and the Immigration and Naturalization Service contain no indication
of any expert guidance by Soviet authorities in Oswald’s dealings with
the Department or the Service. For example, the letters from Minsk to
the Embassy in Moscow,[C6-271] which are in his handwriting,[C6-272]
display the arrogant attitude which was characteristic of him both
before and after he lived in Russia, and, when compared with other
letters that were without doubt composed and written by him,[C6-273]
show about the same low level of sophistication, fluency, and spelling.
The Department officer who most frequently dealt with Oswald when he
began negotiations to return to the United States, Richard E. Snyder,
testified that he can recall nothing that indicated Oswald was being
guided or assisted by a third party when he appeared at the Embassy
in July 1961.[C6-274] On the contrary, the arrogant and presumptuous
attitude which Oswald displayed in his correspondence with the Embassy
from early 1961 until June 1962,[C6-275] when he finally departed from
Russia, undoubtedly hindered his attempts to return to the United
States. Snyder has testified that although he made a sincere effort to
treat Oswald’s application objectively, Oswald’s attitude made this
very difficult.[C6-276]
In order to leave Russia, it was also necessary for the Oswalds
to obtain permission from the Soviet Government. The timing and
circumstances under which the Oswalds obtained this permission have
also been considered by the Commission. Marina Oswald, although her
memory is not clear on the point, said that she and Oswald first
made their intentions to go to the United States known to Soviet
officials in Minsk in May, even before coming to Moscow in July for the
conference at the American Embassy.[C6-277] The Oswalds’ correspondence
with the Embassy and the documents furnished the Commission by the
Soviet Government show that the Oswalds made a series of formal
applications to the Soviets from July 15 to August 21.[C6-278]
Presumably the most difficult question for the Soviet authorities
was whether to allow Marina Oswald to accompany her husband. She was
called to the local passport office in Minsk on December 25, 1961, and
told that authority had been received to issue exit visas to her and
Oswald.[C6-279] Obtaining the permission of the Soviet Government to
leave may have been aided by a conference which Marina Oswald had, at
her own request, with a local MVD official, Colonel Aksenov, sometime
in late 1961. She testified that she applied for the conference at her
husband’s urging, after he had tried unsuccessfully to arrange such
a conference for himself.[C6-280] She believed that it may have been
granted her because her uncle with whom she had lived in Minsk before
her marriage was also an MVD official.[C6-281]
The correspondence with the American Embassy at this time reflected
that the Oswalds did not pick up their exit visas immediately.[C6-282]
On January 11, 1962, Marina Oswald was issued her Soviet exit visa.
It was marked valid until December 1, 1962.[C6-283] The Oswalds did
not leave Russia until June 1962, but the additional delay was caused
by problems with the U.S. Government and by the birth of a child in
February.[C6-284] Permission of the Soviet authorities to leave, once
given, was never revoked. Oswald told the FBI in July 1962, shortly
after he returned to the United States, that he had been interviewed
by the MVD twice, once when he first came to the Soviet Union and once
just before he departed.[C6-285] His wife testified that the second
interview did not occur in Moscow but that she and her husband dealt
with the MVD visa officials frequently in Minsk.[C6-286]
Investigation of the circumstances, including the timing, under which
the Oswalds obtained permission from the Soviet Government to leave
Russia for the United States show that they differed in no discernible
manner from the normal. The Central Intelligence Agency has informed
the Commission that normally a Soviet national would not be permitted
to emigrate if he might endanger Soviet national security once he
went abroad.[C6-287] Those persons in possession of confidential
information, for example, would constitute an important category of
such “security risks.” Apparently Oswald’s predeparture interview by
the MVD was part of an attempt to ascertain whether he or his wife
had access to any confidential information. Marina Oswald’s reported
interview with the MVD in late 1961, which was arranged at her request,
may have served the same purpose. The Commission’s awareness of both
interviews derives entirely from Oswald’s and his wife’s statements and
letters to the American Embassy, which afford additional evidence that
the conferences carried no subversive significance.
It took the Soviet authorities at least 5½ months, from about July 15,
1961, until late December, to grant permission for the Oswalds to leave
the country. When asked to comment upon the alleged rapidity of the
Oswalds’ departure, the Department of State advised the Commission:
* * * In the immediate post-war period there were about fifteen
marriages in which the wife had been waiting for many years
for a Soviet exit permit. After the death of Stalin the Soviet
Government showed a disposition to settle these cases. In the
summer of 1953 permission was given for all of this group
of Soviet citizen wives to accompany their American citizen
husbands to the United States.
Since this group was given permission to leave the Soviet
Union, there have been from time to time marriages in the
Soviet Union of American citizens and Soviet citizens. With
one exception, it is our understanding that all of the Soviet
citizens involved have been given permission to emigrate to the
United States after waiting periods which were, in some cases
from three to six months and in others much longer.[C6-288]
Both the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency
compiled data for the Commission on Soviet wives of American citizens
who received exit visas to leave the Soviet Union, where the relevant
information was available. In both cases the data were consistent
with the above conclusion of the State Department. The Department of
State had sufficient information to measure the timespan in 14 cases.
The Department points out that it has information on the dates of
application for and receipt of Soviet exit visas only on those cases
that have been brought to its attention. A common reason for bringing
a case to the attention of the Department is that the granting of the
exit visa by the Soviet Union has been delayed, so that the American
spouse seeks the assistance of his own government. It therefore
appears that the sampling data carry a distinct bias toward lengthy
waiting periods. Of the 14 cases tested, 6 involve women who applied
for visas after 1953, when the liberalized post-Stalin policy was
in effect. The approximate waiting periods for these wives were, in
decreasing order, 13 months, 6 months, 3 months, 1 month, and 10
days.[C6-289] Of the 11 cases examined by the Central Intelligence
Agency in which the time period is known or can be inferred, the Soviet
wives had to wait from 5 months to a year to obtain exit visas.[C6-290]
In his correspondence with the American Embassy and his brother
while he was in Russia,[C6-291] in his diary,[C6-292] and in
his conversations with people in the United States after he
returned,[C6-293] Oswald claimed that his wife had been subjected
to pressure by the Soviet Government in an effort to induce her not
to emigrate to the United States. In the Embassy correspondence,
Oswald claimed that the pressure had been so intense that she had
to be hospitalized for 5 days for “nervous exhaustion.”[C6-294]
Marina Oswald testified that her husband exaggerated and that no such
hospitalization or “nervous exhaustion” ever occurred.[C6-295] However,
she did testify that she was questioned on the matter occasionally
and given the impression that her government was not pleased with her
decision.[C6-296] Her aunt and uncle in Minsk did not speak to her “for
a long time”; she also stated that she was dropped from membership in
the Communist Youth Organization (Komsomol) when the news of her visit
to the American Embassy in Moscow reached that organization.[C6-297]
A student who took Russian lessons from her in Texas testified that
she once referred to the days when the pressure was applied as “a
very horrible time.”[C6-298] Despite all this Marina Oswald testified
that she was surprised that their visas were granted as soon as they
were--and that hers was granted at all.[C6-299] This evidence thus
indicates that the Soviet authorities, rather than facilitating the
departure of the Oswalds, first tried to dissuade Marina Oswald from
going to the United States and then, when she failed to respond to
the pressure, permitted her to leave without undue delay. There are
indications that the Soviet treatment of another recent defector who
left the Soviet Union to return to the United States resembled that
accorded to the Oswalds.[C6-300]
On the basis of all the foregoing evidence, the Commission concluded
that there was no reason to believe that the Oswalds received unusually
favorable treatment in being permitted to leave the Soviet Union.
Associations in the Dallas-Fort Worth Community
_The Russian-speaking community._--Shortly after his return from Russia
in June 1962, Oswald and his family settled in Fort Worth, Tex., where
they met a group of Russian-born or Russian-speaking persons in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area.[C6-301] The members of this community were
attracted to each other by common background, language, and culture.
Many of them were well-educated, accomplished, and industrious
people, several being connected with the oil exploration, production,
and processing industry that flourishes in the Dallas-Fort Worth
area.[C6-302] As described more fully in chapter VII and in appendix
XIII, many of these persons assisted the Oswalds in various ways. Some
provided the Oswalds with gifts of such things as food, clothing, and
baby furniture.[C6-303] Some arranged appointments and transportation
for medical and dental treatment, and assumed the cost in some
instances.[C6-304] When Oswald undertook to look for employment in
Dallas in early October of 1962 and again when marital difficulties
arose between the Oswalds in November of the same year, Marina Oswald
and their child were housed at times in the homes of various members
of the group.[C6-305] The Commission has examined the background of
many of these individuals and has thoroughly investigated Oswald’s
relationship with them.
