Oswald in New Orleans, Part 1 by Dave Reitzes


On April 8, 1963, Oswald informed the Texas Employment Commission that
he had lost his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and applied for unemployment
compensation on April 12th. He was not referred to any jobs. During Ruth
Paine's driving trip around the country she had corresponded some with
Marina, but Mrs. Paine had not discussed with Marina her desire that
Marina should come live with her while the Oswald marriage was going so
badly. Mrs. Paine, then, was rather surprised when she stopped by the
Oswalds' Neely Street apartment as scheduled on April 24 to find most of
the couple's belongings packed. Marina, so the story goes, wanted to get
her husband out of Dallas where he seemed to be headed for disaster, and
suggested he try his city of birth, New Orleans, for work. Apparently, he
agreed. The plan at the time seemed to be that Oswald would take the bus
to New Orleans, then send for Marina and June when he found work. He
bought Marina a bus ticket to be used at that later date, but then
decided to cash it in when Mrs. Paine offered to let Marina and June stay
with her while Oswald looked for work (WR 725).

Oswald stayed briefly with his New Orleans cousins, the Murrets, at 757
French Street while looking for work. Lillian Murret was quite surprised
when he turned up; she had no idea he was even back from Russia.

While in New Orleans, the Warren Report tells us, Oswald "showed great
interest in finding out what had happened to the other members of his
father's family. He visited the cemetery where his father was buried and
called all the Oswalds in the telephone book. By this method he located
one relative, Mrs. Hazel Oswald of Metairie, La., the widow of William
Stout Oswald, his father's brother. He visited her at her home; she gave
him a picture of his father and told him that as far as she knew the rest
of the family was dead" (WR 725). This photograph was not among Oswald's
belongings at the time of his arrest.

He had been turned down for unemployment compensation in Dallas, so on
April 29th he filed a request for reconsideration. His previous rejection
was found to have been based on an incomplete appraisal of the facts, and
Oswald was granted twelve weeks of benefits. He continued to receive
payments even after he started work in early May. On May 9th, according
to the Warren Report, he responded to a newspaper advertisement for
employment with the William B. Reily Coffee Co. at 640 Magazine Street.
His references included one "Sgt. Robert Hidell," who understandably was
never contacted by Reily. He began work on May 10th. The day before he
had found an apartment at 4905 Magazine Street with the help of Myrtle
Evans, the old family friend. She didn't recognize Lee until he
identified himself; she hadn't seen him, as the official account goes, in
seven years.

Ruth Paine drove Marina, June, and their belongings to New Orleans on May
10th. Paine and her daughters stayed with the Oswalds for three days.
Oswald was dismissed from the Reily Coffee Co. on July 19th because of
his poor work performance (WR 726). This is not hard to believe, as we
know from Adrian Alba, proprietor of the Crescent City Garage next door
to Reily, that Oswald spent several hours a day in Alba's office leafing
through Alba's gun magazines and discussing the purchase of mail order
guns. This will be examined shortly.

On July 6, Oswald's cousin, Eugene Murret, invited Oswald to speak about
"contemporary Russia and the practice of Communism there" at the Jesuit
seminary where Murret was studying, the Jesuit House of Studies in
Mobile, Alabama. Oswald accepted, and he, his family, and some of the
Murrets traveled to Mobile. Oswald's speech was well-received, and his
listeners thought him articulate and possessed of above-average
intelligence. The speech and its accompanying question-and-answer session
was an uncharacteristically middle-of-the-road affair in which Oswald
discussed his disillusionment with Russia, and suggested that the ideal
socioeconomic system would combine the best points of capitalism and
communism.

On Monday, July 22nd, Oswald applied again for unemployment compensation.
According to Marina, Oswald spent most of his time home reading rather
than looking for a job. We know that he borrowed dozens of books from the
New Orleans Public Library over the summer. He renewed his attempts to
have his undesirable (not dishonorable) discharge from the Marines
changed to honorable, as he claimed the undesirable discharge was hurting
his chances for work. (Since Oswald left the country rather than report
for his approximately two years of Marine Reserve service, the
undesirable discharge seems quite reasonable, unless Oswald knows
something we don't about the circumstances surrounding his trip.) On July
25th the undesirable status was reaffirmed (WR 727).

He now told Marina he wished to return to Russia, and prevailed upon
Marina to write again to the Russian Embassy about the possibility of
both of them returning to her homeland with June. Unbeknownst to Marina,
however, Oswald slipped in a handwritten note in English, requesting that
Marina's visa application be considered SEPARATELY from his own (WR 727).
Marina did not learn of this until shown the note by the Warren
Commission.

On three or so occasions during June and July 1962, New Orleans attorney
Dean Adams Andrews, Jr., was visited by Lee Harvey Oswald at his Canal
Street office in the company of other young men, approximately five
others in all. Oswald made inquiries about his citizenship status and
that of his foreign wife, and sought assistance in reversing his
undesirable discharge from the Marines, which he claimed made it
difficult finding a job. Of Oswalds companions, "Andrews said that he
knew two of [them] by sight, and that on two occasions he [Oswald] was
accompanied by a young man of Mexican extraction (not Cuban), whom
[Andrews] did not know. He said he believed that all of Oswald's
companions were homosexuals who possibly frequent the Gaslight Bar in the
French Quarter, where such individuals congregate. He said Oswald was
supposed to furnish him $20.00 and also his Marine Corps serial number in
order to obtain copies of pertinent records from the Marine Corps. He
said that Oswald did not comply, and that he did not establish a file on
him or receive a fee. He further advised that in August 1963, he saw
Oswald on Canal Street passing out literature favoring Castro, and that
when he more or less admonished him, Oswald indicated that he was
receiving $25.00 a day for this work. After the assassination, Andrews
was shown photographs of Oswald handing out leaflets on Canal Street and
asked if he recognized any of the Hispanic men with Oswald as having
accompanied him to Andrews' office. Andrews said he could not recognize
any of them (Secret Service Report of December 4, 1963).


Fidel's "Psychic Friend" in New Orleans

In New Orleans Oswald set to work on the activity that would generate a
fair amount of publicity for himself, his ostensible attempt to open a
New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the
notoriously right wing city. Using the name "Lee Osborne," Oswald had a
number of pro-Castro circulars printed up, and he wrote to the New York
headquarters of the FPCC, asking for some literature and advice, stating
he was considering renting an office. The New York office sent pamphlets,
but advised him that renting an office in a city like New Orleans wasn't
such a good idea. Oswald would later reply that, despite headquarters'
misgivings, he had briefly rented an office. The FPCC's national
secretary, V. T. "Ted" Lee, quickly cut off communication with Oswald,
determined that his eager New Orleans "delegate" was either a loose
cannon or possibly something even more dangerous. As even Warren
Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler said in 1964, " The fact that Oswald
may have been a member of this organization, which he was, of course, is
a fact that can be viewed from many different ways" (11 H 420; Weisberg,
Oswald in New Orleans, 38).

Oswald's FPCC activity generally involved standing on a corner and
handing out fliers while tourists and members of the press conveniently
appeared to photograph and film him. Oswald's uncanny ability to choose
street corners swarming with tourist cameras apparently was not a talent
that helped him in his job search, as Reily was his last place of
employment in New Orleans. Occasionally Oswald would stop by the local
unemployment office and hire one or two men to help him hand out fliers
for a "protest," which was always promised to run only about 15 or 20
minutes, not long enough to actually protest anything, but long enough to
call Mr. Oswald to the attention of obliging tourists -- and newsmen --
with cameras. One such helper, Charles Steele, Jr., testified to the
Warren Commission that he was paid to help Oswald on one occasion, and
that he walked off when he realized what kind of material he was passing
out. He noted that Oswald seemed to have a partner in the endeavor, but
the Commission wasn't terribly interested.

The most visible phase of Oswald's FPCC "career" began on August 1st,
when he wrote a letter to Vincent T. Lee, head of the FPCC in New York.
In this letter, postmarked August 4, 1963, Oswald wrote: "In regards to
my efforts to start a branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New
Orleans . . . I rented an office as planned and was promptly closed 3
days later for some obsure [sic] reasons by the renters, they said
something about remodeling, ect. [sic] I'm sure you understand after that
I worked out of a post office box and by useing [sic] street
demonstrations and some circular work have substained [sic] a great deal
of interest but no new members. Through the efforts of some cuban-exial
[sic] 'gusanos' a street demonstration [of Oswald's] was attacked and we
were oficialy [sic] cautioned by the police."

Although Oswald did not ever rent an office, the remainder of his letter
was true, at least in a sense. The story of one of Oswald's makeshift
"demonstrations" being disrupted by anti-Castro Cuban exiles led by
lawyer Carlos Bringuier, followed by the arrest of all involved, is well
known. There's only one problem: It hadn't happened yet.

The Warren Commission, with characteristic acumen, dismissed the events
described in this letter as a fabrication: "In spite of those claims, the
Commission has not been able to uncover any evidence that anyone ever
attacked any street demonstration in which Oswald was involved, except
the Bringuier incident mentioned above, which occurred 8 days after
Oswald wrote the above letter to V. T. Lee. Bringuier, who seemed to be
familiar with many anti-Castro activities in New Orleans, was not aware
of any such incident. Police reports also fail to reflect any activity on
Oswald's part prior to August 9, 1963, except for the uneventful
distribution of literature at the Dumaine Street wharf in June [which
Oswald also refers to in his August 1st letter to V. T. Lee]" (WR 408).

Here the Commission, not for the only time, blurs the distinction between
blissful ignorance and willful whitewashing. It is immediately apparent
that the letter of August 1st and postmarked on August 4th refers -- in
the past tense -- to the incidents of August 9th. The Commission chose to
ignore the obvious connotation: that the August 9th incident was STAGED.
The only question is, by whom? Oswald alone, or Oswald and Bringuier?

