr., from Helen Tuttle, San
Antonio, transmitting $20; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And one dated November 22, 1963, to Frank or Grace
Fitzell, from the Akron Dime Bank in Akron, Ohio, transmitting $200; is
that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And one dated November 28, 1963, to George McMurray from
Mildred McMurray, Plainfield. N.J., transmitting $6; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. And the addresses in each case were located then at the
YMCA on North Ervay in Dallas; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Those were the only money order telegrams to individuals
at the YMCA that you were able to find in the search of your records,
and you are satisfied that those are the only money order telegrams in
existence addressed to people in the YMCA during that period; is that
correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Lewis' statement of December 4, 1963, mentions
that the individual with whom he had difficulty in paying the money
order was a man of Spanish descent, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Lewis about that?
Mr. WILCOX. We may have had it at the time we read this statement, but
I don't recall anything specific.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Lewis as to whether
he recognized this individual with whom he had difficulty in paying
the money order, as Lee Harvey Oswald, from pictures of Oswald which
appeared in the newspaper?
Mr. WILCOX. I asked him about that and he said he couldn't describe
or associate the party to the extent that he could associate it with
Oswald's picture or anything like that.
Mr. LIEBELER. He just had no recognition?
Mr. WILCOX. Other than that he had some difficulty in paying a money
order.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, as a result of these events that followed Mr.
Hamblen's statement to the newspaper reporter and the subsequent
investigation that was requested or instigated by the FBI and the
Secret Service and other investigatory agencies, you conducted certain
searches of certain files in your office in an attempt to locate any
money orders that Oswald might have received, or any telegrams that
Oswald might have sent during certain periods; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes; I can give you those dates.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you Exhibit 3001, which is a memorandum from
Mr. Semingsen, and ask you if that memorandum accurately sets forth
the dates and the checks that were made of the files in the Dallas
and Irving, Tex., offices of your company to determine whether or not
Oswald had received or sent any telegrams?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir; that's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Semingsen testified this morning that the paying
office--that is, the office through which a money order is delivered,
maintains a chronological record or file of all money orders passing
through that office; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is my understanding that you caused the files for both
Dallas and Irving to be searched for the periods indicated in Exhibit
3001?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were unable to find any money order payable to Lee
Harvey Oswald or O. H. Lee or Alex James Hidell; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is it possible that money orders could be sent to someone
just by using initials or some shorthand name?
Mr. WILCOX. No; you never see anything because you would have no way
to identify the man or associate it that you are paying it to them
correctly, associate it with any identification that he might have.
Mr. LIEBELER. Since each individual must produce identification at the
time the money order is paid, the money order is naturally in the full
name?
Mr. WILCOX. Correct. They could be accepting it for someone--it might
not be their correct name, but they could have some identification
that, if it was just a small money order, but we can't change that
identification. If it meets what shows on the money order, then we pay
it.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you have never heard of a situation where a money
order is paid to somebody just addressed to him by initials or
something like that?
Mr. WILCOX. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many offices, approximately, does the Western Union
office have in Dallas?
Mr. WILCOX. There are eight branch offices.
Mr. LIEBELER. Plus a central office?
Mr. WILCOX. Plus a central office.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is it possible to receive money orders through the branch
office?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are the files of money orders received through branch
offices kept in the branch offices, or the Dallas central office?
Mr. WILCOX. Kept at our main office.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, that the search that you made of the records of the
central office would include money orders that were received through
any branch office located within the City of Dallas, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. You said before that your district covered not only the
City of Dallas, but surrounding communities including Irving?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are the records relating to money orders received through
these other offices of suburban communities located or kept in the
suburban offices or the Dallas central office?
Mr. WILCOX. In this case, this was an agency office and it would
be--the records were kept at the Irving agency office. We did search
those records at the Irving agency office.
Mr. LIEBELER. That fact is indicated in Exhibit 3001, is it not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The records of telegrams or money orders received through
other suburban offices such as Garland, for example, would also be kept
in the Garland office, would they not?
Mr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. But no search was made of any suburban office other than
Irving; is that correct?
Mr. WILCOX. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Semingsen's memorandum also indicates that a search
was made of the files in Fort Worth and in New Orleans, but you have no
direct personal knowledge of what happened at those offices, do you?
Mr. WILCOX. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. We also have here a statement from Mr. Hamblen dated
December 5, 1963. Do you have the original of that statement?
Mr WILCOX. Yes; I do have.
Mr. LIEBELER. We will mark the original as Exhibit No. 3007 on the
deposition of Laurance R. Wilcox, at Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1963.
I have initialed Exhibit No. 3007, Mr. Wilcox, and I would like you do
the same.