There is no basis to suppose that Oswald came to Fort Worth upon his
return from Russia for the purpose of establishing contacts with the
Russian-speaking community located in that area. Oswald had spent
several of his grammar-school years in Fort Worth.[C6-306] In 1962, his
brother Robert lived in Fort Worth and his mother resided in nearby
Vernon, Tex. In January of that year, Oswald indicated to American
officials in Russia that he intended to stay with his mother upon his
return to the United States; however, sometime after mid-February, he
received an invitation to stay with Robert and his family until he
became settled, and he did spend the first several weeks after his
return at Robert’s home.[C6-307] In July, Oswald’s mother moved to Fort
Worth and Oswald and his wife and child moved into an apartment with
her.[C6-308] While in that apartment, Oswald located a job in Fort
Worth and then rented and moved with his family into an apartment on
Mercedes Street.[C6-309]
Upon his arrival in 1962, Oswald did not know any members of the
relatively small and loosely knit Russian-speaking community.[C6-310]
Shortly after his arrival Oswald obtained the name of two
Russian-speaking persons in Fort Worth from the office of the Texas
Employment Commission in that city.[C6-311] Attempts to arrange a
prompt visit with one of them failed.[C6-312] The second person,
Peter Paul Gregory, was a consulting petroleum engineer and part-time
Russian-language instructor at the Fort Worth Public Library. Oswald
contacted him in order to obtain a letter certifying to his proficiency
in Russian and Marina Oswald later tutored his son in the Russian
language.[C6-313] Gregory introduced the Oswalds to George Bouhe and
Anna Meller, both of whom lived in Dallas and became interested in
the welfare of Marina Oswald and her child.[C6-314] Through them,
other members of the Russian community became acquainted with the
Oswalds.[C6-315]
The Oswalds met some 30 persons in the Russian-speaking community,
of whom 25 testified before the Commission or its staff; others
were interviewed on behalf of the Commission.[C6-316] This range of
testimony has disclosed that the relationship between Lee Harvey Oswald
and the Russian-speaking community was short lived and generally quite
strained.[C6-317] During October and November of 1962 Marina Oswald
lived at the homes of some of the members of the Russian-speaking
community.[C6-318] She stayed first with Elena Hall while Oswald
was looking for work in Dallas.[C6-319] In early November, Marina
Oswald and the baby joined Oswald in Dallas, but soon thereafter, she
spent approximately 2 weeks with different Russian-speaking friends
during another separation.[C6-320] Oswald openly resented the help
Marina’s “Russian friends” gave to him and his wife and the efforts
of some of them to induce Marina to leave him.[C6-321] George Bouhe
attempted to dissuade Marina from returning to her husband in November
1962, and when she rejoined him, Bouhe became displeased with her as
well.[C6-322] Relations between the Oswalds and the members of the
Russian community had practically ceased by the end of 1962. Katherine
Ford, one of the members of the group, summed up the situation as it
existed at the end of January 1963: “So it was rather, sort of, Marina
and her husband were dropped at that time, nobody actually wanted to
help. * * *”[C6-323]
In April of 1963, Oswald left Fort Worth for New Orleans, where he
was later joined by his wife and daughter, and remained until his
trip to Mexico City in late September and his subsequent return to
the Dallas-Fort Worth area in early October of 1963.[C6-324] With
only minor exceptions,[C6-325] there is no evidence that any member
of the Russian-speaking community had further contact with Oswald or
his family after April.[C6-326] In New Orleans, Oswald made no attempt
to make new Russian-speaking acquaintances for his wife and there is
no evidence that he developed any friendships in that city.[C6-327]
Similarly, after the return from New Orleans, there seems to have been
no communication between the Oswalds and this group until the evening
of November 22, 1963, when the Dallas Police enlisted Ilya Mamantov
to serve as an interpreter for them in their questioning of Marina
Oswald.[C6-328]
George De Mohrenschildt and his wife, both of whom speak Russian
as well as several other languages, however, did continue to see
the Oswalds on occasion up to about the time Oswald went to New
Orleans on April 24, 1963. De Mohrenschildt was apparently the
only Russian-speaking person living in Dallas for whom Oswald had
appreciable respect, and this seems to have been true even though De
Mohrenschildt helped Marina Oswald leave her husband for a period in
November of 1962.[C6-329]
In connection with the relations between Oswald and De Mohrenschildt,
the Commission has considered testimony concerning an event which
occurred shortly after Oswald shot at General Walker. The De
Mohrenschildts came to Oswald’s apartment on Neely Street for the
first time on the evening of April 13, 1963, apparently to bring
an Easter gift for the Oswald child.[C6-330] Mrs. De Mohrenschildt
testified that while Marina Oswald was showing her the apartment, she
saw a rifle with a scope in a closet. Mrs. De Mohrenschildt then told
her husband, in the presence of the Oswalds, that there was a rifle
in the closet.[C6-331] Mrs. De Mohrenschildt testified that “George,
of course, with his sense of humor--Walker was shot at a few days
ago, within that time. He said, ‘Did you take a pot shot at Walker by
any chance?’”[C6-332] At that point, Mr. De Mohrenschildt testified,
Oswald “sort of shriveled, you see, when I asked this question. *
* * made a peculiar face * * * [and] changed the expression on his
face” and remarked that he did targetshooting.[C6-333] Marina Oswald
testified that the De Mohrenschildts came to visit a few days after the
Walker incident and that when De Mohrenschildt made his reference to
Oswald’s possibly shooting at Walker, Oswald’s “face changed, * * * he
almost became speechless.”[C6-334] According to the De Mohrenschildts,
Mr. De Mohrenschildt’s remark was intended as a joke, and he had no
knowledge of Oswald’s involvement in the attack on Walker.[C6-335]
Nonetheless, the remark appears to have created an uncomfortable
silence, and the De Mohrenschildts left “very soon afterwards.” They
never saw either of the Oswalds again.[C6-336] They left in a few days
on a trip to New York City and did not return until after Oswald had
gone to New Orleans.[C6-337] A postcard from Oswald to De Mohrenschildt
was apparently the only contact they had thereafter.[C6-338] The De
Mohrenschildts left in early June for Haiti on a business venture, and
they were still residing there at the time they testified on April 23,
1964.[C6-339]
Extensive investigation has been conducted into the background of
both De Mohrenschildts.[C6-340] The investigation has revealed that
George De Mohrenschildt is a highly individualistic person of varied
interests. He was born in the Russian Ukraine in 1911 and fled Russia
with his parents in 1921 during the civil disorder following the
revolution. He was in a Polish cavalry military academy for 1½ years.
Later he studied in Antwerp and attended the University of Liege from
which he received a doctor’s degree in international commerce in
1928. Soon thereafter, he emigrated to the United States; he became
a U.S. citizen in 1949.[C6-341] De Mohrenschildt eventually became
interested in oil exploration and production; he entered the University
of Texas in 1944 and received a master’s degree in petroleum geology
and petroleum engineering in 1945.[C6-342] He has since become active
as a petroleum engineer throughout the world.[C6-343] In 1960, after
the death of his son, he and his wife made an 8-month hike from the
United States-Mexican border to Panama over primitive jungle trails.
By happenstance they were in Guatemala City at the time of the Bay of
Pigs invasion.[C6-344] A lengthy film and complete written log was
prepared by De Mohrenschildt and a report of the trip was made to
the U.S. Government.[C6-345] Upon arriving in Panama they journeyed
to Haiti where De Mohrenschildt eventually became involved in a
Government-oriented business venture in which he has been engaged
continuously since June 1963 until the time of this report.[C6-346]
The members of the Dallas-Fort Worth Russian community and others
have variously described De Mohrenschildt as eccentric, outspoken,
and a strong believer in individual liberties and in the U.S. form
of government, but also of the belief that some form of undemocratic
government might be best for other peoples.[C6-347] De Mohrenschildt
frankly admits his provocative personality.[C6-348]
Jeanne De Mohrenschildt was born in Harbin, China, of White Russian
parents. She left during the war with Japan, coming to New York in 1938
where she became a successful ladies dress and sportswear apparel
designer. She married her present husband in 1959.[C6-349]
The Commission’s investigation has developed no signs of subversive
or disloyal conduct on the part of either of the De Mohrenschildts.
Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witness contacted by the Commission has
provided any information linking the De Mohrenschildts to subversive
or extremist organizations.[C6-350] Nor has there been any evidence
linking them in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy.
The Commission has also considered closely the relations between the
Oswalds and Michael and Ruth Paine of Irving, Tex. The Paines were
not part of the Russian community which has been discussed above.
Ruth Paine speaks Russian, however, and for this reason was invited
to a party in February of 1963 at which she became acquainted with
the Oswalds.[C6-351] The host had met the Oswalds through the De
Mohrenschildts.[C6-352] Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine subsequently
became quite friendly, and Mrs. Paine provided considerable assistance
to the Oswalds.[C6-353] Marina Oswald and her child resided with
Ruth Paine for a little over 2 weeks while Oswald sought a job in
New Orleans in late April and early May 1963.[C6-354] In May, she
transported Marina Oswald to New Orleans, paying all of the traveling
and other expenses.[C6-355] While the Oswalds were in New Orleans,
the two women corresponded.[C6-356] Mrs. Paine came to New Orleans in
late September and took Marina Oswald and her child to her home in
Irving.[C6-357]
Since Oswald left for Mexico City promptly after Mrs. Paine and his
family departed New Orleans,[C6-358] the Commission has considered
whether Ruth Paine’s trip to New Orleans was undertaken to assist
Oswald in this venture, but the evidence is clear that it was not. In
her letters to Ruth Paine during the summer of 1963, Marina Oswald
confided that she was having continuing difficulties with her husband,
and Mrs. Paine urged Marina Oswald to live with her in Irving; the
letters of the two women prior to Mrs. Paine’s arrival in New Orleans
on September 20, 1963, however, contain no mention that Oswald was
planning a trip to Mexico City or elsewhere.[C6-359] In New Orleans,
Mrs. Paine was told by Oswald that he planned to seek employment in
Houston, or perhaps Philadelphia. Though Marina Oswald knew this to
be false, she testified that she joined in this deception.[C6-360] At
no time during the entire weekend was Mexico City mentioned.[C6-361]
Corroboration for this testimony is found in a letter Mrs. Paine wrote
her mother shortly after she and Marina Oswald had returned to Irving
on September 24, in which she stated that Marina Oswald was again
living with her temporarily and that Oswald was job-hunting.[C6-362]
When Oswald arrived at the Paine home on October 4, he continued his
deception by telling Mrs. Paine, in his wife’s presence, that he had
been unsuccessful in finding employment.[C6-363] At Oswald’s request,
Marina Oswald remained silent.[C6-364]
Marina Oswald lived with Ruth Paine through the birth of her second
daughter on October 20, 1963, and until the assassination of President
Kennedy.[C6-365] During this period, Oswald obtained a room in Dallas
and found employment in Dallas, but spent weekends with his family at
the Paine home.[C6-366] On November 1 and 5, Ruth Paine was interviewed
by agents of the FBI who were investigating Oswald’s activities since
his return from the Soviet Union, as set forth in greater detail in
chapter VIII. She did not then know Oswald’s address in Dallas.[C6-367]
She was not asked for, nor did she volunteer, Oswald’s telephone number
in Dallas, which she did know.[C6-368] She advised the Bureau agent to
whom she spoke of Oswald’s periodic weekend visits, and she informed
him that Oswald was employed at the Texas School Book Depository
Building.[C6-369]
On November 10, Ruth Paine discovered a draft of Oswald’s letter
written the day before to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, in which
he indicated that he had journeyed to Mexico City and conferred with
a “comrade Kostine in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City,
Mexico.”[C6-370] (This letter is discussed later in this chapter.)