On August 5th -- the day after the letter to New York was postmarked --
Oswald walked into Casa Roca, a clothing store managed by Carlos
Bringuier. Bringuier had been a lawyer in Batista's Cuba, and was now
living in exile. He was a member of the CIA-backed DRE (Student
Revolutionary Council), although his activity in New Orleans resembles
Oswald's alleged work for the FPCC. Oswald approached Bringuier and two
of the Cuban's friends, Philip Geraci and Vincent Blalock, and engaged
them in a discussion about Castro. Oswald claimed to be violently
anti-Castro, and expressed interest in the DRE. He said he was a former
Marine and was trained in guerrilla warfare, and expressed interest in
training Cubans to fight Castro, and also to join the fight himself. He
asked about buying some bonds to support the DRE. Bringuier immediately
was suspicious of Oswald, thinking him a possible agent provocateur for
the FBI, with whom Bringuier had had trouble in the past. Bringuier not
only wondered how Oswald had found him -- as his activity was not
publicized -- he was also concerned about Oswald's inquiry about buying
bonds: Philip Geraci had been cautioned by the police just days before
not to sell bonds without a City of New Orleans permit. In addition, only
a few days earlier, the FBI -- at the insistence of the White House --
had raided and shut down an anti-Castro training camp at Lake
Pontchartrain with which Bringuier had been associated. The anti-Castro
crusader smelled a rat. He was noncommital with the ex-Marine, and
politely turned him away.

Interestingly, Oswald wrote in a later note to V. T. Lee in New York, "I
infiltraled [sic] the Cuban Student directorite [sic] and than [sic]
harresed [sic] them with information I gained including having the N. O.
city atterny [sic] general call them in and put a retraining [sic] order
pending a hearing on some so-called bonds for invasion they were selling
in the New Orleans area." We know this isn't true; the question is, how
did Oswald know that the DRE was having trouble in this respect? Other
curious aspects of the August 5th encounter will be examined shortly. The
following day Oswald returned, but Bringuier was not in. Oswald left his
Marine Corps. manual with Bringuier's friends as some kind of indication
of credentials.

On August 9th, a friend of Bringuier's rushed into the Casa Roca and
announced that the so-called anti-Castro ex-Marine was leading a
PRO-Castro demonstration just a block away. Enraged, Bringuier and
several of his friends interrupted the demonstration, threw Oswald's
literature to the ground, and began loudly denouncing Oswald as a
Communist who'd tried to infiltrate his group. Bringuier was mystified by
Oswald's behavior, however; as his hired helpers scattered, the suspected
infiltrator just stood there with his soon-to-be-famous smirk and said
not a word until Bringuier physically accosted him. Oswald crossed his
arms in front of himself, and said quietly, "Okay, Carlos, if you want to
hit me, go ahead and hit me." Bringuier began to get the feeling that he
was being used, and was aware that the crowd which was rapidly forming
might not take kindly to him and his friends ganging up on a skinny
little man, even if he was apparently a Communist. Once again Bringuier
smelled a rat.

The whole group was soon arrested for creating a disturbance, to which
Oswald pleaded guilty and was fined, while the others pleaded not guilty
and were released. Oswald spent the night in jail. While in custody,
Oswald requested an interview with an FBI agent, and although it was
Saturday, Agent John Quigley promptly arrived. This interview will be
discussed below.

The street scuffle and arrest was reported prominently around New
Orleans, and William Stuckey, a WDSU broadcaster and host of a program on
Latin American issues, called Oswald and requested a radio interview to
discuss the young Castroite's views; Oswald accepted. This broadcast
received respectable ratings, and Oswald also was filmed for a brief
television newsscast. Stuckey then suggested a debate between Oswald and
Bringuier and a couple of other anti-Castro crusaders. Despite the odds,
Oswald accepted. Oswald quietly but vigorously defended Castro and
denounced America's policies toward Cuba at this debate, and denied that
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was a Communist organization. His
credibility was assailed when Bringuier asked Oswald if it wasn't true
that he had defected to Russia, a charge which seems to have thrown
Oswald momentarily off-balance. He recovered fairly well, admitting he'd
traveled to Russia as a "tourist," and asking Bringuier, "If I defected,
why did they let me back in the country?"

The information about Oswald's past had been supplied to Bringuier by a
man named Ed Butler who served in the Information Counsel of the Americas
(INCA), a group seeking to promote free trade in Latin America, which
meant primarily stamping out Castro and anything else in Latin America
that smacked of communism. INCA, a group sponsored in part by the --
anybody? anybody? -- CIA, will be examined briefly below. Opinions about
Oswald's performance in the debate vary. One thing is clear, however:
that if Oswald was seeking to promote the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans, the revelation of his past killed any hope of affording the
group any legitimacy in violently anti-Communist New Orleans. Many
researchers wonder if perhaps that wasn't the point in the first place.
After the debate, Oswald seemed to all but lose interest in the FPCC.

If these events were staged, who staged them? Oswald clearly had
foreknowledge of his street scuffle and arrest. What about Bringuier?
Bringuier has continually deny any complicity with Oswald in staging the
street fracas and debate. A. J. Weberman asked him about the date of the
letter. "First, Oswald was, what can you say, he make a lot of mistakes,"
Bringuier noted, "like him transferring dates and things like that, and I
believe he made a mistake. He left a zero out. The date was the tenth."
When asked about the August 4th postmark, Bringuier said, "Sir, I didn't
finish yet. I believe that you have a preconceived idea. Then there would
be no possible way for me to change your idea. Most of the people who
have those preconceived ideas are communists. . . . Oswald wrote several
letters to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. When the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee presented that to the FBI, they transposed the envelopes. That
is very simple. . . . Oswald could not have been a psychic and foresee
that there was to be that incident. Because if my friend would not have
seen him on Canal Street . . . I wouldn't have known . . ."

It is reasonable to postulate that Bringuier was unaware of the impending
demonstration. Oswald called himself to Bringuier's attention in a way
the Cuban and his friends were unlikely to forget; then just days later
he held a pro-Castro "demonstration" near Bringuier's store. One suspects
that the "demonstration" would have continued until one of Bringuier's
many anti-Castro-leaning friends in the area called it to Bringuier's
attention. Bringuier's statement that he initially suspected Oswald to be
an undercover FBI agent was made prior to the assassination; afterwards
he modified the statement to suggest that Oswald may have been a
COMMUNIST infiltrator, which much better suited his agenda to pin the
assassination on Castro. Had the two been working together in August,
Bringuier should have had his story straight from the beginning -- not
for any reason related to the assassination, of course, but simply as a
matter of routine procedure in an intelligence operation. It would have
been of little use to Bringuier to paint Oswald as an agent provocateur
for the US government; it is more indicative of an honest and quite
justifiable suspicion.


Oswald was again observed distributing pro-Castro literature on August
16, 1963. He hired two men from a local employment agency to help him
pass out his leaflets: "I hired persons to distribute literature. I then
organized persons who displayed receptive attitudes towards Cuba to
distribute pamphlets . . . I caused the formation of a small, active,
Fair Play for Cuba Committee organization of members and sympathizers
where before there was none . . . I sought response from Latin American
consuls of which there are many here in New Orleans . . . " One of these
men was Charles Hall Steele, Jr., born November 5, 1943. On November 24,
1963, Charles Hall Steele, appeared at the New Orleans FBI Office in the
company of his father, who is a Civil Deputy Sheriff in New Orleans, a
Major in the Louisiana National Guard, and a candidate of Central
Democratic Committee. "Charles Steele, Jr. stated that on Friday August
16, 1963, he went to the Louisiana Employment Service, a State Agency,
with his girl friend who was to take a typing examination. While waiting
in the reception room for her to take the examination Steele was
approached by an individual who Steele believed told Steele, his name was
Oswald. Oswald asked Steele if Steele would be interested in making two
dollars for about fifteen to twenty minutes work distributing leaflets.
Steele stated he agreed, and met Oswald at noon in front of the
International Trade Mart Building, at which time Oswald handed Steele
some leaflets to distribute. Steele Jr. stated he did not look at the
leaflets, but began handing them out to passerbys, and when he had
distributed all of the leaflets he returned to Oswald who was also
passing out leaflets and Oswald gave Steele a few more to distribute.
Steele stated he then looked at the leaflets and discovered there was
some wording to the effect "Hands Off Cuba." Steele stated he believed
the leaflets to be communist in nature, threw them in a trash can and
told Oswald he wanted to talk with him. Steele stated that he and Oswald
then went into the foyer of the International Trade Mart Building where
he asked Oswald if these were not communist leaflets and was advised by
Oswald that it was a group connected with Tulane University. Steele
stated he told Oswald he wanted nothing further to do with the leaflets,
was paid two dollars by Oswald and departed.

Steele stated when Oswald met him in front of the International Trade
Mart Building, Oswald was accompanied by another person described as
white male, 19 to 20 years of age, about six feet, slender build, dark
hair, olive complexion. Steele stated this individual was distributing
some of the leaflets but did not appear to have any conversation with
Oswald, and it was Steele's impression that this person had also been
hired in the same manner as Steele. Steele stated he could not identify
this individual should he see him again. Steele stated he has had no
prior contact with Oswald nor any subsequent contact with him and knows
nothing further concerning him. Steele, Jr. identified photograph of
Oswald as person for whom he distributed leaflets. Indices concerning
Steele, Jr. his father, and his girl friend, Charline Stouff, negative"
(FBI NARA 124-10248-10130; FBI NO 89-69-70, November 24, 1963; Weberman
Web site). On August 20, 1963, the New Orleans FBI Office received a
letter from Jesse Core, the FBI contact at the International Trade Mart.
The letter contained one of Oswald'S "The Crime Against Cuba" leaflets
that was stamped FPCC 544 CAMP STREET NEW ORLEANS LA" (FBI File No.
97-74-1A-1 A 5 181-10315; Weberman). SA DeBrueys, who was in charge
investigating the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, conducted no
investigation. Mrs. M.D. Stevens of the CIA'S Security Research Section
reported that one SRS Card existed on Jesse Core.

