forward any kind of classified files to the usual place for having these cards made-- we should forward them to the Classified Files Section, which would take it up from there, and give them to the proper person to have a card made.

Mr. Coleman.

Miss Waterman, it is your testimony that based upon the red refusal sheet that you prepared, and also the operations memorandums which have been marked respectively Commission Exhibit No. 962 and Commission Exhibit No. 963, that you had done all you were supposed to do, and that the file then should have been passed over to somebody else, and a lookout card should have been prepared?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes, yes; that was our procedure at that time at least.

Mr. Coleman.

Now, after March 28, 1960, and prior to February 1961, in that period, did your department, or did you take other actions in connection with the Oswald case, with the hope that you would finally be able to reach a decision on Oswald, as to whether he had expatriated himself or not?
Miss WATERMAN. I don't think there was too much going on in the file in 1960.

Mr. Coleman.

Well, I would like to call your attention to----
Miss WATERMAN. But in 1961----

Mr. Coleman.

Before we get to 1961, I would like to call your attention to the memorandum from Mr. White to Mr. Hazelton, dated July 20, 1960, and the next document, which is a handwritten piece of paper, dated 2-15-61.
Do you have that? Your number should be X-49.
I show you the document which is marked in your file X-49, and it has been given Commission Exhibit No. 965.
Now, is that your handwriting on that document?

Mr. Ehrlich.

Might I interject at this time? In looking at the originals of these I notice that X-49 is actually two memorandums. They were photostated as one, and thus probably you cannot actually read either one.

Mr. Coleman.

Well, I am referring to the one on top. Is that your writing "took initial action, action"----
Miss WATERMAN. No; that is Mr. Masterton--the memorandum on the little larger size below was a memorandum, informal memorandum, which I sent to my section chief, Mr. Masterton.

Mr. Coleman.

Could you indicate what you said in your memorandum?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I said, "Mr. Masterton, SCS, is writing to mother on welfare aspect of Lee Harvey Oswald. Last two paragraphs of Moscow dispatch 585, 2-8-61 appeared to be for PPT reply."
I believe that was a letter which had been prepared in SOS--you know what that is.

Mr. Coleman.

Yes.
Miss WATERMAN. And had been forwarded to our office for clearance, for our initial, before it was mailed, to reply to some inquiry of the mother.

Mr. Coleman.

Now, on top of that memorandum you read, that you prepared, there is another memorandum, isn't there?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.

Mr. Coleman.

Now, could you read that into the record?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; "SCS. Took initial action on action copy, case of split action. Copy our action to go to SCS."

Mr. Coleman.

Do you know or do you have any knowledge what they meant about case is split action?
Miss WATERMAN. Well, it has been a long time since I have seen the material. But I believe that the mother, Mrs. Oswald, in writing to the Department, to the Secretary, probably brought up various questions about her son. Now--questions which related to his welfare or physical repatriation, or something of that type, which would come under the jurisdiction of the Special Consular Services, should be answered there. Any inquiries which were about his citizenship or his passport, anything that came within the purview of the Passport Office, should have a reply drafted by Miss Knight's office, or elsewhere in the office.

Mr. Coleman.

In other words, you are saying that the phrase, split action, on Commission Exhibit No. 965, doesn't mean that----
Miss WATERMAN. The decision was split; no.

Mr. Coleman.

It just means that different offices in the Department would have to make different decisions, or take different action?

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:34 CET