Mr. and Mrs. Paine testified that although they initially assumed the
letter was a figment of Oswald’s imagination, the letter gave Mrs.
Paine considerable misgivings.[C6-371] She determined that if the FBI
agents returned she would deliver to them the copy of a draft of the
letter which, unknown to Oswald, she had made.[C6-372] However, the
agents did not return before the assassination.[C6-373] On November 19,
Mrs. Paine learned that Oswald was living in his Dallas rooming-house
under an assumed name.[C6-374] She did not report this to the FBI
because, as she testified, she “had no occasion to see them, and * * *
did not think it important enough to call them after that until the 23d
of November.”[C6-375]
The Commission has thoroughly investigated the background of both
Paines. Mrs. Paine was born Ruth Hyde in New York City on September 3,
1932. Her parents moved to Columbus, Ohio, in the late 1930’s.[C6-376]
They were divorced in 1961.[C6-377] Ruth Paine graduated from Antioch
College in 1955.[C6-378] While in high school she first became
interested in Quaker activities; she and her brother became Quakers
in 1951.[C6-379] In 1952, following completion of her sophomore year
at Antioch College, she was a delegate to two Friends conferences in
England.[C6-380]
At the time the Paines met in 1955, Mrs. Paine was active in the work
of the Young Friends Committee of North America, which, with the
cooperation of the Department of State, was making an effort to lessen
the tensions between Soviet Russia and the United States by means of
the stimulation of contacts and exchange of cultures between citizens
of the two nations through “pen-pal” correspondence and exchanges of
young Russians and Americans.[C6-381] It was during this period that
Mrs. Paine became interested in the Russian language.[C6-382] Mrs.
Paine participated in a Russian-American student exchange program
sponsored by the Young Friends Committee of North America, and has
participated in the “pen-pal” phase of the activities of the Young
Friends Committee.[C6-383] She has corresponded until recently with a
schoolteacher in Russia.[C6-384] Although her active interest in the
Friends’ program for the lessening of East-West tensions ceased upon
her marriage in December 1957, she has continued to hold to the tenets
of the Quaker faith.[C6-385]
Michael Paine is the son of George Lyman Paine and Ruth Forbes
Paine, now Ruth Forbes Young, wife of Arthur Young of Philadelphia,
Pa.[C6-386] His parents were divorced when he was 4 years of age.
His father, George Lyman Paine, is an architect and resides in
California.[C6-387] Michael Paine testified that during his late
grammar and early high school days his father participated actively in
the Trotskyite faction of the Communist movement in the United States
and that he attended some of those meetings.[C6-388] He stated that
his father, with whom he has had little contact throughout most of his
life, has not influenced his political thinking. He said that he has
visited his father four or five times in California since 1959, but
their discussions did not include the subject of communism.[C6-389]
Since moving to Irving, Tex., in 1959, he has been a research engineer
for Bell Helicopter Co. in Fort Worth.[C6-390] Mr. Paine has security
clearance for his work.[C6-391] He has been a long-time member of the
American Civil Liberties Union.[C6-392] Though not in sympathy with
rightist political aims, he has attended a few meetings of far-right
organizations in Dallas for the purpose, he testified, of learning
something about those organizations and because he “was interested in
seeing more communication between the right and the left.”[C6-393]
The Commission has conducted a thorough investigation of the Paines’
finances and is satisfied that their income has been from legitimate
and traceable sources, and that their expenditures were consistent with
their income and for normal purposes. Although in the course of their
relationship with the Oswalds, the Paines assumed expenses for such
matters as food and transportation, with a value of approximately $500,
they made no direct payments to, and received no moneys or valuables
from, the Oswalds.[C6-394]
Although prior to November 22, Mrs. Paine had information relating
to Oswald’s use of an alias in Dallas, his telephone number, and
his correspondence with the Soviet Embassy, which she did not pass
on to the FBI,[C6-395] her failure to have come forward with this
information must be viewed within the context of the information
available to her at that time. There is no evidence to contradict her
testimony that she did not then know about Oswald’s attack on General
Walker, the presence of the rifle on the floor of her garage, Oswald’s
ownership of a pistol, or the photographs of Oswald displaying the
firearms.[C6-396] She thus assumed that Oswald, though a difficult and
disturbing personality, was not potentially violent, and that the FBI
was cognizant of his past history and current activities.[C6-397]
Moreover, it is from Mrs. Paine herself that the Commission has
learned that she possessed the information which she did have. Mrs.
Paine was forthright with the agent of the FBI with whom she spoke
in early November 1963, providing him with sufficient information to
have located Oswald at his job if he had deemed it necessary to do
so,[C6-398] and her failure to have taken immediate steps to notify the
Bureau of the additional information does not under the circumstances
appear unusual. Throughout the Commission’s investigation, Ruth
Paine has been completely cooperative, voluntarily producing all
correspondence, memoranda, and other written communications in her
possession that had passed between her and Marina Oswald both before
and after November 22, 1963.[C6-399] The Commission has had the benefit
of Mrs. Paine’s 1963 date book and calendar and her address book and
telephone notation book, in both of which appear many entries relating
to her activities with the Oswalds.[C6-400] Other material of a purely
personal nature was also voluntarily made available.[C6-401] The
Commission has found nothing in the Paines’ background, activities, or
finances which suggests disloyalty to the United States,[C6-402] and it
has concluded that Ruth and Michael Paine were not involved in any way
with the assassination of President Kennedy.
A fuller narrative of the social contacts between the Oswalds and the
various persons of the Dallas-Fort Worth community is incorporated
in chapter VII and appendix XIII, and the testimony of all members
of the group who testified before the Commission is included in the
printed record which accompanies the report. The evidence establishes
that the Oswalds’ contacts with these people were originated and
maintained under normal and understandable circumstances. The files
maintained by the FBI contain no information indicating that any of the
persons in the Dallas-Fort Worth community with whom Oswald associated
were affiliated with any Communist, Fascist, or other subversive
organization.[C6-403] During the course of this investigation, the
Commission has found nothing which suggests the involvement of any
member of the Russian-speaking community in Oswald’s preparations to
assassinate President Kennedy.
Political Activities Upon Return to the United States
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, Oswald had dealings with the
Communist Party, U.S.A., the Socialist Workers Party, and the Fair
Play for Cuba Committee, and he also had minor contacts with at least
two other organizations with political interests. For the purpose
of determining whether Oswald received any advice, encouragement,
or assistance from these organizations in planning or executing the
assassination of President Kennedy, the Commission has conducted a full
investigation of the nature and extent of Oswald’s relations with them.
The Commission has also conducted an investigation to determine whether
certain persons and organizations expressing hostility to President
Kennedy prior to the assassination had any connection with Lee Harvey
Oswald or with the shooting of the President.
_Communist Party, U.S.A.; Socialist Workers Party._--In August of 1962,
Oswald subscribed to the Worker, a publication of the Communist Party,
U.S.A.[C6-404] He also wrote the Communist Party to obtain pamphlets
and other literature which, the evidence indicates, were sent to him
as a matter of course.[C6-405]
Oswald also attempted to initiate other dealings with the Communist
Party, U.S.A., but the organization was not especially responsive.
From New Orleans, he informed the party of his activities in
connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, discussed below,
submitting membership cards in his fictitious chapter to several party
officials.[C6-406] In a letter from Arnold S. Johnson, director of
the information and lecture bureau of the party, Oswald was informed
that although the Communist Party had no “organizational ties” with
the committee, the party issued much literature which was “important
for anybody who is concerned about developments in Cuba.”[C6-407] In
September 1963 Oswald inquired how he might contact the party when
he relocated in the Baltimore-Washington area, as he said he planned
to do in October, and Johnson suggested in a letter of September 19
that he “get in touch with us here [New York] and we will find some
way of getting in touch with you in that city [Baltimore].”[C6-408]
However, Oswald had also written asking whether, “handicapped as it
were, by * * * [his] past record,” he could “still * * * compete with
antiprogressive forces, above ground or whether in your opinion * * *
[he] should always remain in the background, i.e., underground,” and in
the September 19 letter received the reply that “often it is advisable
for some people to remain in the background, not underground.”[C6-409]
In a letter postmarked November 1, Oswald informed the party that
he had moved to Dallas, and reported his attendance at a meeting at
which General Walker had spoken, and at a meeting of the American
Civil Liberties Union; he asked Johnson for the party’s “general view”
of the latter organization and “to what degree, if any, [he] should
attempt to highten its progressive tendencies.” According to Johnson,
this letter was not received by the Communist Party until after the
assassination.[C6-410] At different times, Oswald also wrote the
Worker and the Hall-Davis Defense Committee, enclosing samples of his
photographic work and offering to assist in preparing posters; he was
told that “his kind offer [was] most welcomed and from time to time we
shall call on you,” but he was never asked for assistance.[C6-411] The
correspondence between Oswald and the Communist Party, and with all
other organizations, is printed in the record accompanying this report.
