Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. HUBERT. To your knowledge, is that synchronized to national time?
Mr. STRONG. I am not too certain of that, because they can be set
rather easily with a key, and they have--it is, I believe, an
independent unit. Now, it might be synchronized as a group, but I don’t
believe with a master clock.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, are you sure of that?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir; I am not--I am not too positive of it, yet, it
could be--very well be tied into the master circuit and synchronized
the same as the clocks are.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know of any clocks that are used in the Fort Worth
office that are not synchronized into the national circuit?
Mr. STRONG. You are speaking of time stamps? No, no; they are all on
the same circuit.
Mr. HUBERT. Would it be your opinion that all the time stamps on this
Exhibit 5121 were stamped by machines that are synchronized to the
national circuit?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir; I believe that is true.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I think you have already testified that the other time
stamp on here, to wit: “3:25 p.m., November 24th,” indicates the time
that the money was actually delivered, is that correct?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, as soon as I had paid her the money I turned that
immediately and stamped that on the clock.
Mr. HUBERT. So that the time of delivery of the money and time of
stamping are almost identical?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, but a few seconds intervening.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you have an independent recollection of this
transaction, Mr. Strong?
Mr. STRONG. Nothing that was outstanding, sir, because as a party
comes in inquiring for money and they have the money order, there is
a routine form, almost has become routine, that we use to satisfy
ourselves that the right party is receiving the money.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know whether the person made inquiry about this
money at any time prior to the time that the money was actually----
Mr. STRONG. That is apparently true although I did not talk with her
myself, but in the lower right-hand corner you will find the letters,
“WC”, which indicates will-call. That was placed there by one of our
telephone operators who had answered her inquiry and gone to the file
and searched this out and told her that it was there and that she had
informed her that she would call at the office for the money.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you get this information from that telephone operator?
Mr. STRONG. No; but it was on--it was given directly to me and I just
recorded it on the form.
Mr. HUBERT. So that when this document came into your possession you
knew from the numerals, or letters, “WC”, that there would be a call?
Mr. STRONG. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What is this?
Mr. STRONG. That is the initial JMS, and California driver’s
license--California--Calif--driver’s license, BR, abbreviations.
Mr. HUBERT. Was that the identification on the driver’s license?
Mr. STRONG. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. I show you on Exhibit 5121, stamped on an angle right below
the word “Union,” in large letters what appears to be another stamp of
time which is not quite clear to me. It seems to say, 1963, November
24th, and then something in parentheses, and 60 something. Can you tell
us what that means?
Mr. STRONG. Yes; the 26 in parentheses is the digit time that the
operator completed the transmission of the message in Dallas one
day---the filing time on the application will show 12:26, that the time
the operator completed sending it. This 1:04 p.m. is the time that the
money order actually reached the main floor after the operator on the
third floor released it. We stamp it again when it comes down again
from the operating room--the money order department, and that was what
the 1:04 p.m. means, actually received the money.
Mr. HUBERT. What is the parentheses?
Mr. STRONG. I say, the digit number when the operator in Dallas
completed sending it. In other words, here the message was filed at
11:17 a.m., sent back to the traffic department and the operator put
her stamp on it, and when it is completed then she puts the 2:06 in
digits indicating that the transaction was completed now, which would
have been 11:26 I assume.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say that is when the telegram got back to Dallas?
Mr. STRONG. That is when it left Dallas.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, it would not have left Dallas on November 26.
Mr. STRONG. No; this is the digited time.
In other words, either 11:26 a.m., or 12:26 p.m. indicating that the
operator had completed the transaction at that time.
Mr. HUBERT. All right. Now, I show you another document which has been
identified as Exhibit 5120, and ask you what this document represents?
Mr. STRONG. On certain money orders when the party is coming into the
office to receive payment we make up what we call a receipt form. That,
you will notice, is a money order receipt form with my initials, J. M.
S., and D. L. L., and No. 4, the wire number out of Dallas.
Mr. HUBERT. Does this conform with the number on Exhibit No. 5121?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, the same number.
Mr. HUBERT. I see.
Mr. STRONG. And then, of course, the dates and the sender’s name, the
office from which the money order came. The date, the amount and the
payee’s name.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, who typed that out?
Mr. STRONG. I did.
Mr. HUBERT. On Exhibit 5120?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, I typed all of this.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I see a signature there which purports to be that of
Karen Bennett. Who signed----
Mr. STRONG. Karen Bennett supposedly is the one who came in and
presented the California driver’s license.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, you are referring to the figures on Exhibit No. 5120,
is that right?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Did she sign that in your presence?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And I think you have already testified that from the time
stamp on Document 5121, she would have signed that at approximately
3:25 p.m., on November 24, 1963, is that correct?
Mr. STRONG. That’s correct, yes.
Mr. HUBERT. There is nothing on Exhibit 5120, that indicates the time
of sending, is that right?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Are you able to state, however, that the time stamped on
5121, indicates that the transaction was completed at 3:25 p.m., on
November 24, 1963?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, immediately after Karen Bennett signed this receipt I
stamped----
Mr. HUBERT. “This receipt,” to wit: Exhibit 5121?
Mr. STRONG. Then I stamped the Exhibit 5121, to show the time that
payment had been made.
Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you know about the matter?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir; that’s right.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember if Karen Bennett was alone or was there
someone with her?
Mr. STRONG. She was alone. There was no one with her that came into the
office.
Mr. HUBERT. Had she been waiting around?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir; no. She walked in and I immediately waited upon
her. Asked her if I might help her, and she told me she was expecting
a money order, and, of course, I went through the money order file and
paid her upon her identification.
Mr. HUBERT. Had you prepared the money order receipt, which is
identified as Exhibit 5120, prior to the time she came in?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, we do that as quickly as they come in, as we find the
time to do so.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, we have been speaking about Exhibit 5120, in a sense
that might indicate we were dealing with the original document. I asked
you if it is not true that the actual piece of paper that we have
identified as 5120, is a photostatic copy of it?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, it is. The original would be green in color.
Mr. HUBERT. I see. There are some initials on 5120 following the words,
“Issuing employee.” Whose initials are those?
Mr. STRONG. Those are my initials indicating that I paid the money
order.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Strong, have you had any interviews with any members of
the President’s Commission other than myself in regard to this matter?
Mr. STRONG. No, I have not.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, there was an interview between you and me prior to the
commencement of this deposition earlier this morning?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. In this deposition, have we covered everything that was
covered in the course of our interview?
Mr. STRONG. I think so. I don’t believe there is anything I can add
there.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know of any inconsistencies in our interview that
have not been developed in the course of this deposition?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir; I do not.
Mr. HUBERT. This Karen Bennett came in in a normal manner and left in a
normal manner and exhibited no emotion whatsoever?
Mr. STRONG. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you know of the shooting of Oswald when she came in?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir; I did not. I have been on duty since 7 o’clock
that morning with no means of communication whatsoever. In fact, I did
not know it until after payment of this money order had been made. One
of the messengers mentioned the fact that Oswald had been killed, and
that a party by the name of Rubenstein had shot him, which couldn’t
register with me at all, because I did not connect the names.
Mr. HUBERT. Did Karen Bennett indicate in any way that she knew that
Ruby had shot Oswald?
Mr. STRONG. No, sir; there was no conversation between us at all other
than the conversation in respect to the money order.
Mr. HUBERT. And the identification?
Mr. STRONG. Pardon me?
Mr. HUBERT. And the identification?
Mr. STRONG. And the identification. After the transaction she left
the office and there was no occasion of that--there was no further
conversation.
Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, sir.