Carlos Quiroga, aka FBI informant NO T-5, was a member of the Cuban
Revolutionary Front whose father was imprisoned in Cuba.. On November 27,
1963, Carlos Quiroga told the FBI that he was acquainted with Carlos
Bringuier, and was aware of the August 9 street fracas. On August 16, he
was seated in Thompson's Restaurant when a representative of Puerto Rico
with an office in the International Trade Mart informed him of another
pro-Castro demonstration at the Trade Mart. Quiroga notified police, but
police arrived too late, and Oswald had left.

Carlos Quiroga and an associate named Rudolph Richard Davis III drove to
the address listed on the handbill. Oswald claimed to be a student of
language at Tulane University and the representative of the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee in New Orleans. He claimed that he was conducting private
meetings, and would be proud to have Quiroga join them. He did not
identify the place of the meeting or any other alleged members of the
Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Carlos Quiroga learned that Oswald had a
Russian wife, and he spoke Russian. Oswald gave Quiroga an application to
the FPCC. Quiroga contacted Lt. Martello at the NOPD, offering to
infiltrate the organization, but Martello wasn't interested (FBI
62-109060-466, 5263, 5218, 105-82555-5263A, LHM of February 21, 1967;
Weberman).


Rudolph Richard Davis organized the LaCombe, Louisiana training camp.
Rudolph Richard Davis Jr., aka Ricardo Davis, was born September 9, 1936,
Manhattan,  N.Y. His father Rudolph Richard Davis Sr. was Cuban. His
mother, Lorraine Elizabeth Blair, was a U.S. citizen, born in New Jersey.
The family of Rudolph Richard Davis had owned the Cuban/American Sugar
Company. Rudolph Richard Davis left Cuba in January 1961, after Fidel
Castro seized the property of his family. He settled in New York City,
where he worked at the branch office of the Cuban/American Sugar Company.
According to Rudolph Richard Davis, the CIA contacted his company before
the Bay of Pigs to secure its help. Rudolph Richard Davis served as a
coordinator between the Christian Democratic Movement and the New York
City Police Department. He moved to New Orleans in August 1961. On
October 31, 1961 Rudolph Richard Davis went to the New Orleans FBI Office
and offered his services to the agents there.

In June 1963 Rudolph Richard Davis moved Cuban exiles into the LaCombe
camp by automobile from Miami. When two of these cars broke down, the
driver and passengers went to the Catholic Cuban Center, where they spoke
with Elsie Cerniglia. (FBI MM 105-1095.20; Weberman). Elsie Cerniglia
advised S.A. DeBRUEYS on June 30, 1963, that 10 refugees arrived in New
Orleans on the night of June 24, 1963, for the purpose of attending a
training camp some two hours from New Orleans. The refugees stated that
Rudolph Richard Davis was in charge of the training camp. Rudolph Richard
Davis was interviewed by SA Warren DeBrueys.

On October 1, 1963, the FBI interrogated Rudolph Richard Davis about the
training camp: "Rudolph Richard Davis advised that in early 1963 he
contacted Laureano Batista of the Christian Democratic Movement in Miami,
in regard to sending men to work for him in the Guatemala Lumber and
Mineral Corporation. Laureano Batista sent some 19 men from Miami to New
Orleans in response to Davis' request. [Rudolph Richard Davis claimed]
these refugees came to New Orleans with the understanding they were going
to be sent to a military training camp in New Orleans for a military
operation and sent to Guatemala for additional training. The men were
disappointed when Davis advised them of the real purpose of their trip,
and they later returned to Miami within a two week period. [Five pages
deleted.] Davis claims that these people were dressed in khaki
military-type clothing and it was necessary to buy them regular clothes .
. . Davis stated that during the last days of July, the FBI had seized
some dynamite and other explosives stored in a LaCombe, Louisiana,
residence which material, according to the newspaper, was to be used
against Cuba. He stated this action disturbed these Cuban refugees and
was probably partially responsible for the decision to return to Miami.
Since they had come to New Orleans with the idea of receiving military
training in Guatemala, they were not willing to proceed to Guatemala to
be employed in mahogany lumber cutting" (FBI NO 109-584; Weberman).
Rudolph Davis told DeBrueys that Laureano Batista, of the Christian
Democratic Movement in Miami, had sent the men to New Orleans. In a
follow-up report dated September 18, 1963, the SAC of the New Orleans FBI
Office informed the Director, that in view of the interview with Rudolph
Richard Davis, "New Orleans will limit its inquiries to the possible
existence in Mississippi of a training camp where 12 men were allegedly
being trained on a ranch." (FBI NO 97-4110-65; Weberman) SA Warren
DeBrueys prepared a report on October 3, 1963, which concerned Rudolph
Richard Davis, most of which was withheld. [FBI 97-4110; Weberman).

On April 20, 1964, Rudolph Richard Davis was by DeBRUEYS. "Davis stated
that in the past three years he has worked closely with various security
branches: the New York City Police Department; Secret Service in New York
City; Immigration Department; and the FBI in New Orleans . . . Davis
stated at no time did he ever represent himself as an Agent of the FBI or
tell anyone that he was employed by this agency. He did state that he had
cooperated with agents of the FBI. He told agents of the FBI what he knew
regarding Cuban matters. He further advised that at no time did he ever
tell anyone that he was an agent of the CIA." Rudolph Richard Davis
listed Kenneth O'Donnell, Appointment Secretary to the President of the
United States, as some he had been associated with in the past three
years. The United States Attorney at New Orleans "declined prosecution of
Davis in view of the fact that he did not receive anything from having
made statements that he was an agent of the FBI or CIA" (NARA
124-10248-10110; Weberman).

On February 20, 1967, an FBI teletype indicated that a security informant
from the New Orleans Office of the FBI "has been contacted by
investigators from D.A. Garrison's staff who, from the questions asked,
it was indicated they had information that Sergio Arcacha Smith, Carlos
Quiroga and Richard Davis, had an office at 544 Camp Street." Rudolph
Richard Davis told Jim Garrison on March 22, 1967, that he knew David
Ferrie, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Guy Banister, Ronnie Caire etc. He said he
had been a member of the Crusade to Free Cuba. Rudolph Richard Davis
stated "that he was standing on a corner near where Oswald was
distributing pamphlets and witnessed the scuffle between Oswald and
Bringuier. Davis said he was introduced to Oswald by Carlos Quiroga.
Davis said he wanted to infiltrate Oswald's group and went to Oswald's
house with Quiroga about 8:00 p.m. one night shortly after the Bringuier
debate on television. Davis did not actually enter the house as Oswald
came out on the sidewalk and conversed with them there. According to
Davis, prior to this, Oswald had wanted to join Davis' group and spoke of
his Marine training . . ."

On June 30, 1967, C. P. H. Bell, Supervisor, Travelers Insurance Company
of Hartford, Connecticut, with offices in Houston, Texas, informed the
FBI that "one Rudolph Richard Davis applied to his company for
employment, approximately one week previously. While his application was
being processed, another employee in Bell's office informed Bell he was
acquainted with Davis. This employee related that . . . Davis allegedly
stated while living in New Orleans his living expenses were paid for by
an anti-Castro organization known as the Minutemen. Davis allegedly
stated that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected in some manner with the
Minutemen organization" (NARA 124-10244-10213).

Interviewed on July 17, 1967, Rudolph Richard Davis said that he never
had been associated with the Minutemen, and knew nothing of any such
association on the part of Oswald: "Davis, in the Fall of 1963, met
Oswald on two occasions in New Orleans, in connection with anti-Castro
activities in which Davis was active at the time in the New Orleans area.
In connection with these meetings with Lee Harvey Oswald, Davis stated he
met Oswald at the time that Oswald was passing out pro-Castro handbills
on Canal Street, New Orleans. Shortly thereafter, Davis contacted Oswald
at Oswald's apartment in New Orleans in an effort to obtain any
information concerning Oswald's pro-Castro activities. Oswald refused to
have anything to do with Davis. . . . Through his business connections
and his anti-Castro activities, Davis became acquainted with members of
the John Birch Society at New Orleans. With the assistance of John Birch
Society members, Davis set up a training site for exiled Cubans on the
DeLeBarre estate, LaCombe, Louisiana, which is near New Orleans. . . .
Davis emphatically denied any association between the cache of bombs and
his training camp. It is Davis' understanding, a gambler who formerly had
ties in Cuba and Las Vegas, was responsible for the bomb cache . . .
Rudolph Richard Davis said he refused to talk to Garrison" (Rudolph
Richard Davis Enclosure 7 to Garrison; Trace Reports of Rocca; NARA
124-10244-10256; Weberman).

Marina Oswald told the FBI that "Oswald told her that he strongly
suspected that the man who had come was an anti-Castro Cuban pretending
he was pro-Castro." A CIA document states, "In 1961, Carlos Quiroga, then
a student, met David Ferrie through Sergio Arcacha Smith, who was often
with Ferrie. Ferrie lent Sergio Arcacha Smith money." Carlos Quiroga felt
Sergio Arcacha Smith had "made sacrifices for the anti-Castro cause" and
gave the family of Sergio Arcacha Smith "food money" (RYBAT SECRET
unmarked CIA document; Weberman).

Carlos Quiroga told the HSCA, "When I had finished up school in August
1961, I had gone to see an FBI Agent. I went to the FBI office to find
out which Cubans were active at that time in New Orleans. And I had an
interview with Agent DeBRUEYS, and he referred me to an office which was
right across the street from the FBI Office, by the Balter Building. And
that's how I got in touch with Smith, which, at that time, was the
Delegate of the Cuban Revolutionary Front in New Orleans."

Mr. JENNER. How did you learn about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. STUCKEY. Most of the organizations that I had contact with were
refugee organizations, very violently anti-Castro groups, and there were
a number of them in New Orleans. These people were news sources for me
also. I used them quite frequently. . . . One day . . . I was in the bank
and I ran across a refugee friend of mine by the name of Bringuier.
Bringuier told me --

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Identify Mr. Bringuier.