When Oswald applied for a visa to enter Cuba during his trip to
Mexico City, discussed below,[C6-412] Senora Silvia Duran, the Cuban
consular employee who dealt with Oswald, wrote on the application
that Oswald said he was a member of the Communist Party and that he
had “displayed documents in proof of his membership.”[C6-413] When
Oswald went to Mexico, he is believed to have carried his letters from
the Soviet Embassy in Washington and from the Communist Party in the
United States, his 1959 passport, which contained stamps showing that
he had lived in Russia for 2½ years, his Russian work permit, his
Russian marriage certificate, membership cards and newspaper clippings
purporting to show his role in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and
a prepared statement of his qualifications as a “Marxist.”[C6-414]
Because of the mass of papers Oswald did present showing his affinity
for communism, some in the Russian language, which was foreign to
Senora Duran, and because further investigation, discussed below,
indicated that Oswald was not a member of the party, Senora Duran’s
notation was probably inaccurate.
Upon his arrest after the assassination, Oswald attempted to contact
John J. Abt, a New York attorney, to request Abt to represent him. Abt
was not in New York at the time, and he was never reached in connection
with representing Oswald. Abt has testified that he at no time had any
dealings with Oswald and that prior to the assassination he had never
heard of Lee Harvey Oswald.[C6-415]
After his return from the Soviet Union, Oswald also carried on a
limited correspondence with the Socialist Workers Party. In October
of 1962 he attempted to join the party, but his application was not
accepted since there was then no chapter in the Dallas area.[C6-416]
Oswald also wrote the Socialist Workers Party offering his assistance
in preparing posters. From this organization too he received the
response that he might be called upon if needed. He was asked for
further information about his photographic skills, which he does not
appear to have ever provided.[C6-417] Oswald did obtain literature from
the Socialist Workers Party, however, and in December 1962 he entered
a subscription to the affiliated publication, the Militant.[C6-418]
Apparently in March of 1963 Oswald wrote the party of his activities
and submitted a clipping with his letter. In response, he was told that
his name was being sent to the Young Socialist Alliance for further
correspondence, but the files of the alliance apparently contain no
reference to Oswald. Neither the letter nor the clipping which Oswald
sent has been located.[C6-419]
Investigation by the Commission has produced no plausible evidence that
Lee Harvey Oswald had any other significant contacts with the Communist
Party, U.S.A., the Socialist Workers Party, or with any other extreme
leftist political organization. The FBI and other Federal security
agencies have made a study of their records and files and contacted
numerous confidential informants of the agencies and have produced no
such evidence.[C6-420] The Commission has questioned persons who, as
a group, knew Oswald during virtually every phase of his adult life,
and from none of these came any indication that Oswald maintained a
surreptitious relationship with any organization. Arnold S. Johnson,
of the American Communist Party; James T. Tormey, executive secretary
of the Hall-Davis Defense Committee; and Farrell Dobbs, secretary of
the Socialist Workers Party, voluntarily appeared before the Commission
and testified under oath that Oswald was not a member of these
organizations and that a thorough search of their files had disclosed
no records relating to Oswald other than those which they produced for
the Commission.[C6-421] The material that has been disclosed is in all
cases consistent with other data in the possession of the Commission.
_Socialist Labor Party._--Oswald also wrote to the Socialist Labor
Party in New York in November 1962 requesting literature. Horace
Twiford, a national committeeman at large for the party in the State
of Texas, was informed by the New York headquarters in July 1963 of
Oswald’s request, and on September 11, 1963, he did mail literature
to Oswald at his old post office box in Dallas.[C6-422] On his way to
Mexico City in September 1963, Oswald attempted to contact Twiford
at his home in Houston; Oswald spoke briefly with Twiford’s wife,
identifying himself as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee,
but since Twiford was out of town at the time, Oswald was unable
to speak with him.[C6-423] Arnold Peterson, national secretary and
treasurer of the Socialist Labor Party, has stated that a search of the
records of the national headquarters reveals no record pertaining to
Oswald; he explained that letters requesting literature are routinely
destroyed.[C6-424] The Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation
has also advised that a review of its records fails to reflect any
information or correspondence pertaining to Oswald.[C6-425]
_Fair Play for Cuba Committee._--During the period Oswald was in New
Orleans, from the end of April to late September 1963, he was engaged
in activity purportedly on behalf of the now defunct Fair Play for
Cuba Committee (FPCC), an organization centered in New York which
was highly critical of U.S. policy toward the Cuban Government under
Fidel Castro. In May 1963, after having obtained literature from the
FPCC,[C6-426] Oswald applied for and was granted membership in the
organization.[C6-427] When applying for membership, Oswald wrote
national headquarters that he had
* * * been thinking about renting a small office at my own
expense for the purpose of forming a F.P.C.C. branch here in
New Orleans.
Could you give me a charter?[C6-428]
With his membership card, Oswald apparently received a copy of the
constitution and bylaws for FPCC chapters, and a letter, dated May 29,
which read in part as follows (with spelling as in original):
It would be hard to concieve of a chapter with as few members
as seem to exist in the New Orleans area. I have just gone
through our files and find that Louisiana seams somewhat
restricted for Fair Play activities. However, with what is
there perhaps you could build a larger group if a few people
would undertake the disciplined responsibility of concrete
organizational work.
We certainly are not at all adverse to a very small Chapter
but certainly would expect that there would be at least twice
the amount needed to conduct a legal executive board for the
Chapter. Should this be reasonable we could readily issue a
charter for a New Orleans Chapter of FPCC. In fact, we would
be very, very pleased to see this take place and would like to
do everything possible to assist in bringing it about.
* * * * *
You must realize that you will come under tremendous pressures
with any attempt to do FPCC work in that area and that you will
not be able to operate in the manner which is conventional
here in the north-east. Even most of our big city Chapters
have been forced to Abandon the idea of operating an office in
public. * * * Most Chapters have discovered that it is easier
to operate semi-privately out of a home and maintain a P.O.
Box for all mailings and public notices. (A P.O. Box is a must
for any Chapter in the organization to guarnatee the continued
contact with the national even if an individual should move or
drop out.) We do have a serious and often violent opposition
and this proceedure helps prevent many unnecessary incidents
which frighten away prospective supporters. I definitely
would not recommend an office, at least not one that will be
easily identifyable to the lunatic fringe in your community.
Certainly, I would not recommend that you engage in one at the
very beginning but wait and see how you can operate in the
community through several public experiences.[C6-429]
Thereafter Oswald informed national headquarters that he had opened
post office box No. 30061, and that against its advice he had decided
“to take an office from the very beginning”; he also submitted copies
of a membership application form and a circular headed “Hands Off
Cuba!” which he had had printed, and informed the headquarters that he
intended to have membership cards for his chapter printed, which he
subsequently did.[C6-430] He wrote three further letters to the New
York office to inform it of his continued activities.[C6-431] In one
he reported that he had been evicted from the office he claimed to
have opened, so that he “worked out of a post office box and by useing
street demonstrations and some circular work * * * sustained a great
deal of interest but no new members.”[C6-432]
Oswald did distribute the handbills he had printed on at least
three occasions.[C6-433] Once, while doing so, he was arrested and
fined for being involved in a disturbance with anti-Castro Cuban
refugees,[C6-434] one of whom he had previously met by presenting
himself as hostile to Premier Castro in an apparent effort to
gain information about anti-Castro organizations operating in New
Orleans.[C6-435] When arrested, he informed the police that his
chapter had 35 members.[C6-436] His activities received some attention
in the New Orleans press, and he twice appeared on a local radio
program representing himself as a spokesman for the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee.[C6-437] After his return to Dallas, he listed the FPCC as an
organization authorized to receive mail at his post office box.[C6-438]
Despite these activities, the FPCC chapter which Oswald purportedly
formed in New Orleans was entirely fictitious. Vincent T. Lee, formerly
national director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, has testified
that the New York office did not authorize the creation of a New
Orleans chapter, nor did it provide Oswald with funds to support his
activities there.[C6-439] The national office did not write Oswald
again after its letter of May 29. As discussed more fully in chapter
VII, Oswald’s later letters to the national office purporting to inform
it of his progress in New Orleans contained numerous exaggerations
about the scope of his activities and the public reaction to
them.[C6-440] There is no evidence that Oswald ever opened an office as
he claimed to have done. Although a pamphlet taken from him at the time
of his arrest in New Orleans contains the rubber stamp imprint “FPCC,
544 CAMP ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA.,” investigation has indicated that
neither the Fair Play for Cuba Committee nor Lee Harvey Oswald ever
maintained an office at that address.[C6-441] The handbills and other
materials bearing the name of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee were
printed commercially by Oswald without the approval of the national
headquarters.[C6-442] Oswald’s membership card in the “New Orleans
chapter” of the committee carried the signature of “A. J. Hidell,”
purportedly the president of the chapter, but there is no evidence that
an “A. J. Hidell” existed and, as pointed out in chapter IV, there is
conclusive evidence that the name was an alias which Oswald used on
various occasions. Marina Oswald herself wrote the name “Hidell” on the
membership card at her husband’s insistence.[C6-443]
No other member of the so-called New Orleans chapter of the committee
has ever been found. The only occasion on which anyone other than
Oswald was observed taking part in these activities was on August 9,
1963, when Oswald and two young men passed out leaflets urging “Hands
Off Cuba!” on the streets of New Orleans. One of the two men, who was
16 years old at the time, has testified that Oswald approached him
at the Louisiana State Employment Commission and offered him $2 for
about an hour’s work. He accepted the offer but later, when he noticed
that television cameras were being focused on him, he obtained his
money and left. He testified that he had never seen Oswald before and
never saw him again. The second individual has never been located; but
according to the testimony of the youth who was found, he too seemed
to be someone not previously connected with Oswald.[C6-444] Finally,
the FBI has advised the Commission that its information on undercover
Cuban activities in the New Orleans area reveals no knowledge of Oswald
before the assassination.[C6-445]
_Right-wing groups hostile to President Kennedy._--The Commission also
considered the possibility that there may have been a link between
Oswald and certain groups which had bitterly denounced President
Kennedy and his policies prior to the time of the President’s trip to
Dallas. As discussed in chapter II, two provocative incidents took
place concurrently with President Kennedy’s visit and a third but a
month prior thereto. The incidents were (1) the demonstration against
the Honorable Adlai E. Stevenson, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, in late October 1963, when he came to Dallas on United Nations
Day; (2) the publication in the Dallas Morning News on November 22 of
the full page, black-bordered paid advertisement entitled, “Welcome Mr.
