(Testimony of Alan H. Belmont)
Mr. Belmont.
namely, that they were recorded in the file. In the event it was desired to talk to him further at a future date, they would be considered as to whether we desired to have him further explain.
Mr. Stern.
On page 12, in response to question 22, which asked for an explanation of the reason for the investigation to ascertain his whereabouts, the letter reads, "In view of Oswald's background and activities the FBI had a continuing interest in him."
What was the nature of that continuing interest at that time?
Mr. Belmont.
On August 21, 1963, because of his activities in distributing these pamphlets, and his arrest in New Orleans, headquarters here in Washington sent a letter to the New Orleans and Dallas offices instructing them to pursue the investigation. In other words, in evaluating this information we felt it desirable that we further explore his activities to determine whether they were inimical to the internal security of the country. So that we had this continuing interest based on our evaluation, and so instructed our field offices.
Mr. Stern.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the answers to the other questions give us a complete enough record.
The Chairman.
Very well.
Mr. Stern.
May this exhibit which has been marked 833 for identification be admitted?
The Chairman.
It may be admitted in evidence under that number.
(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 833 for identification, was received in evidence.)
Mr. Mccloy.
Is there anything else, Mr. Belmont, that you may want to add? You have already been asked this question as you went through all these questions and answers, but is there anything else you would like to add in view of your answers this morning in further elaboration of the answers that have been given?
Mr. Belmont.
No, sir; unless the Commission has further questions at this point, I believe that the questions are answered properly and sufficiently.
Mr. Mccloy.
You think that if you are interviewing a defector which is something that provokes your interest, and I guess the mere fact of defection and return to the United States would do so, and if you found that defector was lying to you, you think that without something in addition to that there would be no further necessity of examining him. Is that a fair question? Let me put it another way.
Mr. Belmont.
I have just a little difficulty following you.
Mr. Mccloy.
Here is my point. Here was a defector who comes within the category of interesting cases naturally.
Mr. Belmont.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
And you question him and you find he is lying to you. At that stage, as I understand your testimony, you say without something more you don't necessarily go any further, is that right?
Mr. Belmont.
No; that is not correct. We had talked to this man twice in detail concerning the question of possible recruitment by Soviet intelligence.
We had checked his activities. He was settling down. He had a wife and a child. He had, according to what he had told us, in our interview with him, he had not enjoyed his stay in Russia. The State Department evaluation of him in Moscow was that he had learned his lesson and, as a matter of fact, he had made some statement to the effect that he now recognized the value of the American way of life, along those lines.
So that we had pretty well settled that issue. At the time that we interviewed him in the jail in New Orleans, we had again been following his activities because of his communications, his contacts with The Worker and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and our interest there was to determine whether he was a dangerous subversive. The interview in the jail was very apparently a self-serving interview in an attempt to explain his activities in the New Orleans area, and if I recall correctly, he took the position that the policy as directed against Cuba was not correct, and that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was merely addressing itself to the complaints of Cuba, and was not in effect a subversive organization.
|