Mr. STUCKEY. Mr. Bringuier at that time was the New Orleans delegate to
the Revolutionary Student Directorate which was an anti-Castro group with
headquarters in Miami. He also ran a clothing store called Casa Roca. He
was an attorney in Havana before the revolution, the Cuban Revolution of
1958, and had been very active ever since I have known him in New Orleans
in anti-Castro activity. I had interviewed him on a number of occasions
in connection with Cuban current events. Mr. Bringuier ran into me in the
bank, and I spoke to him, and he said that a representative of the Fair
Play for Cuba Committee had appeared in New Orleans, and that he had an
encounter with him shortly before.

Mr. JENNER. That interested you?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes, very, very much because I knew something of the
reputation of this group. I regarded them as being about the leading
pro-Castro organization in this country, a propaganda organ for Castro
forces, and I had done a considerable amount of reading Congressional
testimony, articles and this sort of thing about their activities.
Bringuier said he had an encounter with a young man who was representing
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. You had known Bringuier and had contact with him; had he ever
been on your program up to this moment that you spoke of?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; he had never been on my program, but, as a newspaperman,
I had contacted him quite frequently for information. . . . He told me
that - this was in the bank - a few days before - I don't recall exactly
-

Mr. JENNER. This was a chance meeting?

Mr. STUCKEY. This was a chance meeting with Mr. Bringuier. I was cashing
my paycheck and Bringuier told me a few days before he had run into this
fellow in his store, this Casa Roca - this young man had approached him.

Mr. JENNER. A young man had come in?

Mr. STUCKEY. A young man. At the time he had mentioned no name. If he
had, it wouldn't have made any difference to me because the name meant
nothing. He said a young man came in, introduced himself and said he was
a veteran of the Marine Corps, he had just gotten out, and that he was
very disturbed by the Cuban situation and wanted to do something about
hurting Castro, or trying to change the regime . . . Now this young man
said somehow he knew Bringuier was connected with the Revolutionary
Student Directorate, how, I don't know. But, at any rate, as I said, he
offered his services. Then he presented a Marine Corps Handbook to
Bringuier. He said, "This might help you in your guerilla activities and
such. This is my own personal Marine Corps Handbook," which Bringuier
accepted. Bringuier told me that sometime after that, I don't recall
exactly how long it was, he was walking on Canal Street, the main street
of New Orleans, about a block away from his store, and he ran into this
young man again. This time he was distributing literature, handbills, and
the handbills said, "Hands Off Cuba.". . . It was this same young man.
Bringuier, who was a rather excitable fellow, and he couldn't understand
why this fellow was now distributing pro-Castro literature, whereas a
short time before he had posed as an anti-Castro man. So Bringuier got in
a shouting match with him on the street corner, and I think some blows
were exchanged, I'm not sure . . . So I mentioned to Bringuier that I was
interested in locating this fellow and talking to him. Bringuier gave me
his address.

On August 17, 1963, William Stuckey visited Oswald at his apartment on
Magazine Street to invite Oswald to appear on his radio program. William
Stuckey told the Warren Commission, "I didn't meet him until August 17,
1963, at which time I went by his house on Magazine Street to ask him to
appear on my program. This was early in the morning, about 8:00 am. . . .
I knocked on the door and this young fellow came out, without a shirt. He
had a pair of Marine Corps fatigue trousers on. I asked him "Are you Lee
Oswald?' And he said, "Yes." I introduced myself and told him I would
like to have him on my program that night. So he asked me in on the
porch. This was a screened porch and I had a very brief chat. He said he
would ask me inside for some coffee but his wife and his baby were
sleeping so we had better talk out on the porch. . . . So we had a few
cursory remarks there about the organization. He showed me his membership
card to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and it was signed by A. Hidell,
President. . . . Oswald was identified on the card as secretary. . . . he
showed me the Fair Play for Cuba membership card. I asked him about the
membership of this organization, and he said there were quite few, quite
a few members. . . . Also, as I recall, he was very vehement, insisting
he was not the President, but was the secretary, and that was the
occasion in which he pulled out his card showing that he was secretary,
not the president, and that this other gentleman, Hidell, was the
president. . . . the name meant nothing to me at all, the name never
occurred to me again, I never thought of the name again, until after the
assassination when Mr. Henry Wade of Dallas on television on a Sunday
mentioned that Oswald purchased a rifle from a Chicago mail order house
and used the name A. Hidell in purchasing the rifle. When he said 'A.
Hidell' it hit me like it was a light bulb over my head. I recalled the
name. Otherwise I would never have remembered the name." . . . He
appeared to be a very logical, intelligent fellow, and the only strange
thing about him was his organization. This was, seemed incongruous to me,
that he should associate with this type of group, because he did not seem
the type at all, or at least what I have in my mind as the type or he
should associate with a group of this type, because he did not seem to
fit the type at all or at least what I have gotten in my mind as the
type. I would like to mention this. I was arrested by his cleancutness. I
expected a folk-singer type, something of that kind, somebody with a
beard and sandals . . . I found this fellow who was neat and clean and
watched himself pretty well. He seemed to be very conscious about all of
his words, all of his movements, sort of very deliberate. He was very
deliberate with his words and struck me as being rather articulate. He
was the type of person you would say would inspire confidence. This was
the incongruity that struck me, the fact that this type of person should
be with this organization. That is the gist of the first meeting. I asked
him to meet me at the radio station that afternoon about 5:00 pm. for the
interview and he agreed. This was to be a recorded interview prior to the
broadcast to avoid the possibility of errors. It is a risky business
going on live."

The full interview ran 32 minutes, and was condensed down to four. It was
broadcast on Stuckey's Latin American Listening Post on August 17, 1963.

STUCKEY. This is the first of a series of Latin Listening Post interviews
of persons more or less directly concerned with the conflict between the
United States and Cuba. In subsequent programs, we will present talks
with people who are connected with the Cuban Refugee Organizations,
people who are connected with President Batista, and United States
citizens with direct stakes in the outcome of the Cuban situation.
Tonight we have with us a representative of probably the most
contraversial organization connected with Cuba in this country. The
organization is the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The person, Lee Oswald,
Secretary of the New Orleans Chapter for the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee. This organization has long been on the Justice Department's
blacklist and is a group generally considered to be the leading
pro-Castro body in the nation. As a reporter for Latin American affairs
in this city for several years now, your columnist has kept a lookout for
local representatives of this pro-Castro group. None appeared in public
until this week when young Lee Oswald was arrested and convicted for
disturbing the peace. He was arrested passing out pro-Castro literature
to a crowd which included several violently anti-Castro Cuban refugees.
When we finally tracked Mr. Oswald down today and asked him to
participate in Latin Listening Post, he told us frankly that he would,
because it may help his organization to attract more members in this
area. With that in mind, and knowing that Mr. Oswald must have had to
demonstrate a great skill in dialectics before he was entrusted with his
present post, we now proceed on the course of random questioning of Mr.
Oswald. Mr. Oswald, if I may, how long has the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee had an organization in New Orleans?

OSWALD. We have had members in this area for several months now up until
about two months ago, however, we have not organized our members into any
sort of active group, until, as you say, we had decided to feel out the
public, what they think of our organization, our aims and for what
purpose we have been as you said, distributing literature on the street
for the purpose of trying to attract new members and feel out the public.

STUCKEY. Do you have any other activities other than distributing
literature at the present time?

OSWALD. Well, I assume you mean do I have any organizational duties
myself?

STUCKEY. Yes.

OSWALD. Yes, as secretary I am responsible for the keeping of the records
and the protection of the member's names so that undue publicity or
attention will not be drawn to them, as they do not desire it. My duties
are the duties of a secretary of any organization. However, our
organization has a president, a secretary and a treasurer. The duties of
those people would be more or less self evident than those that are my
duties. I do not however belong to any other organizations at all.

STUCKEY. Are you at liberty to reveal the membership of your
organization?

OSWALD. No, I am not.

STUCKEY. For what reason?

OSWALD. Well, as secretary, I believe it is standard operating procedure
that our organization, consisting of a political minority, protect the
names and addresses of its members and I have every, uh, that is my duty
and that is my reason to do that.

STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, there are many commentators in the journalistic
field in this country that equate the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with
the American Communist Party. What is your feeling about this and are you
a member of the American Communist Party?

OSWALD. Well, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with its headquarters at
799 Broadway in New York, has been investigated by the Senate
Sub-Committee who are occupied with this sort of thing. They have
investigated our organization from the viewpoint of taxes, subversion,
allegiance and in general, where and how and why we exist. They have
found absolutely nothing to connect us with the Communist Party of the
United States. In regards to your question about whether, I, myself, am a
Communist, as I said I do not belong to any other organization.

STUCKEY. I notice from your pamphlets, one bears the title "Hands Off
Cuba." I am curious as to whether this applies to the Soviet Union as
well as to the United States.

OSWALD. This organization is not occupied at all with the problems of the
Soviet Union or the problem of International Communism. 'Hands Off Cuba'
is the main slogan of this committee. It means, it follows our first
principle, which has to do with non-intervention, in other words keeping
your hands off a foreign state which is supported by the Constitution and
so forth and so on. We have our own non-intervention laws, that is what
'Hands Off Cuba' means. And as I say, we are not occupied with the
problems of the Soviet Union.

STUCKEY. Does your group believe that the Castro regime in Cuba is not
actually a front for a Soviet Colony in the Western Hemisphere?

OSWALD. Very definitely. Castro is an independent leader of an
independent country. He has ties with the Soviet Union, with the Eastern
Bloc, however I think it is rather obvious as to why and when they are
because of the fact that we certainly don't have any trade with them. We
are discouraging trade with that country, with our allies and so forth,
so of course he has to turn to Russia. That does not however mean that he
is dependent upon Russia. He receives trade from many countries including
Great Britain to a certain extent, France, certain other powers in the
Western Hemisphere. He is even trading with several of the more
independent African states so that you cannot point at Castro and say
that he is a Russian puppet. He is not. He is an independent person. An
independent leader in his country and I believe that was pointed out very
well during the October crisis when Castro very definitely said that
although Premier Khrushchev had urged him to have on-site inspection at
his rocket bases in Cuba, that Fidel Castro refused.