Kennedy”; and (3) the distribution of a throwaway handbill entitled
“Wanted for Treason” throughout Dallas on November 20 and 21. Oswald
was aware of the Stevenson incident; there is no evidence that he
became aware of either the “Welcome Mr. Kennedy” advertisement or
the “Wanted for Treason” handbill, though neither possibility can be
precluded.
The only evidence of interest on Oswald’s part in rightist groups in
Dallas was his alleged attendance at a rally at the Dallas Auditorium
the evening preceding Ambassador Stevenson’s address on United Nations
Day, October 24, 1963. On the evening of October 25, 1963, at the
invitation of Michael Paine, Oswald attended a monthly meeting of the
Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union in which he was
later to seek membership.[C6-446] During the course of the discussion
at this meeting, a speaker mentioned Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker
(Resigned, U.S. Army). Oswald arose in the midst of the meeting to
remark that a “night or two nights before” he had attended a meeting at
which General Walker had spoken in terms that led Oswald to assert that
General Walker was both anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic.[C6-447] General
Walker testified that he had been the speaker at a rally the night
before Ambassador Stevenson’s appearance, but that he did not know and
had never heard of Oswald prior to the announcement of his name on
radio and television on the afternoon of November 22.[C6-448] Oswald
confirmed his attendance at the U.S. Day rally in an undated letter he
wrote to Arnold Johnson, director of the information and lecture bureau
of the Communist Party, mailed November 1, 1963, in which he reported:
On October 23rd, I had attended a ultra-right meeting headed by
General Edwin a. Walker, who lives in Dallas.
This meeting preceded by one day the attack on a. e. Stevenson
at the United Nations Day meeting at which he spoke.
As you can see, political friction between ‘left’ and ‘right’
is very great here.[C6-449]
In the light of Oswald’s attack upon General Walker on the evening of
April 10, 1963, discussed in chapter IV,[C6-450] as well as Oswald’s
known political views,[C6-451] his asserted attendance at the political
rally at which General Walker spoke may have been induced by many
possible motives. However, there is no evidence that Oswald attended
any other rightist meetings or was associated with any politically
conservative organizations.
While the black-bordered “Welcome Mr. Kennedy” advertisement in
the November 22 Dallas Morning News, which addressed a series of
critical questions to the President, probably did not come to Oswald’s
attention, it was of interest to the Commission because of its
appearance on the day of the assassination and because of an allegation
made before the Commission concerning the person whose name appeared
as the chairman of the committee sponsoring the advertisement.
The black-bordered advertisement was purported to be sponsored by
“The American Fact-Finding Committee,” which was described as “An
unaffiliated and nonpartisan group of citizens who wish truth.” Bernard
Weissman was listed as “Chairman” and a post office box in Dallas was
the only address. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1031, p. 294.)
[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1031]
The Commission has conducted a full investigation into the genesis of
this advertisement and the background of those responsible for it.
Three of the four men chiefly responsible, Bernard W. Weissman, William
B. Burley III, and Larrie H. Schmidt, had served together in the U.S.
Army in Munich, Germany, in 1962. During that time they had with
others devised plans to develop two conservative organizations, one
political and the other business. The political entity was to be named
Conservatism--USA, or CUSA, and the business entity was to be named
American Business, or AMBUS.[C6-452] While in Munich, according to
Weissman, they attempted to develop in their “own minds * * * ways to
build up various businesses that would support us and at the same time
support our political activities.”[C6-453] According to a subsequent
letter from Schmidt to Weissman, “Cusa was founded for patriotic
reasons rather than for personal gain--even though, as a side effect,
Ambus was to have brought great return, as any business endeavor
should.”[C6-454] To establish their organizations, Weissman testified
that they:
* * * had planned while in Munich that in order to accomplish
our goals, to try to do it from scratch would be almost
impossible, because it would be years before we could even get
the funds to develop a powerful organization. So we had planned
to infiltrate various rightwing organizations and by our own
efforts become involved in the hierarchy of these various
organizations and eventually get ourselves elected or appointed
to various higher offices in these organizations, and by doing
this bring in some of our own people, and eventually take over
the leadership of these organizations, and at that time having
our people in these various organizations, we would then, you
might say, call a conference and have them unite, and while no
one knew of the existence of CUSA aside from us, we would then
bring them all together, unite them, and arrange to have it
called CUSA.[C6-455]
Schmidt was the first to leave the service; settling in Dallas in
October 1962, he became a life insurance salesman and quickly engaged
in numerous political activities in pursuit of the objectives devised
in Munich.[C6-456] He became affiliated with several organizations and
prepared various political writings.[C6-457]
Upon their release from the military, Weissman and Burley did not
immediately move to Dallas, though repeatedly urged to do so by
Schmidt.[C6-458] On October 1, 1963, Schmidt wrote Weissman: “Adlai
Stevenson is scheduled here on the 24th on UN Day. Kennedy is scheduled
in Dallas on Nov. 24th. There are to be protests. All the big things
are happening _now_--if we don’t get in right now we may as well
forget it.”[C6-459] The day of the Stevenson demonstration, Schmidt
telephoned Weissman, again urging him to move to Dallas. Recalling that
conversation with Schmidt, Weissman testified:
And he said, “If we are going to take advantage of the
situation * * * you better hurry down here and take advantage
of the publicity, and at least become known among these various
right-wingers, 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.[C6-460]
Five days later he wrote to Weissman and Burley to report that as
the “only organizer of the demonstration to have publicly identified
himself,” he had “become, overnight, a ‘fearless spokesman’ and
‘leader’ of the rightwing in Dallas. What I worked so hard for in one
year--and nearly failed--finally came through one incident in one
night!” He ended, “Politically, CUSA is set. It is now up to you to get
Ambus going.”[C6-461]
Weissman and Burley accepted Schmidt’s prompting and traveled to
Dallas, arriving on November 4, 1963.[C6-462] Both obtained employment
as carpet salesmen. At Schmidt’s solicitation they took steps to join
the John Birch Society, and through Schmidt they met the fourth person
involved in placing the November 22 advertisement, Joseph P. Grinnan,
Dallas independent oil operator and a John Birch Society coordinator in
the Dallas area.[C6-463]
Within a week to 10 days after Weissman and Burley had arrived in
Dallas, the four men began to consider plans regarding President
Kennedy’s planned visit to Dallas.[C6-464] Weissman explained the
reason for which it was decided that the ad should be placed:
* * * after the Stevenson incident, it was felt that a
demonstration would be entirely out of order, because we
didn’t want anything to happen in the way of physical violence
to President Kennedy when he came to Dallas. But we thought
that the conservatives in Dallas--I was told--were a pretty
downtrodden lot after that, because they were being oppressed
by the local liberals, because of the Stevenson incident. We
felt we had to do something to build up the morale of the
conservative element, in Dallas. So we hit upon the idea of the
ad.[C6-465]
Weissman, Schmidt, and Grinnan worked on the text for the
advertisement.[C6-466] A pamphlet containing 50 questions critical
of American policy was employed for this purpose, and was the source
of the militant questions contained in the ad attacking President
Kennedy’s administration.[C6-467] Grinnan undertook to raise the
$1,465 needed to pay for the ad.[C6-468] He employed a typed draft of
the advertisement to support his funds solicitation.[C6-469] Grinnan
raised the needed money from three wealthy Dallas businessmen: Edgar
R. Crissey, Nelson Bunker Hunt, and H. R. Bright, some of whom in
turn collected contributions from others.[C6-470] At least one of
the contributors would not make a contribution unless a question he
suggested was inserted.[C6-471] Weissman, believing that Schmidt,
Grinnan, and the contributors were active members of the John Birch
Society, and that Grinnan eventually took charge of the project,
expressed the opinion that the advertisement was the creation of the
John Birch Society,[C6-472] though Schmidt and Grinnan have maintained
that they were acting “solely as individuals.”[C6-473]
A fictitious sponsoring organization was invented out of whole
cloth.[C6-474] The name chosen for the supposed organization was The
American Fact-Finding Committee.[C6-475] This was “Solely a name,”
Weissman testified; “* * * As a matter of fact, when I went to place
the ad, I could not remember the name * * * I had to refer to a piece
of paper for the name.”[C6-476] Weissman’s own name was used on the
ad in part to counter charges of anti-Semitism which had been leveled
against conservative groups in Dallas.[C6-477] Weissman conceived
the idea of using a black border,[C6-478] and testified he intended
it to serve the function of stimulating reader attention.[C6-479]
Before accepting the advertisement, the Dallas Morning News apparently
submitted it to its attorneys for their opinion as to whether its
publication might subject them to liability.[C6-480]
Weissman testified that the advertisement drew 50 or 60 mailed
responses.[C6-481] He took them from the post office box early on
Sunday morning, November 24.[C6-482] He said that those postmarked
before the attack on President Kennedy were “favorable” in
tone;[C6-483] those of later postmark were violently unfavorable,
nasty, and threatening;[C6-484] and, according to a report from
Schmidt, those postmarked some weeks later were again of favorable
tone.[C6-485]
The four promoters of the ad deny that they had any knowledge of or
familiarity with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to November 22, or Jack Ruby
prior to November 24.[C6-486] Each has provided a statement of his
role in connection with the placement of the November 22 advertisement
and other matters, and investigation has revealed no deception.
