Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question there: Do I correctly read your
report and those of your agents to the general effect that you had no
evidence that there was any attempt to recruit Oswald in the United
States?
Mr. BELMONT. No evidence whatsoever.
Mr. STERN. Question 8, Mr. Belmont, on page 5, sets out the information
from a report by Agent Hosty regarding alleged Fair Play for Cuba
Committee activity by Oswald while he was still residing in Dallas.
Have you found that an investigation was conducted to determine whether
that was accurate and do you think it should have been investigated?
Mr. BELMONT. As to whether he was active with the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee in Dallas? We did check. We have rather excellent coverage
of such activities. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that
he was active with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Dallas. And,
as a matter of fact, I can go a step further and say that following
his dissemination of pamphlets and his activities in New Orleans, our
inquiry of our sources who are competent to tell us what is going on in
the organizations such as Fair Play for Cuba Committee, advised that
he was not known to them in New Orleans. So that his activities in New
Orleans were of his own making, and not as a part of the organized
activities of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
Mr. McCLOY. On that point, Mr. Belmont, where did he get his material,
the printed material that he was distributing? Must he not have gotten
that from some headquarters?
Mr. BELMONT. It is my recollection that he had that printed up himself.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. McCLOY. All of it, so far as you know, was self-induced, so to
speak?
Mr. BELMONT. Correct.
Mr. STERN. Does your answer imply, Mr. Belmont, that there were Fair
Play for Cuba activities in Dallas and New Orleans that you knew about?
Mr. BELMONT. No; we do not have information of Fair Play for Cuba
activities in Dallas nor any organized activity in New Orleans. So that
this letter that you refer to, which was undated, was, as in so many
things that Oswald wrote, not based on fact.
Mr. STERN. On page 7 in the answer to question 12, you refer to the
inconsistencies and contradictions between the information Oswald gave
to Agent Quigley when he interviewed him in the New Orleans jail and
the facts as they were known to the FBI before that, and say that "in
the event the investigation of Oswald warranted a further interview,
these discrepancies would have been discussed with him."
Can you explain why the fact of these inconsistencies and
contradictions and perhaps outright lies to Agent Quigley was not
itself reason for a further interview?
Mr. BELMONT. Let me turn this just a little bit and say why should we
re-interview him?
Our interest in this man at this point was to determine whether his
activities constituted a threat to the internal security of the
country. It was apparent that he had made a self-serving statement to
Agent Quigley. It became a matter of record in our files as a part of
the case, and if we determined that the course of the investigation
required us to clarify or face him down with this information, we would
do it at the appropriate time.
In other words, he committed no violation of the law by telling
us something that wasn't true, and unless this required further
investigation at that time, we would handle it in due course, in accord
with the whole context of the investigation.
Mr. STERN. Do you know whether the fact of these contradictions was
called to the attention of the Dallas office at the time of Oswald's
return to Dallas?
Mr. BELMONT. The entire file, of course, or the pertinent serials were
sent to Dallas at the time that the case was transferred back to Dallas
so they would have that information.
Mr. STERN. I gather what you are saying is they would note the
contradictions from the reports?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes.
Mr. STERN. In the answer to question 14 on page 8, again in connection
with these inconsistencies, the letter reads "These inconsistencies
were considered in subsequent investigation."
Can you expand on that and tell us how they were considered?
Mr. BELMONT. That is right along the line of my previous explanation
to you, namely, that they were recorded in the file. In the event it
was desired to talk to him further at a future date, they would be
considered as to whether we desired to have him further explain.
Mr. STERN. On page 12, in response to question 22, which asked for
an explanation of the reason for the investigation to ascertain his
whereabouts, the letter reads, "In view of Oswald's background and
activities the FBI had a continuing interest in him."
What was the nature of that continuing interest at that time?
Mr. BELMONT. On August 21, 1963, because of his activities in
distributing these pamphlets, and his arrest in New Orleans,
headquarters here in Washington sent a letter to the New Orleans and
Dallas offices instructing them to pursue the investigation. In other
words, in evaluating this information we felt it desirable that we
further explore his activities to determine whether they were inimical
to the internal security of the country. So that we had this continuing
interest based on our evaluation, and so instructed our field offices.
Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, I believe the answers to the other questions
give us a complete enough record.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. STERN. May this exhibit which has been marked 833 for
identification be admitted?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted in evidence under that number.
(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 833
for identification, was received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. Is there anything else, Mr. Belmont, that you may want to
add? You have already been asked this question as you went through all
these questions and answers, but is there anything else you would like
to add in view of your answers this morning in further elaboration of
the answers that have been given?
Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; unless the Commission has further questions at
this point, I believe that the questions are answered properly and
sufficiently.
Mr. McCLOY. You think that if you are interviewing a defector which is
something that provokes your interest, and I guess the mere fact of
defection and return to the United States would do so, and if you found
that defector was lying to you, you think that without something in
addition to that there would be no further necessity of examining him.
Is that a fair question? Let me put it another way.
Mr. BELMONT. I have just a little difficulty following you.
Mr. McCLOY. Here is my point. Here was a defector who comes within the
category of interesting cases naturally.
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you question him and you find he is lying to you. At
that stage, as I understand your testimony, you say without something
more you don't necessarily go any further, is that right?
Mr. BELMONT. No; that is not correct. We had talked to this man twice
in detail concerning the question of possible recruitment by Soviet
intelligence. We had checked his activities. He was settling down. He
had a wife and a child. He had, according to what he had told us, in
our interview with him, he had not enjoyed his stay in Russia. The
State Department evaluation of him in Moscow was that he had learned
his lesson and, as a matter of fact, he had made some statement to the
effect that he now recognized the value of the American way of life,
along those lines.
So that we had pretty well settled that issue. At the time that we
interviewed him in the jail in New Orleans, we had again been following
his activities because of his communications, his contacts with The
Worker and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and our interest there was
to determine whether he was a dangerous subversive. The interview in
the jail was very apparently a self-serving interview in an attempt
to explain his activities in the New Orleans area, and if I recall
correctly, he took the position that the policy as directed against
Cuba was not correct, and that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was
merely addressing itself to the complaints of Cuba, and was not in
effect a subversive organization.
If, Mr. McCloy, during those first two interviews where we were
pursuing this matter of him being a defector and his recruitment, he
had lied to us, and the agent was not satisfied we would have pursued
it to the bitter end. Or if during any other time information came to
our attention which indicated a necessity to pursue that further we
would have pursued it to the bitter end.
Mr. McCLOY. You speak of this as a self-serving interview. Do you think
that he sought the interview with you, with Mr. Quigley eventually,
because he had known of the prior contacts that he had had with the
FBI, and he simply wanted to keep out of trouble?
Mr. BELMONT. I don't know why he asked to see an agent. I simply do not
know why.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all.
Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, I show you a letter marked for identification
Commission Exhibit No. 834. Can you identify that for the Commission,
please?
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 834 for
identification.)
Mr. BELMONT. This is a letter dated May 4, 1964, addressed to the
Commission which sets forth in summary the contents of the headquarters
file on Oswald prior to the assassination.
Mr. STERN. Do you have that file with you?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. Would you explain generally to the Commission what materials
there are in that file that for security reasons you would prefer not
to disclose?
Mr. BELMONT. The file contains the identity of some of our informants
in subversive movements. It contains information as to some of the
investigative techniques whereby we were able to receive some of the
information which has been made available to the Commission.
Mr. STERN. I think that is enough, Mr. Belmont, on that.
Mr. McCLOY. You didn't have anything further to add to that, did you?
Mr. BELMONT. No.
The CHAIRMAN. I think as to those things if it is agreeable to the
other members of the Commission, we will not pursue any questioning
that will call for an answer that would divulge those matters that you
have just spoken of.
Mr. BELMONT. I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that--I think
that is very kind of you--I would like to make it clear that Mr. Hoover
has expressed a desire to be of the utmost help to the Commission,
and to make any information available that will be helpful to the
Commission. I think your observation is very much worthwhile.
Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, have you reviewed the actual file and this
letter of May 4 which summarizes each document in the file?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. And to your knowledge, is this an accurate summary of each
piece of information in the file?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. The file is available to the Commission?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. If they want to look at any item in it?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The file does not include that security matter that you
mentioned, or does it?
Mr. BELMONT. This file is as it is maintained at the Bureau with all
information in it.
The CHAIRMAN. With all information in it?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; this is the actual file.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Belmont, are you willing to leave the file a reasonable
time in case any of the Commissioners desire to examine it personally?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. We will return it.
The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if we do want it on those conditions. If we want
to get anything from it don't you think, Mr. Rankin, that we ought
to make it known here while the witness is here. I personally don't
care to have this information that involves our security unless it is
necessary, and I don't want to have documents in my possession where it
could be assumed that I had gotten that information and used it, so I
would rather, I would rather myself confine our questions to this file
to the testimony of Mr. Belmont. Then if we want it, if we want any of
those things, it then becomes a matter to discuss here in the open, and
not just in privacy.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I felt it made a better record if the file is
available only to the Commissioners in case they do want to examine it,
and then it will be taken back and the staff will not examine it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think he has stated that the file will be made
available to us whenever we want it.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. If we do want it to read it that is one thing. For
myself, I think we can get what we want from examining the witness,
and then if there is any portion of it that comes into play why we can
determine the question here, but I really would prefer not to have a
secret file, I mean a file that contains matters of that kind in our
possession.
Mr. RANKIN. There is one factor that I wanted to get before the
Commission and in the record, and that is that you had all the
information that the FBI had in regard to this matter, and I thought
that was important to your proceedings, so that we would not retain
such a file, and we had an accurate summary but that it is available
so that the Commission can be satisfied that nothing was withheld from
it in regard to this particular question. That was the purpose of the
inquiry.
Mr. DULLES. I assume, Mr. Belmont, if later other testimony arises that
would make us desire to refer to this file we could consult it in your
offices or you would make it available to us?
Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I would personally rather have it done on that
basis. What do you think, Mr. McCloy?
Mr. McCLOY. I was just glancing at the file, and it seems to have the
regular, the usual type of reports that we have seen. But there is a
good bit of elaboration in those, in that file of the summary which
is here. This summary I don't think can purport to be a complete
description of the documents that are in here, as I glance through them
here.
I just happened to see a good bit of detail in here which doesn't have
anything to do with the security problem we talked about, but I would
think that probably it would be wise for some member of the Commission
or members of the Commission as a whole, to run through that file in
order to be sure that we have seen the material elements of the file
that we would not perhaps, might not, be able to get from this letter
of May 4.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, there are so many of these questions in here that
are obviously matters that we would have no more concern with than just
to know about them.
Start from the very beginning, a news clipping from the Corpus Christi
Times, dated October 2, 1959. Now if that excites any interest on the
part of any member, why we could say, "Well, could you show us that?"
Then the next is the United Press release, dated October 31 at Moscow,
and a great many of these.
Now, I wonder if it wouldn't be better for us to look over all of these
various things, items that are in the file, and then if there are any
that happen to excite our interest, we can ask Mr. Belmont about it.
If it is a matter that involves security, we could then discuss it and
make our determination as to whether we wanted to see it. I would think
that when we are dealing with things that are as sensitive as the FBI
has to deal with in that respect, that that would be adequate; that is
my opinion of it.
But if the rest of the Commission feel that they want to see it
notwithstanding the security measure, I would, of course, have no
objection.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, what I was trying to deal with was a
claim by someone that the Commission never saw all there was in the
hands of the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald, and we recognize that some
of these items should not be considered important by anyone, as we look
at the matter, but we wanted you to be able to satisfy the public and
the country that whatever there was that the FBI had, the Commission
had it, and we didn't think that in light of the security problems
the whole file should be a part of the files of the Commission. And
we tried to present here a summary, even of items that did not seem
important, but we did want the record in such condition that the
Commission could say in its report, "We have seen everything that they
have." I think it is important to the case.
Mr. McCLOY. I notice, Mr. Belmont, in running through this file, a note
here that symbols are used in instances where the identities of the
sources must be concealed.
Mr. BELMONT. That is correct, sir.