STUCKEY. Do you feel that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee would maintain
its present line as far a supporting Premier Castro if the Soviet Union
broke relations with the Castro regime in Cuba?

OSWALD. We do not support the man. We do not support the individual. We
support the idea of an independent revolution in the Western Hemisphere,
free from American intervention. We do not support, as I say, the
individual. If the Cuban people destroy Castro, or if he is otherwise
proven to have betrayed his own revolution, that will not have any
bearing upon this committee. We are a committee who do believe that
Castro has not, so far, betrayed his country.

STUCKEY. Do you believe that the Castro regime is a communist regime?

OSWALD. They have not, well they have said that they are a Marxist
country, on the other hand so is Ghana, so is [sic] several other
countries in Africa. Every country which emerges from a sort of a futile
state as Cuba did, experiments, usually in socialism, in Marxism. For
that matter, Great Britain has socialized medicine. You cannot say that
Castro is a communist at this time, because he has not developed his
country, his system, so far. He has not had the chance to become a
communist. He is an experimenter, a person who is trying to find out the
best way for his country. If he chooses a socialist or a Marxist or a
communist way of life, that is something upon which only the Cuban people
can pass. We do not have the right to pass on that. We have our own
opinions, naturally, but we cannot exploit that system and say it is a
bad one, it is a threat to our existence and go and try to destroy it.
That would be against our principles of democracy.

STUCKEY. As a representative of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, do you
feel that capitalism in any form, or at least capitalism as we know it,
has any place in the future of Cuba?

OSWALD. Well, so far the situation has developed where they, Cuba is
irrevocably lost as far as capitalism goes and there will never be a
capitalist regime again in Cuba. Cuba may go the way of Czechoslovakia,
Yugoslavia or it may go to the other extreme. It may go the way of China,
in other words, a dogmatic communist system, that depends on how we
handle the matter here in the United States.

STUCKEY. Does the Fair Play for Cuba Committee have any particular
position in the Cuban, or rather the Chinese and Russian conflict? Has it
taken sides as opposed to China's position in the conflict as opposed to
Russia's position?

OSWALD. Well, no, we do not believe in international situations of that
sort. As the name implies, Fair Play for Cuba Committee, we are occupied
only with the narrow point of Cuba, the problem of Cuba and what it is to
us. We are not occupied at all with the problems of the Chinese and
Russians or the Yugoslavian Russian problems whatsoever.

STUCKEY. I have here with me tonight, various pieces of literature that
Mr. Oswald has been distributing on street corners here in the last week.
I would like to read to you some of the titles. The first is a yellow
handbill entitled Hands Off Cuba. Join the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
in New Orleans Charter Member Branch. There is another pamphlet by the
name of "The Revolution must be a school on unfettered thought -- Fidel
Castro. There is still another pamphlet entitled Fidel Castro Denounces
Bureaucracy and Sectarianism. And a fourth pamphlet entitled Ideology and
Revolution by Jean Paul Sartre. I am curious about the fifth pamphlet I
have, Mr. Oswald. This, to me, was most interesting. It is entitled "The
Crime Against Cuba" by Corliss Lamont. The theme of this pamphlet is that
the United States committed a grave injustice when it backed the Bay of
Pigs invasion in 1961. Now it has probably a complete ideology here for
the National Liberation Movement type of philosophy that we know of in
the new countries. Picking among the paragraphs I see one here that I'd
like to hear Mr. Oswald's comment on and I'd like to quote, "It is well
to recall that the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman in
1950 during the Korean War is still in effect in the United States and
has been utilized constantly for the curtailment of civil liberty." What
is your comment about the veracity of this statement?

OSWALD. Well of course, that is the last paragraph of a very long page.
That has to do with the fact that propaganda in the United States has
slanted and shown Cuba and Castro to me to be in a very bad light. Now
they have mentioned, the United States Government, has mentioned that
Castro has declared an emergency in Cuba. He has not held elections for
instance, because of the fact that there is an emergency situation in
Cuba. Now the Castro Government is declaring that it is doing just what
this points out. It is doing what we did in 1950 and you recall what
happened in 1950. That was during the beginning of the Korean war when we
felt that we were going to be in a very very dangerous situation. We
adopted an emergency law which restricted newspapers, broadcasters, radio
and TV from giving any opinions, any comments which were not already
checked out by certain administrative Bureaus of the United States
Government. That was under our emergency. At this time Fidel Castro has
his emergency. It is because of us and our attitude and because the
attitude of certain other people, certain other countries in Latin
America, certain other countries. This is the parallel, the parallel
which this is talking about. An emergency in our country at that time and
an emergency in their country at this time.

STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, this is very interesting to me to find out about the
restriction on newspapers in 1950 because I was in the newspaper business
at that time and I do not recall seeing any such government bureau
established in my office to tell us what to print. Exactly what do you
have reference to?

OSWALD. Well, I have reference to the obvious fact that during war time
haphazard guesses and information are not given by anyone. In regards to
military strategical comments such as comments or leaks about new fronts
or movements and so forth. News was controlled at that time to that
extent as it is always controlled during a war or a national emergency,
always.

STUCKEY. Do you feel that news is controlled in the United States today
regarding Cuba?

OSWALD. It is a self control, yes, imposed by most newspapers. Of course
I don't know whether I am being fair but of course I would have to point
to the Times Picayune-States Item syndicated, since it is the only paper
we have in New Orleans and a very restricted paper it is. The Fair Play
for Cuba Committee has often approached this paper with information or
comments and this paper has consistently refused, because of the fact
that it is sympathetic to the anti-Castro regime. It has systematically
refused to print any objective matter, giving the other man's viewpoint
about Cuba.

STUCKEY. Would you care to list the dates and the persons who you talked
to at the paper that refused to print your material?

OSWALD. I do not know the name of the reporter. I did speak to the City
Editor. I spoke to him one week ago and I spoke with him yesterday,
Friday, which was immediately after our demonstration when I and several
other of my members had a demonstration in front of the International
Trade Mart which was filmed by WDSU-TV and shown last night on the news.
At that time, 2:00 I went to the Times Picayune, informed them of our
demonstration, which was very well covered by WDSU-TV and they told me at
that time that due to the fact that they were not sympathetic to this
organization or to the aims and ideals of this organization that they
would not print any information that I gave them. They did say that if I
would care to write a letter to the editor they might put that in the
letter to the editor column.

STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, does it make any difference to you if any of the
activities of the local branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
benefit the Communist Party or the goals of international Communism?

OSWALD. Well, that is what I believe you would term a loaded question.
However, I will attempt to answer it. It is inconsistent with my ideals
to support communism, my personal ideals. It is inconsistent with the
ideals of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to support the ideals of
international communism. We are not occupied with that problem. We are
occupied with the problem of Cuba. We do not believe under any
circumstances that in supporting our ideals about Cuba, our pro-Castro
ideals, we do not believe that it is inconsistent with believing in
democracy. Quite the contrary. We believe that it is a necessity in
supporting democracy to support Fidel Castro and his right to make his
country anyway he wants to. No so much the right to destroy us of our
rights about defense. In other words, we do not feel that we are
supporting international communism or communism, in supporting Fidel
Castro.

STUCKEY. What other political leaders in Latin America do you feel
fulfill the Fair Play for Cuba Committee's requirements for a democratic
political leader?

OSWALD. Well, you know there's a funny story about Latin America. It goes
something like this. Coffee, bananas, sugar and a few other products. In
other words that refers to the so called banana countries which, like
Cuba up to this time, had a one crop agriculture, a one crop economy and
where did those crops go? They went to the United States. Now the
attitude of those countries who are controlled by the United States,
whose economy depends almost 100% upon how much money the United States
pours into them, those countries cannot be expected to give an
independent viewpoint on Cuba or Castro. The few countries which
abstained at certain international inter-American meetings during the
last year, are those countries which are big enough to support
themselves. Those countries being only Brazil, Argentina and perhaps on
some occasion the democratic republic of Costa Rica, which is, by the
way, the only democratic republic in all of Central America.

STUCKEY. What is your definition of democracy?

OSWALD. Well the definition of democracy, that's a very good one. That's
a very controversial viewpoint. You know, it used to be very clear, but
now its not. You know when our forefathers drew up the Constitution, they
considered that democracy was creating an atmosphere of freedom of
discussion of argument, or finding the truth. The rights, well the
classic right of having life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In
Latin America they have none of those rights, none of them at all. And
that is my definition of democracy, the right to be in a minority and not
be suppressed. The right to see for yourself without government
restrictions such countries as Cuba and we are restricted from going to
Cuba.

STUCKEY. When was the last time you were in Latin America?

OSWALD. I have been only to Mexico in my life, sir. I am not fully
acquainted with Latin America personally but then I am not the President
of this organization either, I am only a volunteer, a secretary of this
local chapter. I do not claim to be an expert on Latin America, but then
very few people do. Certainly it is obvious to me, having been educated
here in New Orleans and having been instilled with the ideas of democracy
and objectiveness, that Cuba and the right of the Cubans to
self-determination is more or less self evident and one does not have to
travel through Central and South America. One does not have to travel
through these countries to see the poverty in Chile or Peru or the
supression of democratic liberties between the Somoza brothers in
Nicaragua in order to draw one's conclusion about Cuba.

STUCKEY. Does the Fair Play for Cuba Committee have any opinion about the
suppression of democratic liberties in Hungary in 1956 or the poverty in
any of the Eastern Bloc countries today?

OSWALD. Officially no, but of course we have our own opinions about such
situations. We consider that Russian imperialism is a very bad thing. It
was a bad thing in Hungary. We certainly do not support dictatorship or
the supression of any peoples anywhere, but as I say and as I must
stress, we are preoccupied only with the problem of Cuba, officially.

STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, you have the title of Secretary of the New Orleans
Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, however you have just said
that you have never been to Latin America except for a few ventures into
Mexico. In that case, just exactly how do you get your information
concerning Latin American affairs or Latin American conditions?