The Commission has found no evidence that any of these persons was
connected with Oswald or Ruby, or was linked to a conspiracy to
assassinate President Kennedy.
The advertisement, however, did give rise to one allegation concerning
Bernard Weissman which required additional investigation. On March 4,
1964, Mark Lane, a New York attorney, testified before the Commission
that an undisclosed informant had told him that Weissman had met
with Jack Ruby and Patrolman J. D. Tippit at Ruby’s Carousel Club on
November 14, 1963. Lane declined to state the name of his informant
but said that he would attempt to obtain his informant’s permission
to reveal his name.[C6-487] On July 2, 1964, after repeated requests
by the Commission that he disclose the name of his informant, Lane
testified a second time concerning this matter, but declined to
reveal the information, stating as his reason that he had promised
the individual that his name would not be revealed without his
permission.[C6-488] Lane also made this allegation during a radio
appearance, whereupon Weissman twice demanded that Lane reveal the name
of the informant.[C6-489] As of the date of this report Lane has failed
to reveal the name of his informant and has offered no evidence to
support his allegation. The Commission has investigated the allegation
of a Weissman-Ruby-Tippit meeting and has found no evidence that such
a meeting took place anywhere at any time. The investigation into this
matter is discussed in a later section of this chapter dealing with
possible conspiracies involving Jack Ruby.
A comparable incident was the appearance of the “Wanted for Treason”
handbill on the streets of Dallas 1 to 2 days before President
Kennedy’s arrival. These handbills bore a reproduction of a front
and profile photograph of the President and set forth a series of
inflammatory charges against him.[C6-490] Efforts to locate the
author and the lithography printer of the handbill at first met with
evasive responses[C6-491] and refusals to furnish information.[C6-492]
Robert A. Surrey was eventually identified as the author of the
handbill.[C6-493] Surrey, a 38-year-old printing salesman employed
by Johnson Printing Co. of Dallas, Tex., has been closely associated
with General Walker for several years in his political and business
activities.[C6-494] He is president of American Eagle Publishing Co.
of Dallas, in which he is a partner with General Walker.[C6-495] Its
office and address is the post office box of Johnson Printing Co. Its
assets consist of cash and various printed materials composed chiefly
of General Walker’s political and promotional literature,[C6-496] all
of which is stored at General Walker’s headquarters.[C6-497]
Surrey prepared the text for the handbill and apparently used Johnson
Printing Co. facilities to set the type and print a proof.[C6-498]
Surrey induced Klause, a salesman employed by Lettercraft Printing
Co. of Dallas,[C6-499] whom Surrey had met when both were employed
at Johnson Printing Co.,[C6-500] to print the handbill “on the
side.”[C6-501] According to Klause, Surrey contacted him initially
approximately 2 or 2½ weeks prior to November 22.[C6-502] About a
week prior to November 22, Surrey delivered to Klause two slick paper
magazine prints of photographs of a front view and profile of President
Kennedy,[C6-503] together with the textual page proof.[C6-504] Klause
was unable to make the photographic negative of the prints needed to
prepare the photographic printing plate,[C6-505] so that he had this
feature of the job done at a local shop.[C6-506] Klause then arranged
the halftone front and profile representations of President Kennedy at
the top of the textual material he had received from Surrey so as to
simulate a “man wanted” police placard. He then made a photographic
printing plate of the picture.[C6-507] During the night, he and his
wife surreptitiously printed approximately 5,000 copies on Lettercraft
Printing Co. offset printing equipment without the knowledge of his
employers.[C6-508] The next day he arranged with Surrey a meeting
place, and delivered the handbills.[C6-509] Klause’s charge for the
printing of the handbills was, including expenses, $60.[C6-510]
At the outset of the investigation Klause stated to Federal agents
that he did not know the name of his customer, whom he incorrectly
described;[C6-511] he did say, however, that the customer did not
resemble either Oswald or Ruby.[C6-512] Shortly before he appeared
before the Commission, Klause disclosed Surrey’s identity.[C6-513] He
explained that no record of the transaction had been made because “he
saw a chance to make a few dollars on the side.”[C6-514]
Klause’s testimony receives some corroboration from Bernard Weissman’s
testimony that he saw a copy of one of the “Wanted for Treason”
handbills on the floor of General Walker’s station wagon shortly after
November 22.[C6-515] Other details of the manner in which the handbills
were printed have also been verified.[C6-516] Moreover, Weissman
testified that neither he nor any of his associates had anything to do
with the handbill or were acquainted with Surrey, Klause, Lettercraft
Printing Co., or Johnson Printing Co.[C6-517] Klause and Surrey, as
well as General Walker, testified that they were unacquainted with
Lee Harvey Oswald and had not heard of him prior to the afternoon
of November 22.[C6-518] The Commission has found no evidence of any
connection between those responsible for the handbill and Lee Harvey
Oswald or the assassination.
Contacts With the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City and the
Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Eight weeks before the assassination, Oswald traveled to Mexico City
where he visited both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies.[D] Oswald’s wife
knew of this trip before he went,[C6-519] but she denied such knowledge
until she testified before the Commission.[C6-520] The Commission
undertook an intensive investigation to determine Oswald’s purpose and
activities on this journey, with specific reference to reports that
Oswald was an agent of the Cuban or Soviet Governments. As a result of
its investigation, the Commission believes that it has been able to
reconstruct and explain most of Oswald’s actions during this time. A
detailed chronological account of this trip appears in appendix XIII.
[D] The Soviet Embassy in Mexico City includes consular as
well as diplomatic personnel in a single building. The
Cuban Embassy and Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, though
in separate buildings, are in the same compound. Both the
Soviet and the Cuban establishments will be referred to
throughout the report simply as Embassies.
_Trip to Mexico._--Oswald was in Mexico from September 26, 1963, until
October 3, 1963.[C6-521] (See Commission Exhibits Nos. 2478, 2481, p.
