Mr. JENNER. What did it mean to you, sir?
Mr. WEISSMAN. What did it mean to me?
Mr. JENNER. It is a generalization.
Mr. WEISSMAN. That is it. In other words, I didn't really know what to
think. I had to go along with him, because I didn't know anything about
it, aside from what he told me.
And he said, "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if
you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage
of the publicity, and at least become known among these various
rightwingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to
infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other
words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich.
Mr. JENNER. Could I go back a little bit, please. You received a
telephone call from Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. At that moment, you knew nothing about the Adlai Stevenson
incident, is that correct?
Mr. WEISSMAN. I had received a letter from him several weeks before
saying that--if you will wait just a minute, I think I might have the
letter with me.
Mr. JENNER. All right. While you are looking, what was your rank when
you were discharged?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Pfc.
Mr. JENNER. Did you reach any higher rank when you were in the service?
Mr. WEISSMAN. No; this is a letter I received on October 1, 1963.
Mr. JENNER. For purposes of identification, we will mark that as
Commission Exhibit No. 1033.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033 for
identification.)
Mr. JENNER. May I approach the witness, Mr. Chief Justice?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go right ahead.
Mr. JENNER. That is marked only for identification for the moment.
Mr. FLANNERY. The record will reflect it is a three-page letter.
Mr. JENNER. Thank you.
Marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033, is that not correct?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is correct. Now, in Exhibit No. 1033, the
letter I received from Larrie on October 1--that was typed on October
1, 1963, and mailed on 7 October 1963.
Mr. JENNER. You are looking at the envelope in which the letter was
enclosed when you received it?
Mr. WEISSMAN. That is correct. And he states in the last paragraph of
his letter in a postscript, "My brother has begun working as an aide
to General Walker. He is being paid full time, et cetera. Watch your
newspaper for news of huge demonstrations here in Dallas on October
3 and 4 in connection with U.N.-day and Adlai Stevenson speech here.
Plans already made, strategy being carried out."
This was the only advance notice I had of this. And I didn't give it
too much thought, because he had said many things like it before, just
to build something up, and nothing ever came of it.
Mr. JENNER. Is that document signed?
Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it is not.
Mr. JENNER. Does it bear a typed signature?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion to speak with Mr. Schmidt respecting
the contents of that letter at any time subsequent to your receiving it?
Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER. Did you ever talk with him about having received that
particular letter, that he acknowledged having sent to you?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; as a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about his
brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might
give us a black eye.
Mr. JENNER. And what did you do--call Mr. Schmidt or talk with him on
that subject?
Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall if I spoke with him, or if I wrote it to
him in a letter. I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER. But you had occasion to confirm the fact that the letter
now identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1033 was written by Mr.
Schmidt and mailed to you in an envelope, which we will mark as
Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A?
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A for
identification.)
Mr. JENNER. Did you hear my question?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Repeat it, please.
(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)
Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. So that when you had your telephone conversation which you
were in the course of relating, with Mr. Schmidt, you were aware when
he made the exclamation which you have described, of that to which he
was then referring--that is, the Stevenson incident?
Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Was there anything else in Mr. Schmidt's letter that
disturbed you?
Mr. WEISSMAN. I received so many.
Would it be permissible to--excuse me.
Mr. Jenner, would it be permissible to read this letter into the record?
Mr. JENNER. My trouble is, Mr. Weissman, and Mr. Flannery--I haven't
seen the letter.