Mr. Rankin. This is correspondence with regard to the dishonorable discharge.
Mrs. Oswald, will you look at a photostatic copy of that correspondence?
Mrs. Oswald. Yes, that is the letter I just read. That is the back of the envelope. And this letter.
Mr. Rankin. That is a very poor copy.
Mrs. Oswald. Is this the letter we taped?
Mr. Liebeler. I don't believe so, no.
Mrs. Oswald. I know we taped one, because we could not copy it.
Mr. Rankin. Can you read it?
Mrs. Oswald. Yes. "I desire to inform"——
Mr. Rankin. That is your letter of April 10, 1960?
Mrs. Oswald. Yes.
Mr. Rankin. And who did you send it to?
Mr. Liebeler. May I say this, Mr. Rankin: We did tape that, and I do have a transcription of it here.
Mrs. Oswald. "I ask for a stay of action, and I will be willing to act in his behalf."
Mr. Rankin. Mrs. Oswald. I will hand you what I am asking the reporter to mark as Exhibit 205.
I ask you if Exhibit 205 is a correct transcription of your letter.
MRS. Oswald. Yes.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 205, for identification.)
Mrs. Oswald. "I am writing you on behalf of my son. He is out of the country at present, and since I have no contact with him I wish to request a stay of action concerning his discharge. Also, I desire to be informed of the charges against him. Please state reasons for such discharge. After hearing from you, I will be willing to act in his behalf."
So then comes a registered return receipt, addressed only to Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. Rankin. Now, will you examine the rest of Exhibit 204 and state whether that is the rest of the correspondence in regard to the matter that you know about?
Mrs. Oswald. This is addressed to me—this envelope is addressed to me, that is right, sir.
Mr. Rankin. And those photostatic copies in Exhibit 204 are all copies of your papers that you furnished to us, so we could make them, is that right?
Mrs. Oswald. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Rankin. I offer in evidence Exhibits 204 and 205.
The Chairman. They may be admitted, with those numbers.
(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 204 and 205 were received in evidence.)
Mrs. Oswald. I believe, Chief Justice Warren, I am giving information that this Commission did not have before. I do not think they had this return addressee, which is important, because after corresponding with me, as Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, they sent the dishonorable discharge in Lee's name, addressee only, when they knew he was out of the country.
I would like to know why.
That is another reason why I think that Lee was probably an agent.
Mr. Rankin. What do you mean by that, Mrs. Oswald? Could you explain that a little more?
Mrs. Oswald. Yes. I do not think they wanted me to have the dishonorable discharge.
Again, they wanted me to be upset and tell people about it, but not have the proof of the dishonorable discharge.
Mr. Rankin. Don't you think it is possible that they felt he was the one involved, and, therefore, they had to get the word directly to him for legal reasons?
Mrs. Oswald. No, sir, because, legally—I am glad you brought up the point, Mr. Rankin.
Your copies state that anyone can act in your behalf. And I wrote, as I read the copy, that I would be willing to act in my son's behalf, and I was making arrangements to get money and go there and act in his behalf because I had pertinent information. And they ignored my letter and sent this—yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin. They may have felt you had not been given authority to act.
Mrs. Oswald. Well, what they may feel and what they should do—I am saying I am an American citizen, and I have some rights. And when I want to act in behalf of my son, we don't know whether he is living or dead, then I should act in behalf, I should not get a return.
I am glad you are bringing these points up. My rights have been invaded and my son's.
I make that statement for the record.
Now, we shall go to Lee's childhood.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mrs. Oswald. Now, Chief Justice Warren, I have pictures of my son that Mr. Jenner would like this Commission to have, because it shows Lee at age 15 and 16, and myself, which was supposed to be a life of psychiatric treatment. And I am more than happy—I volunteered to help my country in every way possible—to let the Commission have everything that I have. But you must understand that these are very valuable pictures, sir. I am having people wanting rights to a book, and these pictures are very, very valuable to me. And I would not want any of these pictures lost. Financially they are valuable, and to my story, sir. And they are the only pictures in existence.
I have sold a few pictures in order to live.
But the way I have done it—the photographer had this picture in particular—have come to my home and copied the pictures and gave it to me back in my hand. I cannot afford to have any of these pictures lost, sir. It is my story that some day I hope to write.
So I was told that if I continue with the life history of Lee as a child and show the pictures, then they would have to be admitted for the record.
Am I correct, sir?
The Chairman. That is our way of proceeding, yes.
Mrs. Oswald. So now when I show the pictures, will you personally give me assurance that these pictures will in no way be used?
The Chairman. No, I cannot do that. The Commission cannot do it. If you have something that you consider your personal property, that you do not want to give to the Commission, you may withhold it.
Mrs. Oswald. I did not say, sir, I did not want to give it to the Commission.
The Chairman. Just a minute. I do not believe they bear directly on the matter we are investigating. They might be helpful. They might not be helpful. But you may have the choice of determining whether you want to introduce them or not.
But if you do introduce them, the Commission cannot put any limitation upon the use that it might make of them.
Now, I don't mean by that that we are going to necessarily distribute them or anything of that kind. But the Commission cannot limit itself in the reception of its evidence. It must have the power