300.) Marina Oswald testified that Oswald had told her that the purpose
of the trip was to evade the American prohibition on travel to Cuba and
to reach that country.[C6-522] He cautioned her that the trip and its
purpose were to be kept strictly secret.[C6-523] She testified that he
had earlier laid plans to reach Cuba by hijacking an airliner flying
out of New Orleans, but she refused to cooperate and urged him to give
it up, which he finally did.[C6-524] Witnesses who spoke with Oswald
while he was on a bus going to Mexico City also testified that Oswald
told them he intended to reach Cuba by way of Mexico, and that he hoped
to meet Fidel Castro after he arrived.[C6-525] When Oswald spoke to
the Cuban and Soviet consular officials in Mexico City, he represented
that he intended to travel to the Soviet Union and requested an
“in-transit” Cuban visa to permit him to enter Cuba on September 30 on
the way to the Soviet Union. Marina Oswald has testified that these
statements were deceptions designed to get him to Cuba.[C6-526] Thus,
although it is possible that Oswald intended to continue on to Russia
from Cuba, the evidence makes it more likely that he intended to remain
in Cuba.[C6-527]
[Illustration: OSWALD’S MEXICAN TOURIST CARD AND APPLICATION
(COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2481)
APPLICATION FOR TOURIST CARD
(COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2478)
TOURIST CARD]
Oswald departed from New Orleans probably about noon on September 25
and arrived in Mexico City at about 10 a.m. on September 27.[C6-528] In
Mexico City he embarked on a series of visits to the Soviet and Cuban
Embassies, which occupied most of his time during the first 2 days of
his visit. At the Cuban Embassy, he requested an “in-transit” visa to
permit him to visit Cuba on his way to the Soviet Union.[C6-529] Oswald
was informed that he could not obtain a visa for entry into Cuba unless
he first obtained a visa to enter the U.S.S.R.,[C6-530] and the Soviet
Embassy told him that he could not expect an answer on his application
for a visa for the Soviet Union for about 4 months.[C6-531] Oswald
carried with him newspaper clippings, letters and various documents,
some of them forged or containing false information, purporting to
show that he was a “friend” of Cuba.[C6-532] With these papers and his
record of previous residence in the Soviet Union and marriage to a
Soviet national, he tried to curry favor with both Embassies.[C6-533]
Indeed, his wife testified that in her opinion Oswald’s primary purpose
in having engaged in Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities was to
create a public record that he was a “friend” of Cuba.[C6-534] He made
himself especially unpopular at the Cuban Embassy by persisting in his
demands that as a sympathizer in Cuban objectives he ought to be given
a visa. This resulted in a sharp argument with the consul, Eusebio
Azque.[C6-535]
By Saturday, September 28, 1963, Oswald had failed to obtain visas at
both Embassies.[C6-536] From Sunday, September 29, through Wednesday
morning, October 2, when he left Mexico City on a bus bound for the
United States, Oswald spent considerable time making his travel
arrangements, sightseeing and checking again with the Soviet Embassy to
learn whether anything had happened on his visa application.[C6-537]
Marina Oswald testified that when she first saw him after his return to
the United States he was disappointed and discouraged at his failure to
reach Cuba.[C6-538]
The general outlines of Oswald’s activities in Mexico, particularly the
nature and extent of his contacts at the Cuban Embassy, were learned
very early in the investigation. An important source of information
relating to his business at the Cuban Embassy was Senora Silvia Tirado
de Duran, a Mexican national employed in the visa section of the Cuban
Embassy, who was questioned intensively by Mexican authorities soon
after the assassination.[C6-539] An excerpt from the report of the
Mexican Government summarized the crucial portion of Senora Duran’s
recollection of Oswald. In translation it reads as follows:
* * * she remembered * * * [that Lee Harvey Oswald] was the
name of an American who had come to the Cuban Consulate to
obtain a visa to travel to Cuba in transit to Russia, the
latter part of September or the early part of October of this
year, and in support of his application had shown his passport,
in which it was noted that he had lived in that country for a
period of three years; his labor card from the same country
written in the Russian language; and letters in that same
language. He had presented evidence that he was married to
a Russian woman, and also that he was apparently the leader
of an organization in the city of New Orleans called “Fair
* * * [Play] for Cuba,” claiming that he should be accepted
as a “friend” of the Cuban Revolution. Accordingly, the
declarant, complying with her duties, took down all of the
information and completed the appropriate application form;
and the declarant, admittedly exceeding her responsibilities,
informally telephoned the Russian consulate, with the intention
of doing what she could to facilitate issuance of the Russian
visa to Lee Harvey Oswald. However, they told her that there
would be a delay of about four months in processing the case,
which annoyed the applicant since, according to his statement,
he was in a great hurry to obtain visas that would enable
him to travel to Russia, insisting on his right to do so in
view of his background and his loyalty and his activities in
behalf of the Cuban movement. The declarant was unable to
recall accurately whether or not the applicant told her he
was a member of the Communist Party, but he did say that his
wife * * * was then in New York City, and would follow him, *
* * [Senora Duran stated] that when Oswald understood that it
was not possible to give him a Cuban visa without his first
having obtained the Russian visa, * * * he became very excited
or angry, and accordingly, the affiant called Consul Ascue
[sic], * * * [who] came out and began a heated discussion in
English with Oswald, that concluded by Ascue telling him that
“if it were up to him, he would not give him the visa,” and “a
person of his type was harming the Cuban Revolution rather than
helping it,” it being understood that in their conversation
they were talking about the Russian Socialist Revolution and
not the Cuban. Oswald maintained that he had two reasons for
requesting that his visa be issued promptly, and they were:
one, that his tourist permit in Mexico was about to expire; and
the other, that he had to get to Russia as quickly as possible.
Despite her annoyance, the declarant gave Oswald a paper * * *
in which she put down her name, “Silvia Durán,” and the
number of the telephone at the consulate, which is “11-28-47”
and the visa application was processed anyway. It was sent
to the Ministry of [Foreign] Relations of Cuba, from which a
routine reply was received some fifteen to thirty days later,
approving the visa, but on the condition that the Russian visa
be obtained first, although she does not recall whether or not
Oswald later telephoned her at the Consulate number that she
gave him.[C6-540]
[Illustration: OSWALD’S APPLICATION FOR A VISA FOR TRAVEL TO CUBA AND
THE REPLY OF THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT
(COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2564)
OSWALD’S APPLICATION ——> TRANSLATION
CUBAN REPLY ——> TRANSLATION
BOTH DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA.]
With the dates of Oswald’s entry into and departure from Mexico,
which had been obtained from the records of the Mexican Immigration
Service very shortly after the assassination, the Government of Mexico
initiated a thorough investigation to uncover as much information as
possible on Oswald’s trip.[C6-541] Representatives of U.S. agencies
worked in close liaison with the Mexican law enforcement authorities.
The result of this investigative effort was to corroborate the
statements of Senora Duran and to verify the essentials of Oswald’s
activities in Mexico as outlined above.
Senora Duran is a well-educated native of Mexico, who was 26 years
old at the time of her interrogation. She is married to Senor Horacio
Duran Navarro, a 40-year-old industrial designer, and has a young
child. Although Senora Duran denies being a member of the Communist
Party or otherwise connected with it, both Durans have been active in
far left political affairs in Mexico, believe in Marxist ideology, and
sympathize with the government of Fidel Castro,[C6-542] and Senor Duran
has written articles for El Dia, a pro-Communist newspaper in Mexico
City.[C6-543] The Commission has reliable evidence from a confidential
source that Senora Duran as well as other personnel at the Cuban
Embassy were genuinely upset upon receiving news of President Kennedy’s
death. Senora Duran’s statements were made to Mexican officials soon
after the assassination,[C6-544] and no significant inaccuracies in
them have been detected. Documents fitting the description given by
Senora Duran of the documents Oswald had shown her, plus a notation
which she said she had given him, were found among his possessions
after his arrest.[C6-545]
The Cuban Government was asked to document and confirm the essentials
of Senora Duran’s testimony. Its response, which has been included
in its entirety in this Report, included a summary statement of
Oswald’s activities at the Cuban Embassy;[C6-546] a photograph of the
application for a visa he completed there,[C6-547] and a photograph
of the communication from Havana rejecting the application unless he
could first present a Soviet visa.[C6-548] (See Commission Exhibit No.
2564, p. 306.) The information on these documents concerning Oswald’s
date of birth, American passport number and activities and statements
at the Embassy is consistent with other information available to the
Commission.[C6-549] CIA experts have given their opinion that the
handwriting on the visa application which purports to be Oswald’s
is in fact his and that, although the handwritten notations on
the bottom of the document are too brief and faint to permit a
conclusive determination, they are probably Senora Duran’s.[C6-550]
The clothes which Oswald was wearing in the photograph which appears
on the application appear to be the same as some of those found
among his effects after the assassination, and the photograph itself
appears to be from the same negative as a photograph found among his
effects.[C6-551] Nothing on any of the documents raises a suspicion
that they might not be authentic.
By far the most important confirmation of Senora Duran’s testimony,
however, has been supplied by confidential sources of extremely high
reliability available to the United States in Mexico. The information
from these sources establishes that her testimony was truthful and
accurate in all material respects. The identities of these sources
cannot be disclosed without destroying their future usefulness to the
United States.
The investigation of the Commission has produced considerable
testimonial and documentary evidence establishing the precise time of
Oswald’s journey, his means of transportation, the hotel at which he
stayed in Mexico City, and a restaurant at which he often ate. All
known persons whom Oswald may have met while in Mexico, including
passengers on the buses he rode,[C6-552] and the employees and guests
of the hotel where he stayed,[C6-553] were interviewed. No credible
witness has been located who saw Oswald with any unidentified person
while in Mexico City; to the contrary, he was observed traveling
alone to and from Mexico City,[C6-554] at his hotel,[C6-555] and at
the nearby restaurant where he frequently ate.[C6-556] A hotel guest
stated that on one occasion he sat down at a table with Oswald at the
restaurant because no empty table was available, but that neither spoke
to the other because of the language barrier.[C6-557] Two Australian
girls who saw Oswald on the bus to Mexico City relate that he occupied
a seat next to a man who has been identified as Albert Osborne, an
elderly itinerant preacher.[C6-558] Osborne denies that Oswald was
beside him on the bus.[C6-559] To the other passengers on the bus it
appeared that Osborne and Oswald had not previously met,[C6-560] and
extensive investigation of Osborne has revealed no further contact
between him and Oswald. Osborne’s responses to Federal investigators on
matters unrelated to Oswald have proved inconsistent and unreliable,
and, therefore, based on the contrary evidence and Osborne’s lack of
reliability, the Commission has attached no credence to his denial
that Oswald was beside him on the bus. Investigation of his background
and activities, however, disclose no basis for suspecting him of any
involvement in the assassination.[C6-561]
Investigation of the hotel at which Oswald stayed has failed to uncover
any evidence that the hotel is unusual in any way that could relate to
Oswald’s visit. It is not especially popular among Cubans, and there
is no indication that it is used as a meeting place for extremist or
revolutionary organizations.[C6-562] Investigation of other guests of
the hotel who were there when Oswald was has failed to uncover anything
creating suspicion.[C6-563] Oswald’s notebook which he carried with him
to Mexico City contained the telephone number of the Cuban Airlines
Office in Mexico City;[C6-564] however, a Cuban visa is required by
Mexican authorities before an individual may enplane for Cuba,[C6-565]
and a confidential check of the Cuban Airlines Office uncovered no
evidence that Oswald visited their offices while in the city.[C6-566]
_Allegations of conspiracy._--Literally dozens of allegations of
a conspiratorial contact between Oswald and agents of the Cuban
Government have been investigated by the Commission. Among the
claims made were allegations that Oswald had made a previous trip to
Mexico City in early September to receive money and orders for the
assassination,[C6-567] that he had been flown to a secret airfield
somewhere in or near the Yucatan Peninsula,[C6-568] that he might
have made contacts in Mexico City with a Communist from the United
States shortly before the assassination,[C6-569] and that Oswald
assassinated the President at the direction of a particular Cuban agent
who met with him in the United States and paid him $7,000.[C6-570]
A letter was received from someone in Cuba alleging the writer had
attended a meeting where the assassination had been discussed as part
of a plan which would soon include the death of other non-Communist
leaders in the Americas.[C6-571] The charge was made in a Cuban
expatriate publication that in a speech he delivered 5 days after the
assassination, while he was under the influence of liquor, Fidel
Castro made a slip of the tongue and said, “The first time Oswald was
in Cuba,” thereby giving away the fact that Oswald had made one or more
surreptitious trips to that country.[C6-572]
[Illustration: COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1400
LEE HARVEY OSWALD’S MOVEMENTS IN MEXICO CITY]
Some stories linked the assassination to anti-Castro groups who
allegedly were engaged in obtaining illicit firearms in the United
States, one such claim being that these groups killed the President as
part of a bargain with some illicit organizations who would then supply
them with firearms as payment.[C6-573] Other rumors placed Oswald
in Miami, Fla., at various times, allegedly in pro-Cuban activities
there.[C6-574] The assassination was claimed to have been carried out
by Chinese Communists operating jointly with the Cubans.[C6-575] Oswald
was also alleged to have met with the Cuban Ambassador in a Mexico
City restaurant and to have driven off in the Ambassador’s car for a
private talk.[C6-576] Castro himself, it was alleged, 2 days after
the assassination called for the files relating to Oswald’s dealings
with two members of the Cuban diplomatic mission in the Soviet Union;
the inference drawn was that the “dealings” had occurred and had
established a secret subversive relationship which continued through
Oswald’s life.[C6-577] Without exception, the rumors and allegations of
a conspiratorial contact were shown to be without any factual basis, in
some cases the product of mistaken identification.