OSWALD. Well, as I say we are preoccupied with the problems of Cuba.
There are correspondents that correspond with the headquarters in New
York, directly from Cuba, that is where we get the information about
Cuba. Now in regards to Latin and Central America, you do not have your
own correspondent there. The AP and the UP cover it very well and they
certainly give a very clear picture of the situation in certain
countries, Nicaragua etc., as I mentioned, which have very undemocratic
regimes, dictatorships, and as I say these things are well known by
everyone and they are accepted as truth. For instance, who will be able
to find any official or any person who knows about Latin America who will
say that Nicaragua does not have a dictatorship?

STUCKEY. Very interesting that you should mention dictatorships in
Nicaragua, because we, naturally familiar with the place, have heard
about these dictatorships for many years but it is curious to me as to
why no Nicaraguans fled to the United States last year, whereas we had
possibly 50 to 60,000 fleeing from Cuba to the United States. What is the
Fair Play for Cuba Committee's official reply to this?

OSWALD. Well, a good question. The Nicaraguan situation is considerably
different from Castro's Cuba. People are inclined not to flee their
countries unless some new system, new factor, enters their lives. I must
say that very surely no new factors have entered into Nicaragua for about
300 years, in fact the people live exactly as they have always lived in
Nicaragua. I am referring to the overwhelming majority of people in
Nicaragua which is a futile dictatorship with 90% of the people engaged
in agriculture. These peasants are uneducated. They have one of the
lowest living standards in all the Western Hemisphere and so because of
the fact that no new factor, no liberating factor, has entered into their
lives, they remain in Nicaragua. Now the people who have fled Cuba, that
is an interesting situation. Needless to say, there are classes of
criminals; there are classes of people who are wanted in Cuba for crimes
against humanity and most of those people are the same people who are in
New Orleans and have set themselves up in stores with blood money and who
engage in day to day trade with New Orleanians. Those are the people who
would certainly not want to go back to Cuba and who would certainly want
to flee Cuba. There are other classes. There are peasants who do not like
the collectivization in Cuban agriculture. There are others who have one
reason or the other in their legitimate reasons, reasons of opinion for
fleeing Cuba. Most of these people flee by legal means. They are allowed
to leave after requesting the Cuban Government for exit visas. Some of
these people for some reasons or another. Most of these people flee by
legal means. They are allowed to leave after requesting the Cuban
government for exit visas. Some of these people for some reasons or
another do not like to apply for these visas or they feel that they
cannot get them; they flee, they flee Cuba in boats, they flee any way
they can go and I think that the opinion and the attitude of the Cuban
government to this is good riddance.

STUCKEY. I have been interviewing refugees now for about three years and
I'd say that the last Batista man, officially, that I talked to left Cuba
about two and a half years ago and the rest of them I've talked to have
been taxicab drivers, laborers, cane cutters, and that sort of thing. I
thought this revolution was supposed to benefit these people. What is the
Fair Play for Cuba Committee's position on this?

OSWALD. Well, as I say there are different classes. A minority of these
people are, as I say, people who were Batista criminals and so forth. It
may not be true that the people fleeing nowadays are completely cleansed
of Batista elements, certainly some of these Batistaites have been hiding
or have been engaged in counter-revolutionary activities ever since the
Bay of Pigs invasion and even before that, just after the revolution. In
other words, they have remained underground. Undoubtedly the overwhelming
majority of people during the last year for instance who have fled Cuba
have been non-Batistaites, rather peasants class. You say the revolution
is supposed to benefit these people. You know it's very funny about
revolutions. Revolutions require work, revolutions require sacrifice,
revolutions, and our own included, require a certain amount of rationing,
certain amount of calluses, a certain amount of sacrifice. Sacrificing
ones own personal ideas about countries, citizenship, work, indicates
people who have fled Cuba have not been able to adapt themselves to these
new factors which have entered these people's lives. These people are
uneducated. These people are the people who do not remain in Cuba to be
educated by young people who are afraid of the alphabet, who are afraid
of these new things which are occurring, who are afraid that they would
lose something by collectivization. They were afraid that they would lose
something by seeing their sugar crops taken away and in place of sugar
crops, some other vegetable, some other product, planted, because Cuba
has always been a one product country, more or less. These are people who
have not been able to adapt.

STUCKEY. You say their sugar crops. Most of the Cubans I have talked to
that have had anything to do with agriculture in the last year and half
have not owned one single acre of ground, they were cane cutters.

OSWALD. That is correct, sir. That is very, very true and I am glad you
brought up that point. You know it used to be that these people worked
for the United Fruit Company or American companies engaged in sugar
refining, oil refining in Cuba. They worked a few months every year
during the cane-cutting or sugar-refining season. They never owned
anything, and they feel now that that little bit of right, the right to
work for five months a year, has been taken away from them. They feel
that now they have to work all year round to plant new crops, to make a
new economy and so they feel that they have been robbed, they feel that
they have been robbed of the right to do as they please because of the
fact that the government now depends upon its people to build its
economy, to industrialize itself, so they figure they have been robbed.
What they do not realize is that they have been robbed of the right to be
exploited, robbed of the right to be cheated, robbed of the right of the
New Orleanian companies to take away what was rightfully theirs. Of
course they have to share now. Everybody gets an equal portion. This is
collectivization and this is very hard on some people. On people
preferring the dog eat dog economy.

STUCKEY. What do you refer to as the dog-eat-dog economy? Is that
capitalism in your definition?

OSWALD. No that is an economy where the people do not depend on each
other, they have no feelings of nationality, they have no feelings of
culture, they have no feelings of any ties whatsoever on a high level. It
is every man for himself. That is what I refer to by dog eat dog.

STUCKEY. Are you familiar with the existence of a Black Market in Soviet
Russia or in Red China, whereas the majority of the populace get their
food, their truck crops and vegetables and such from this market. Do you
know of such a market?

OSWALD. Well I know about the fact that there is a market in the Soviet
Union only for western apparel, and certain other items. There is no
black market in the Soviet Union for food, none whatever. By black
market, I assume that you mean a situation where food is either stolen or
grown in one area and taken to another area and sold covertly, under
cover. No such system exists in Russia.

STUCKEY. Mr. OSWALD, I am curious about your personal background. If you
could tell something about where you came from, your education and your
career to date, it would be interesting.

OSWALD. I would be happy to. I was born in New Orleans in 1939. For a
short length of time during my childhood I lived in Texas and New York.
During my Junior High School days, I attended Beauregard Junior High
School. I attended that school for two years. Then I went to Warren
Easton High School and I attended that school for over a year. Then my
family and I moved to Texas where we have many relatives and I continued
my schooling there. I entered the United States Marine Corps in 1956. I
spent three years in the United States Marine Corps, starting out as a
Private, working my way up though the ranks to the position of Buck
Sergeant and I served honorably, having been discharged. Then I went back
to work in Texas and have recently arrived in New Orleans with my family,
with my wife and child.

STUCKEY. What particular event in your life made you decide that the Fair
Play for Cuba Committee had the correct answers about Cuban-United States
relations?

OSWALD. Well of course, I have only begun to notice Cuba since the Cuban
Revolution, that is true of everyone I think. I became acquainted with it
about the same time as everybody else, in 1960. In the beginning of 1960.
I always felt that the Cubans were being pushed into the Soviet Bloc by
American policy. I still feel that way. Our policy, if it had been
handled differently and many others much more informed than I have said
the same thing, if that situation would have been handled differently we
would not have the big problem of Castro's Cuba now, the big
international political problem. Although I feel that it is a just and
right development in Cuba, still we could be on much friendlier relations
with them had the Government of the United States, its Government
Agencies, particularly certain covert, under cover agencies like the now
defunct CIA.

STUCKEY. Now defunct?

OSWALD. Well it's leadership is now defunct. Allen Dulles is now defunct.
I believe that without all that meddling, with a little bit different
humanitarian handling of the situation, Cuba would not be the problem it
is today.

STUCKEY. Is there any particular action of the United States Government
do you feel that pushed Castro into Soviet arms?

OSWALD. Well, as I say, Castro's Cuba, even after the revolution, was
still a one crop economy, basing its economy on sugar. When we slashed
the Cuban sugar quota, of course we cut their throats. They had to turn
to some other country. They had to turn to some other hemisphere in which
to sell this one product. They did so and they have sold it to Russia and
because of that Russian sugar is now down quite a bit, whereas ours is
going up and up and up and I believe that was the big factor, the cutting
of the sugar quota.

STUCKEY. Do you think the United States Government, under President
Eisenhower, ever wanted to help the Castro regime? Ever offered or shown
any help to it?

OSWALD. True to our democratic policies, certain policies were adopted
very late, but adopted, but the Government helped Fidel Castro while he
was still in the mountains, that is very true. We cut off aid to Batista
just before the revolution, just before it. That was too late. We had
already done more harm than we could have done before. We were just rats
leaving a sinking ship, you see. That was not the thing to do. We have,
however, as I say, helped him. We have now cut off all that help.

STUCKEY. There is one point of view which I have heard to the effect that
Castro turned left because he could not get any aid for industrialization
in Cuba from the United States. Does the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
believe that?

OSWALD. Not entirely, no. We feel that was a factor, certainly. We feel
that the current of history is now running to that extreme, in other
words countries emerging from [capitalist] domination are definitely
adopting socialistic, Marxist, even on occasion what will be in the
future, communist, regimes and communist inclinations. You see, this is
something which is apparently a world trend.

STUCKEY. Does the Fair Play for Cuba Committee believe that this trend
should also be copied in the United States?

OSWALD. No, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee is occupied only with the
Cuban problem. I do not think that they feel that way, no.


