The CHAIRMAN. You mean by that that you could get, we could get, a
better idea from paraphrasing the answer than we could get from the
exact answer itself?
Mr. STERN. I think he might be able to highlight the answer. We have
the exact answer on the record, and I thought it might----
The CHAIRMAN. Well, highlight it, if there is anything in addition I
would think that would be relevant and pertinent. But to ask him to
paraphrase that which he has done with great meticulousness would seem
to me to be abortive and would take a lot of our time, and I don't see
what it would prove. If you have anything in addition that you want to
ask him, if you want to ask him if there is anything in addition he has
not put in there, that is all right. But to just ask him to paraphrase
answers that have been done with great care would seem to me to be
confusing the record, and serve no purpose.
Mr. STERN. I might ask, Mr. Belmont, whether there is anything you
would like to add or amplify in these questions?
Mr. BELMONT. I believe the answers speak for themselves, although in
view of Mr. McCloy's questions a little while ago, I would be very
happy to make clear our approach to this matter. For example, the
fact that our interest in defectors, in this case, is shown by the
fact that in early November 1959 we opened a file on Oswald based on
the newspaper publicity as to his defection. And the fact that he had
applied to renounce his citizenship. We checked our files then to see
was this a man we had a record on, and found that we had a fingerprint
record solely based on his enlistment in the Marines.
We had no other record on him but we placed a stop or a flash notice
in our fingerprint files, at that time so that if he should come back
into the country unbeknownst to us and get into some sort of trouble
we would be immediately notified. That is our opening interest in the
case with the thought in mind that should he come back to the country
we would want to know from him whether he had been enlisted by Soviet
intelligence in some manner.
That is our procedure because of our experience that these things have
happened, and we consider it our responsibility to settle that issue
whenever we can.
Mr. STERN. Could you explain, Mr. Belmont, this procedure of placing a
stop in the files that you just referred to?
Mr. BELMONT. We merely notify our identification division to place what
we call a flash notice in the man's fingerprint file, which means that
should he be arrested and the fingerprints be sent to the FBI, that the
appropriate division, in this case the domestic intelligence division,
would be notified that the man had been arrested, for what and where he
was arrested, thus enabling us to center our attention on him.
Our next interest in this man arose as a result of the fact that his
mother had sent, I believe, $25 to him in Moscow, so we went to her in
April 1960 and we talked to her. At that time she told us that he had
told her that he would possibly attend the Albert Schweitzer College in
Switzerland.
So as a followup, we had our legal attache in Paris make inquiry to see
whether he had enrolled in this college. The resultant check showed
that while they had expected him and a deposit had been placed that he
did not show up at the college.
Mr. STERN. I think that is all covered in quite adequate detail in the
answer to the first question.
Mr. DULLES. I have one question I would like to put to you on the first
question and answer in your letter of April 6, in Exhibit 833--the
Bureau's letter of April 6. You refer, first, to the fact that the
first news you got about Oswald was from a news service item, and then
later on at the bottom of the second full paragraph you state, "A file
concerning Oswald was prepared and as communications were received from
other U.S. Government agencies those communications were placed in his
file."
The record may show the other communications, I guess our record does
show, but do you feel that you adequately were advised by the State
Department as this case developed or by the CIA or other agencies that
might have known about it?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes. We received a number of communications from other
agencies, and we set up a procedure whereby we periodically checked the
State Department passport file to be kept advised of his activities or
his dealings with the Embassy in Moscow so that on a periodic basis we
were sure we had all information in the State Department file.
We received communications from the Navy, and from other agencies.
Mr. DULLES. Is there any general procedure with respect to Americans
abroad who get into trouble. Do you get informed so in case they come
back you can take adequate precautionary measures? Is that established
SOP?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, Mr. Dulles. We do receive such information, and if we
pick up the information initially as we did here, from press reports or
otherwise, we go to the other agencies and ask them whether they have
any information and establish an interest there so that if they have
not voluntarily furnished us the information they will do so upon our
request.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. STERN. On page 3, Mr. Belmont, in the answer to question No. 3, the
second paragraph, could you tell us why the FBI preferred to interview
Oswald after he had established residence and why it was not preferable
to interview him upon his arrival in New York?
Mr. BELMONT. This is a matter of experience. Generally speaking when
an individual such as Oswald arrives back in the country and the
press is there, there is an unusual interest in him. Immigration and
Naturalization Service has a function to perform, and we prefer, unless
there is a matter of urgency, to let the individual become settled in
residence. It is a much better atmosphere to conduct the interview, and
to get the information that we seek. If it is a matter of urgency, we
will interview him immediately upon arrival.
Mr. STERN. On page 4, Mr. Belmont, in your answer to question No. 6,
was it ordinary procedure for Agent Fain to re-interview Oswald so soon
after his first interview under the circumstances? Is there anything
unusual about that?
Mr. BELMONT. There is nothing unusual whatsoever. Agent Fain
interviewed Oswald on June 26, 1963--1962, I believe it was, was it not?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; 1962.
Mr. BELMONT. And was not satisfied that he had received all the
information he wanted nor that it was a matter that should be closed at
that time.
Therefore, he set out a lead to re-interview Oswald, and after an
appropriate period he went back and re-interviewed him. This is within
the prerogative of the investigative agent, and certainly if he was not
satisfied with the first interview it was his duty and responsibility
to pursue the matter until he was satisfied.
Mr. STERN. In your answer to question No. 5, does the response of
Oswald to the question why he went to Russia seem typical to you of the
returned defector, or unusual?
Mr. BELMONT. There is no such thing as a typical response. Each case is
an individual case, and is decided on its merits and on the background
of the individual, and the circumstances surrounding it.
Mr. STERN. Would it be usual for the defector to agree to advise you if
he got a contact? Are they generally that cooperative?
Mr. BELMONT. We ask them because we want to know, and the purpose of
our interview with him was to determine whether he had been recruited
by the Soviet intelligence, and we asked him whether he would tell us
if he was contacted here in this country. He replied he would. Whether
he meant it is a question. However, you must bear in mind that this
man, I believe it was when he was interviewed in July of 1961 in the
American Embassy, the interviewing official there said it was apparent
that he had learned his lesson the hard way, and that he had a new
concept of the American way of life, and apparently had decided that
Russia was not for him.
When we interviewed him likewise he told us that he had not enjoyed
his stay in Russia. He likewise commented that he had not enjoyed his
stay in the Marines. So that in direct answer to your question, it is
customary for us in such a case as this, to ask the man if he will
report a contact, and it is customary for him to say yes, because
frankly, he would be putting himself in a rather bad light if he didn't
say yes.