Illustrative of the attention given to the most serious allegations is
the case of “D,” a young Latin American secret agent who approached
U.S. authorities in Mexico shortly after the assassination and declared
that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald receiving $6,500 to kill the President.
Among other details, “D” said that at about noon on September 18,
waiting to conduct some business at the Cuban consulate, he saw a group
of three persons conversing in a patio a few feet away. One was a
tall, thin Negro with reddish hair, obviously dyed, who spoke rapidly
in both Spanish and English, and another was a man he said was Lee
Harvey Oswald. A tall Cuban joined the group momentarily and passed
some currency to the Negro. The Negro then allegedly said to Oswald
in English, “I want to kill the man.” Oswald replied, “You’re not man
enough, I can do it.” The Negro then said in Spanish, “I can’t go with
you, I have a lot to do.” Oswald replied, “The people are waiting for
me back there.” The Negro then gave Oswald $6,500 in large-denomination
American bills, saying, “This isn’t much.” After hearing this
conversation, “D” said that he telephoned the American Embassy in
Mexico City several times prior to the assassination in an attempt to
report his belief that someone important in the United States was to be
killed, but was finally told by someone at the Embassy to stop wasting
his time.
“D” and his allegations were immediately subjected to intensive
investigation. His former employment as an agent for a Latin American
country was confirmed, although his superiors had no knowledge of his
presence in Mexico or the assignment described by “D.” Four days after
“D” first appeared the U.S. Government was informed by the Mexican
authorities that “D” had admitted in writing that his whole narrative
about Oswald was false. He said that he had never seen Oswald anyplace,
and that he had not seen anybody paid money in the Cuban Embassy. He
also admitted that he never tried to telephone the American Embassy
in September and that his first call to the Embassy was after the
assassination. “D” said that his motive in fabricating the story was
to help get himself admitted into the United States so that he could
there participate in action against Fidel Castro. He said that he hated
Castro and hoped that the story he made up would be believed and would
cause the United States to “take action” against him.
Still later, when questioned by American authorities, “D” claimed that
he had been pressured into retracting his statement by the Mexican
police and that the retraction, rather than his first statement, was
false. A portion of the American questioning was carried on with the
use of a polygraph machine, with the consent of “D.” When told that
the machine indicated that he was probably lying, “D” said words to
the effect that he “must be mistaken.” Investigation in the meantime
had disclosed that the Embassy extension number “D” said he had
called would not have given him the person he said he spoke to, and
that no one at the Embassy--clerks, secretaries, or officers--had
any recollection of his calls. In addition, Oswald spoke little, if
any, Spanish. That he could have carried on the alleged conversation
with the red-headed Negro in the Cuban Embassy, part of which was
supposed to have been in Spanish, was therefore doubtful. “D” now said
that he was uncertain as to the date when he saw “someone who looked
like Oswald” at the Cuban Embassy, and upon reconsideration, he now
thought it was on a Tuesday, September 17, rather than September 18. On
September 17, however, Oswald visited the Louisiana State Unemployment
Commission in New Orleans and also cashed a check from the Texas
Employment Commission at the Winn-Dixie Store No. 1425 in New Orleans.
On the basis of the retractions made by “D” when he heard the results
of the polygraph examination, and on the basis of discrepancies which
appeared in his story, it was concluded that “D” was lying.[C6-578]
The investigation of the Commission has thus produced no evidence that
Oswald’s trip to Mexico was in any way connected with the assassination
of President Kennedy, nor has it uncovered evidence that the Cuban
Government had any involvement in the assassination. To the contrary,
the Commission has been advised by the CIA and FBI that secret and
reliable sources corroborate the statements of Senora Duran in all
material respects, and that the Cuban Government had no relationship
with Lee Harvey Oswald other than that described by Senora Duran.
Secretary of State Rusk also testified that after the assassination
“there was very considerable concern in Cuba as to whether they would
be held responsible and what the effect of that might be on their own
position and their own safety.”[C6-579]
_Contacts with the Soviet Embassy in the United States._--Soon after
the Oswalds reached the United States in June 1962 they wrote to the
Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. Oswald requested information about
subscriptions to Russian newspapers and magazines and ultimately did
subscribe to several Russian journals. Soviet law required Marina
Oswald, as a Soviet citizen living abroad, to remain in contact with
her nation’s Embassy and to file various papers occasionally.[C6-580]
In 1963, after Oswald had experienced repeated employment difficulties,
there were further letters when the Oswalds sought permission to return
to the Soviet Union. The first such request was a letter written by
Marina Oswald on February 17, 1963. She wrote that she wished to
return to Russia but that her husband would stay in the United States
because “he is an American by nationality.”[C6-581] She was informed
on March 8, 1963, that it would take from 5 to 6 months to process the
application.[C6-582] The Soviet Union made available to the Commission
what purports to be the entire correspondence between the Oswalds
and the Russian Embassy in the United States.[C6-583] This material
has been checked for codes and none has been detected.[C6-584] With
the possible exception of a letter which Oswald wrote to the Soviet
Embassy after his return from Mexico City, discussed below, there is
no material which gives any reason for suspicion. The implications of
all of this correspondence for an understanding of Lee Harvey Oswald’s
personality and motivation is discussed in the following chapter.
Oswald’s last letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., dated
November 9, 1963, began by stating that it was written “to inform you
of recent events since my meetings with Comrade Kostin in the Embassy
of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico.”[C6-585] The envelope bears
a postmark which appears to be November 12, 1963.[C6-586] Ruth Paine
has testified that Oswald spent the weekend at her home working on the
letter and that she observed one preliminary draft.[C6-587] A piece
of paper which was identified as one of these drafts was found among
Oswald’s effects after the assassination. (See Commission Exhibits
Nos. 15, 103, p. 311.) According to Marina Oswald, her husband retyped
the envelope 10 times.[C6-588]
Information produced for the Commission by the CIA is to the effect
that the person referred to in the letter as “comrade Kostin” was
probably Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, a member of the consular staff
of the Soviet Union in Mexico City. He is also one of the KGB officers
stationed at the Embassy.[C6-589] It is standard Soviet procedure for
KGB officers stationed in embassies and in consulates to carry on
the normal duties of such a position in addition to the undercover
activities.[C6-590] The Commission has identified the Cuban consul
referred to in Oswald’s letter as Senor Eusebio Azque (also “Ascue”),
the man with whom Oswald argued at the Cuban Embassy, who was in fact
replaced. The CIA advised the Commission:
We surmise that the references in Oswald’s 9 November letter to
a man who had since been replaced must refer to Cuban Consul
Eusebio Azque, who left Mexico for Cuba on permanent transfer
on 18 November 1963, four days before the assassination. Azque
had been in Mexico for 18 years and it was known as early as
September 1963 that Azque was to be replaced. His replacement
did arrive in September. Azque was scheduled to leave in
October but did not leave until 18 November.
We do not know who might have told Oswald that Azque or any
other Cuban had been or was to be replaced, but we speculate
that Silvia Duran or some Soviet official might have mentioned
it if Oswald complained about Azque’s altercation with
him.[C6-591]
When asked to explain the letter, Marina Oswald was unable to add
anything to an understanding of its contents.[C6-592] Some light
on its possible meaning can be shed by comparing it with the early
draft. When the differences between the draft and the final document
are studied, and especially when crossed-out words are taken into
account, it becomes apparent that Oswald was intentionally beclouding
the true state of affairs in order to make his trip to Mexico sound as
mysterious and important as possible.
For example, the first sentence in the second paragraph of the letter
reads, “I was unable to remain in Mexico indefinily because of my
mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only.” The same
sentence in the draft begins, before the words are crossed out, “I was
unable to remain in Mexico City because I considered useless * * *” As
already mentioned, the Commission has good evidence that Oswald’s trip
to Mexico was indeed “useless” and that he returned to Texas with that
conviction. The first draft, therefore, spoke the truth; but Oswald
rewrote the sentence to imply that he had to leave because his visa was
about to expire. This is false; Oswald’s tourist card still had a full
week to run when he departed from Mexico on October 3.[C6-593]