On August 17, 1963, Harvey wrote his last letter to V.T. Lee: "Since I
last wrote you (aug [sic] 13.) about my arrest and fine in New Orleans
for distributing literature for the FPCC, things have been moving pretty
fast. On August 16, 1963 I organzied [sic] a FPCC. [sic] demonstration of
three people. This demonstration was given considerable coverage by
WDSU-TV channel 6, and also by our channel 4 T.V. station. Due to that I
was invited by Bill Stucke [sic] to appear on his T.V. show called "Latin
american [sic] Focus" at 7:30 P.M. Saturday's on WDSU-channel 6. after
this 15 minute interview, which was filmed on magnetic type at 4:00 P.M.
for rebroadcast at 7:30 [sic] I was flooded with callers and invitations
to debate's [sic] ect. [sic] as well as people interested in joining the
FPCC. [sic] New Orleans branch. That than is what has happened up to this
day and hour. You can I think be happy with the developing situation here
in New Orleans . . . I would however, like to ask you to rush some more
literature [sic] particularly the white sheet 'Truth about cuba' [sic]
regarding government restrictions on Travel, as I am quickly runing [sic]
out."


Notice the stark contrast between Harvey's articulate speech and his
atrocious spelling and occasionally tortured grammar on paper -- and the
above letter is not an especially notable example. Notice that despite
the fact that he appears to have a nominal success under his belt, he is
still lying profusely about his alleged activities on behalf of the FPCC;
he received not a flood of interest about the FPCC, but in fact none at
all except again from Bill Stuckey.

William Stuckey told the Warren Commission he had wanted to air the
Oswald tape in its entirety, and suggested this to the station manager.
The station manager explained that he had already received a fair bit of
negative response for airing Oswald's views, and suggested that Stuckey
instead organize a debate in which Oswald's statements could be offset by
an opposing view. When Oswald made his second appearance on Stuckey's
radio show on August 21, 1963, he was set to debate Carlos Bringuier and
Edward Scannell Butler, head of the Information Council of the Americas
(INCA), a CIA-backed organization professedly formed to fight Communism
in Latin America, but actually group of New Orleans businessmen whose
interests were threatened by Castro and the possibility that the
revolutionary fervor would spread to other regions in Central America.
Butler had been a public relations man with the Army from 1957 to 1959.
Edward Butler worked for Radio Free Cuba, but was fired for his excessive
right-wing extremism. Butler left Radio Free Cuba and took its main
sponsor, Dr. Alton Ochsner of the Ochsner Clinic, with him, and formed
INCA. (Other notable members of INCA were Willard E. Robertson and
prominent Cuban exile leader Manuel Gil. Most of INCA's funding came from
the CIA; some was provided over a span of several years by the Schick
Safety Razor Company, which, after the assassination, would prominently
sponsor a television broadcast consisting largely of newsreel footage
obtained of Oswald in New Orleans that summer, which would go a long way
in discrediting not just the FPCC -- which closed shop in December 1963
because of their highly publicized connection to the alleged assassin --
but others of the same political bent.)  The broadcast was an offshoot of
INCA's favorite means of disseminating propaganda: their "truth tapes,"
tape-recorded interviews with Cuban refugees, distribute to radio
stations throughout Latin America. In 1961, Butler worked closely with
Sergio Arcacha Smith. An FBI source reported: "Butler had requested to
assist Smith in any way he could, as Smith was working on plans to
overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba" (FBI 62-109060-4707).

All of these men -- Butler, Ochsner, Bringuier, Arcacha Smith, even
Stuckey himself -- were CIA assets, either agents or informants; some
were FBI informants; Butler was an informant for the House Un-American
Activities Committee. It may be pure coincidence that such a web of
intrigue was enveloping the young self-proclaimed Marxist to discredit
him and the organization he represented without authorization -- even
proof, the CIA might argue, that if they weren't around to help fight
encroaching Communism, who would be? Still, the Agency couldn't have
asked for a more cooperative "Communist" to target.

Of INCA's members, it may be Butler whose CIA ties are most openly
documented. Domestic Contact Division employee Dorothy A. Brandao would
later recall meeting with Butler about once a month during 1965. She
would say, "Mr. Butler is a very cooperative source, and seems to
understand the intelligence collection function, and to welcome any
opportunity to assist the CIA. He is an intelligent, animated, articulate
outgoing individual. . . . He is aware of the sensitivity of agency
activities and is appropriately discreet. [CENSORED] the Office of
Security checked with that component and determined that there was no
objection to Domestic Contacts Service use of Mr. Butler on a continuing
basis in the future. The Information Council of the Americas is primarily
concerned with the preparation and dissemination of taped recordings of
anti-Communist material, written or edited by Mr. Butler to a selected
group of broadcasting stations in Latin America and North America, for
use as a weapon against Communist penetration in the Americas. These
tapes are called 'Truth Tapes.' I have found Mr. Butler to be discreet in
our dealings. I have never had occasion to discuss operational matters
with him; my educated guess is that he would welcome such requirements. .
. When he does produce intelligence information the quality is uniformly
good" (DCD Source Information Sheet, August 1, 1966;  Weberman).

On August 21, 1963, Bill Stuckey discovered that Oswald had "defected" to
the Soviet Union. Stuckey told the Warren Commission that "a source" gave
him clippings from the Washington Post dated 1959 and 1962, about Oswald:

Mr. STUCKEY. I mention this because with this in mind, this is why it was
so interesting to me to find out on that day, August 21, 1963, that he
had lied to me, and that he, had, in fact, lived in Russia for about
three years, and had just recently returned, and this individual who
called me and gave me this information gave me dates of Washington
newspaper clippings that I could check, which were stories about his
leaving for Russia, or rather his appearance in Moscow in 1959.

Mr. JENNER. Now this information came to you between the time of your
interview transcribed as Stuckey exhibit No. 2 and August 21, 1963, when
you were about to put on your debate program, the discussion program.

Mr. STUCKEY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Did this come to you sufficiently in advance to enable you to
do some checking vis-a-vis newspapers or article?

Mr. STUCKEY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And was he unaware when he came in at 5:30 p.m. on the
afternoon of Wednesday that you had done this, had received this
information and done some research.

Mr. STUCKEY. He was unaware of that fact. During that day Mr. Butler
called, after I had already been tipped off about his Russian residence,
Mr. Butler called and said he too had found out the same thing, I think
later; his source was apparantly the House Un-American Activities
Committee or something like that. At any rate, we thought this was very
interesting and we agreed together to produce this information on the
program that night.

Mr. JENNER. . . . You thought it might be a bombshell and be unaware to
him.

Mr. STUCKEY. Exactly.

Stuckey would later state: "Mr. Edward Butler brought some newspaper
clippings to my attention, and I also found some through an independent
investigation -- a Washington newspaper clipping to the effect that Mr.
Oswald had attempted to renounce his American citizenship in 1959 and
become a Soviet citizen." Butler apparently was his sole source of
information.

Mr. JENNER. . . . Did Bringuier and Oswald recognize each other?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER. And was it apparent to you they were acquainted?

Mr. STUCKEY. Oh, yes, indeed. . . . So it was a somewhat touchy exchange
there between Bringuier and Oswald in the studio. Bringuier, as well as I
recall, started out with a remark like this, saying, "You know, I thought
you were a very nice boy. You really made a good impression on me when I
first met you. . . . I don't think you know what you are doing." Oswald
said something to the effect that "I don't think you know what you are
doing," and back and forth such as this. Bringuier said "Any time you
want to get out of your organization and join mine there is a place for
you" and he says "I hope one day you will see the light. And again Oswald
says, "I hope one day you will see the light" and that was about all
there was to that. . . .

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you obtain of this man with respect to
his volatility, that is, did you get any impression that he was quick to
anger?

Mr. STUCKEY. No; very well disciplined as a matter of fact. After all, he
[would be] provoked on several occasions that [evening] by Bringuier, and
Butler on the show. . . . And, of course, Bringuier's attempt to convert
him to the cause of the Revolutionary Student Directorate was presented
in a rather biting way, and Oswald just took it and just more or less
told him that he wasn't interested, whereas other people might have
gotten a little mad. After all you have to recognize that Oswald -- they
were ganging up on him. There were a bunch of us around there. There were
three people who disagreed with him, and he was only one man, and the
fact he kept his composure with this type of environment indicates
discipline.


Early in the program, Stuckey confronted Oswald with the newspaper
clippings.


STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, are these correct?

OSWALD. That is correct, yes.

STUCKEY. You did live in Russia for three years?

OSWALD. That is correct and I think those -- the fact that I did live in
the Soviet Union for a while gives me excellent qualifications to
repudiate charges that Cuba and Fair Play for Cuba Committee is
Communist-controlled.

BRINGUIER. Well, I want to know exactly the name of the organization that
you represent here in the city because I have some confusion. It's Fair
Play for Cuba Committee, or Fair Play for Russia Committee?

OSWALD. Well, that is of course very provocative . . . I don't think it
requires an answer.

BUTLER. How many people do you have in your committee here in New
Orleans?

OSWALD. I cannot reveal that as secretary for the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee.

BUTLER. Is it a secret society?

OSWALD. No, Mr. Butler, it is not. However, it is a standard operating
procedure for a political organization consisting of a political minority
to safeguard the names and the number of its members.

BUTLER. Well, the Republicans are in the minority. I don't see them
hiding their membership.

OSWALD. The Republicans are not a -- well, the Republicans are a [sic]
established political party representing a great many people. They
represent no radical point of view; they do not have a very violent and
sometimes emotional opposition as we do.

BUTLER. Well, would you say that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee is not
a Communist front organization?

OSWALD. The Senate Subcommittee, who have occupied themselves with
investigating the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, have found that there is
nothing to connect the two committees. We have been investigated from
several points of view, that is points of view of taxes, allegiance,
subversion, etc. The findings have been, as I say, absolutely zero.

BUTLER. Who is the Honorary Chairman of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

OSWALD. . . . [T]he name of that person I certainly don't know.

