(Testimony of Resumed)
Mr. Coleman.
Sir, after the memorandum of August 28, 1961, which is mission Exhibit No. 944, did you have anything else to do with Lee Oswald or his wife Marina?
Mr. Mcvickar.
No; I don't think so, because I left almost immediately afterward, end I had nothing more to do with the case.
Mr. Coleman.
When you made the decision: (1) That Marina's petition for immigration should be granted, and (2) recommended that there should be a waiver of the sanction provided by section 243 (g), did anyone tell you or request that you make this decision?
Mr. Mcvickar.
Now one thing. I want to be sure we are accurate on my function. I was merely recommending these things. I was not making a decision. I was recommending a favorable advisory opinion from the security point of view from the Department of State. I was recommending the approval of the visa petition to grant her the status under the quota system of the wife of an American citizen, and I was recommending that the immigration service waive the sanctions imposed by 243 (g), principally because she was the wife of an American citizen.
But this was my responsibility to make these recommendations, and I did so of my own free will as the officer-in-charge of this particular aspect of the case.
Mr. Coleman.
No one called you and asked you to do it?
Mr. Mcvickar.
No, no; it was my responsibility to look into the matter and make the recommendation and I did.
Mr. Coleman.
And did you have any other facts in your possession or in your knowledge other than those which were set forth in the memorandum dated August 28, 1961, concerning whether Marine was eligible for admission as a nonquota immigrant?
Mr. Mcvickar.
No; as far as I know the facts are as stated right there, and these facts were obtained from here on the basis of an interview with her, a personal interview.
Mr. Coleman.
I have no other questions.
Representative Ford.
Mr. McVickar, in your memorandum dated April 7, 1964, in the first paragraph you say: "Although I now regret that I made no notes on this even then unusual case, the following points seem to me to lend weight to my suggestion especially considering the youth and relative inexperience of the subject."
Was the Oswald case in October of 1959 a then unusual case?
Mr. Mcvickar.
Yes; because we had had only a few people in the category of defectors, and at that point I think we might have had--this was the third one that had come up since I had been there, and the other two were much less aggressive, much less determined, and much less self-possessed people.
One of them turned out to be suffering from various mental diseases, and another one was a very weak individual who had been sort of lead astray by some Russian female agent, but this was a man who had, you know, he came directly and walked in, slammed his passport down. It was an unusual case from the very beginning.
Representative Ford.
In the next paragraph you discuss in this memorandum the entry of Oswald into the Soviet Union through Helsinki. Is there any other port of entry into the Soviet Union that is comparable to Helsinki in the context you are using it here?
Mr. Mcvickar.
Well, yes; there are a number of other ways to get into the Soviet Union. I would think by far the most used one is to arrive at the airport in Moscow. And then frequently used by people who have not very much means, would be to come by rail from Western Europe by way of Warsaw and the port of entry in that case is Brest. One could also come by sea into Odessa. It would not be unusual to arrive by air in Leningrad.
Representative Ford.
But in this memorandum in that paragraph you say, "He would have to have known the not too obvious fact that Helsinki is an unusual and relatively uncomplicated point of entry to the Soviet Union (one that the Soviets might well choose, for example, if arranging the passage themselves)."
Mr. Mcvickar.
Yes.
|