BUTLER. Well, let me tell you in case you don't know about your own
organization. . . . His name is Waldo Frank [an admitted Communist]. Who
is the National Secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

OSWALD. Well, we have a national director who is Mr. B. T. [sic] Lee, who
has recently returned from Cuba, and because of the fact that the United
States Government has imposed restrictions on travel to Cuba, he is now
under indictment for his traveling to Cuba. This, however -- it's very
convenient for a rightist organization to drag out this or that
literature proporting to show a fact which has not been established in
law. I have said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee has definitely been
investigated. That is very true. I have also said that the total result
of that investigation was zero, that is, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
is not now on the Attorney General's Subversive List. Any other material
you may have is superfluitous [sic].

STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, if I may break in a moment, I believe it was
mentioned that you at one time asked to renounce your American
citizenship and become a citizen of the Soviet Union?

OSWALD. Well, I don't think that has a particular import to this
discussion. We are addressing Cuban-American relations --

STUCKEY. Well, I think it has a bearing to this extent, Mr. Oswald, you
say Cuba is not dominated by Russia and yet you apparently, by your past
actions, have show you have an affinity for Russia and perhaps Communism
. . . Are you or have you been a Communist?

OSWALD. Well, I had answered that prior to this program, on another radio
program.

STUCKEY. Are you a Marxist?

OSWALD. Yes, I am a Marxist.

STUCKEY.  What's the difference?

OSWALD. Well the difference is primarily the difference between a country
like Ghana, Guiana, Yugoslavia, China, or Russia - very, very great
differences. Differences which we appreciate by giving aid, let's say to
Yugoslavia, in the sum of a hundred million or so dollars every year.

STUCKEY. That's extraneous. What's the difference?

STUCKEY. The difference is, as I said, a very great difference. Many
parties, many countries are based on Marxism. Many countries, such as
Great Britain, display very socialistic aspects and characteristics. I
might point to the socialized medicine of Britain.

STUCKEY. Did you have a government subsidy in the Soviet Union?

OSWALD. Well, as I -- Well, I will answer that question directly then,
since you will not rest until you get your answer. I worked in Russia. I
was under the protection of the -- of the -- that is to say I was NOT
under the protection of the American Government [Oswald's emphasis] but
that is, I was at all times considered an American citizen. I did not
lose my American citizenship . . . I am back in the United States. A
person who renounces his citizenship becomes legally disqualified for
returning to the United States.

BUTLER. Were you ever in Building 11 Kuznetskow Street in Moscow?

OSWALD. Kuzetskow? Well, that would probably be the Foreign Ministry, I
assume. No, I was never in that place . . .

BUTLER. How do you hope to bring about what you call fair play for Cuba,
knowing the sentiment?

OSWALD. The principles of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee consist of the
restoration of diplomatic trade and tourist relations with Cuba. That is
one of our main points. We are for that. I disagree that this situation
regarding American-Cuban relations is very unpopular. We are a minority,
surely. We are, however, not particularly interested in what Cuban exiles
or rightist members of rightist organizations have to say. We are
primarily interested in the attitude of the United States government
toward Cuba . . . we are striving to get the United States to adopt
measures which would be more friendly toward the Cuban people and the new
Cuban regime in their country. We are not at all Communist-controlled,
regardless of the fact that I had the experience of living in Russia;
regardless of the fact that we have been investigated; regardless of any
of those facts, the Fair Play for Cuba is an independent organization not
affiliated with any other organization. Our aims and our ideals are very
clear and in the best keeping with American traditions of democracy.

BRINGUIER. Do you agree with Fidel Castro when he gave his latter speech
of July 26 this year -- he qualified President John Fitzgerald Kennedy of
the United States as a ruffian and a thief. Do you agree with Mr. Castro?

OSWALD. I would not agree with that particular wording. However, I and
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee does think that the United States
government through certain agencies, namely the State Department and the
CIA, has made monumental mistakes in its relations with Cuba. Mistakes
which are pushing Cuba into the sphere of activity of -- let's say a very
dogmatic Communist country, as China is.

STUCKEY. Mr. Oswald, would you agree that when Castro first took power,
would you agree the United States was very friendly with Castro, that the
people of this country had nothing but admiration for him, that they were
glad to see Batista thrown out?

OSWALD. I would say that the activities of the United States Government
in regard to Batista were a manifestation of not so much support for
Fidel Castro but rather a withdrawal of support from Batista. What we
should have done was to take those armaments and drop them into the
Sierra Maestre where Fidel Castro could have used them. As for public
sentiment at that time, I think even at that time, even before the
revolution, there were rumblings of official comment etc. from government
officials against Fidel Castro.

STUCKEY. You have never been to Cuba, of course, but why are people in
Cuba starving today?

OSWALD. Well, in any country emerging from a semi-colonial state and
embarking upon reform which require a diversification of agriculture you
are going to have shortages. After all, 80% of imports into the United
States from Cuba were two products: tobacco and sugar. Nowadays, while
Cuba is reducing its products as far as sugar cane goes, it is striving
to grow unlimited -- and unheard of for Cuba -- quantities of certain
vegetables: sweet potatoes, lima beans, cotton, etc., so that they can
become agriculturally independent.


When the Warren Commission reproduced the transcript in full in its
Hearings volumes, researcher Hal Verb noticed that one passage curiously
had a word inserted in a seemingly significant place. Where Oswald says,
"I was under the protection of the -- of the -- that is to say I was not
under the protection of the American government," the Warren Commission
transcript reads, "I was NOT [emphasis added] under the protection of the
-- of the -- that is to say I was not under the protection of the
American government."

Opinions are divided as to how well Oswald fared against the daunting
3-to-1 odds of the debate. The consensus of those who've read the
transcript is that he handled himself reasonably well, particularly in
regard to his Russian odyssey. Stuckey himself professed to be impressed
with the "defector's" relative ease in staying on his feet throughout the
broadcast. (He even took Oswald out for a beer afterwards.) The reality,
on the other hand, that the revelation of Oswald's background had
precisely the impact on the program's listeners as intended; the FPCC, on
shaky ground to begin with in conservative New Orleans, would be able to
cross the city off their list of prospective locations for FPCC chapters.
From this moment forward, Oswald's efforts on behalf of the FPCC would
very nearly cease altogether, despite the snowballing publicity he was
receiving. Was his mission ended? Had he accomplished exactly what he set
out to do? And was he acting on behalf of those anti-Castro zealots whose
address -- 544 Camp Street -- he stamped several of his pamphlets with;
544 Camp Street, the side entrance to the Newman Building, where
anti-Castro crusaders Guy Banister and David Ferrie worked closely with
Sergio Arcacha Smith, associate of Edward Scannell Butler? Or was all of
this a coincidence?

What evidence do we have that the US intelligence agencies even gave a
damn about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? For starters, we have a
document declassified and published by the Senate Intelligence Committee
in 1976, written by an anonymous CIA agent to an anonymous FBI liaison
officer, which reads in part: "We [the CIA] have in the past utilized
techniques with respect to countering activities of mentioned
organization [the Fair Play for Cuba Committee] in the US. During
December 1961 [the] New York [CIA office] prepared an anonymous leaflet
which was mailed to selected FPCC members throughout the country for the
purpose of disrupting [the] FPCC and causing [a] split between [the] FPCC
and its Socialist Workers Party (SWP) supports, which technique was very
successful [in disrupting relations between a political activist group
and a political party, both of which were organized by and composed of
American citizens exercising their first amendment rights in full
consonance with US law]. Also, during May 1961, a field survey was
completed wherein available public source data of [an] adverse nature
[i.e., "dirt"] regarding officers and leaders of [the] FPCC was compiled
and furnished [to FBI executive] Mr. [Cartha] DeLoach for use in
contacting his sources [i.e., disseminating to ground-level opponents of
the FPCC for whatever purposes such material may serve] (Senate
Intelligence Committee, Performance of Intelligence Agencies, 66;
Summers, *Conspiracy,* 275).

Among Oswald's possessions after the assassination was a handbill that
the "communist" apparently never had printed. It reads: "Join the
Socialist Workers Party. Fight for a better world! Write Box 2915,
Dallas, Texas. This is presumably an indication that Oswald was
contemplating another one-man operation like his FPCC "chapter."

"Other documents make it clear that the CIA had penetrated the FPCC with
its own agents and that they were supplying the Agency with photographs
of documents and correspondence purloined secretly from FPCC files. It is
also now certain that not only the CIA but also Army Intelligence had
'operational interest' in left-wing groups, including the FPCC. The
[Senate] Intelligence Committee discovered at least one case in which a
government informant was 'fronting' as a Castro supporter while remaining
an approved source of Army Intelligence" (Ibid., also citing HSCA *Final
Report,* 224).


Around this time, Marina Oswald says, her husband began talking about
wanting to travel to Cuba. She told the Warren Commission that she
thought Fidel's island was his real interest, and that he wanted a visa
to Russia only because it would grant him access to Cuba. On the other
hand, she noted that her marriage was happier this summer, however. In a
handwritten memoir submitted to the Warren Commission, she wrote that
"our family life in New Orleans was more peaceful. Lee took great
satisfaction in showing me the city where he was born. We often went to
the beach, the zoo, and the park. Lee liked to go and hunt crabs." On yet
another hand, she wrote Ruth Paine that Lee's love for her seemed to have
vanished almost immediately after Mrs. Paine left her in New Orleans. As
the summer wore on, she says, her husband became more and more unhappy
and depressed (WR 728).

It is more disturbing, inevitably, when Marina claims that her husband
spent a great deal of time that summer sitting on the front porch of
their apartment, silently working the bolt of his rifle -- something no
neighbor on the well-populated and well-lit street ever noticed, and not
a single person but Marina ever claimed that Oswald practiced with his
rifle in any manner. (This excludes a number of people in Dallas who
thought they saw Oswald practicing at a rifle range, but the Warren
Commission and this author agree that this could not have been the Oswald
we know.) It is especially frustrating when for a period of almost a
solid month in late August and early September, there is not a single
trace of Lee Harvey Oswald's existence -- except for Marina's testimony
that he was at home reading and fooling with his rifle most of the time
during this period.

Why all the anxiety over this? Because many people place him elsewhere
that summer.

Please click here to continue to "Oswald in New Orleans, Part 2."
Here