He never mentioned who he was or nothing.

Mr. Liebeler: How long did he talk to him, do you remember?

Mr. Delgado: About an hour and a half, 2 hours.

Mr. Liebeler: Was he supposed to be on duty that time?

Mr. Delgado: Right. And he had the guy relieve him, calling me about every 15 minutes, where is he, the relief, where is the relief, you know, because he had already pulled his tour of duty and Oswald was posted to walk 4 hours and he only walked about an hour and a half before he received this visitor, you know, which was an odd time to visit, because it was after 6, and it must have been close to 10 o'clock when he had that visitor, because anybody, civilian or other otherwise, could get on post up to 9 o'clock at night that he had the visitor, it was late at night (8H241-2)

At that time Delgado thought this might have been connected with Oswald's chatter about the Cuban consulate:

Mr. Delgado: . . . because I thought it funny for him to be receiving a caller at such a late date -- time. Also, up to this time be hardly ever received mail; in fact he very seldom received mail from home, because I made it a policy, I used to pick up the mail for our hut and distribute it to the guys in there, and very seldom did I see one for him. But every so often, after he started to get in contact with these Cuban people, he started getting little pamphlets and newspapers, and he always got a Russian paper, and I asked him if it was, you know, a Commie paper -- they let you get away with this in the Marine Corps in a site like this -- and he said, "No, It's not Communist, It's a White Russian. To me that was Greek, you know, White Russian, so I guess he is not a Communist; but he was steady getting that periodical. It was a newspaper.

Mr. Liebeler: In the Russian language?

Mr. Delgado: Right.

Mr. Liebeler: And he received that prior to the time be contacted the Cuban consulate did he not?

Mr. Delgado: Right. And he also started receiving letters, you know and no books, maybe pamphlets, you know little -- like church, things we get from church, you know, but it wasn't a church.

Mr. Liebeler: Were they written in Spanish any of them, do you know?

Mr. Delgado: Not that I can recall; no. (8H242)

Liebeler then asked, "Did you have any reason to believe that these things came to Oswald from the Cuban consulate?" (8H243)

Delgado's response was equivocal, so Liebeler rephrased the question: You don't know for sure

Page 100

whether it was from the Cuban consulate?"

This time Delgado said, " No."

And it was "right after he had this conversation with the Cuban people" who were not "Cuban people" that Oswald told Delgado that "once he got out of the service he was going to Switzerland, he was going to school . . ." (8H243). Oswald did, in fact, apply for admission to the Albert Schweitzer college and used this as his excuse for foreign travel. He never went there, never made the pretense of going there, and there is now no reason to believe he ever intended going there. He bee-lined for the Soviet Union. The rest is history.

Bearing on this and to me one of the most fascinating of the too many raveled threads the Commission's lawyers left hanging is an FBI report of November 25, 1963, the first regular working day after the assassination. It is in File 75, one of the larger ones, page 677 of the second volume. It would seem to indicate the intelligence connections in New Orleans of an Oswald who could not have been Lee Harvey Oswald. But the Commission's lawyers were consistent. As they ignored all the abundant proofs of Lee Harvey's intelligence connections, so they left for the future the revelation of the real meaning of this, one of the very first, FBI interrogations.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/25/63

OSCAR W. DESLATTE, Assistant Manager, Truck Sales, Bolton Ford Company, 1483 North Claiborne Avenue, advised that he recalled two men coming to Bolton Ford on January 20, 1961. He remembered the date and following information as he had in his posses-

Page 101

sion a bid for purchase form made out to Friends of Democratic Cuba, 402 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana (Telephone Number JA 6-0763).

He said a Mr. JOSEPH MOORE, whose description he cannot remember, nor can he furnish any other identifying data regarding him, advised him that he and his friend, were representing the above organization and wished to purchase ten Ford Econoline Trucks. DESLATTE said MOORE listed the equipment he desired on the trucks, but he did not state whether they were for use here in the United States or were to be sent to Cuba. DESLATTE quoted him the price and advised that he would make a $75 profit on; each truck. MOORE said that he thought they should get the trucks for no profit for his organization. MOORE then told him that he should change the name on the bid form from MOORE to OSWALD, no first name given. The individual with MOORE then said that was his name and it should go on the form as he was the man with the money and would pay for the trucks, if they were purchased.

DESLATTE was exhibited a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD and he said he cannot recall ever having seen him before nor could he say this was the individual who had come in with either of the men who came in as it was almost three years ago that they were there and only spent a short time with him. He said he remembered this incident, not by the name OSWALD, but because of the name of the organization represented.

DESLATTE said that he, himself, filled out the above mentioned bid form completely and neither individual either handled it or signed it. He said that he made the original of this form available to them and retained a carbon copy of this form for his use, which he said he made available to the interviewing Agents.

On 11/25/63 at New Orleans, Louisiana File No. 89-69

Page 102

by SA's WILLIAM F. MC DONALD & W. J. DANIELSON, JR./lrs. -- Date dictated 11/25/63.

This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.

677

Ah! what the mind can do with an Oswald, not Lee Harvey, in this sort of relationship with one of the organizations so well known as CIA groups! With its suppression by the Commission, in whose files it exists, what else can one do with it save ignore it?

But it cannot be ignored. It compels conjecture, and it demands answer.

Was this Oswald a relative of Lee Harvey? If this is so, with Lee Harvey then in Russia, can it be inferred that when he was in Russia he had a relative who had connections with U.S. intelligence, the CIA? If this, in turn, is true, does this indicate anything about Lee Harvey, when he was in Russia or before?

Lee Harvey was not the only one of his name in the employ of the Reilly Coffee Company, his place of work once he got settled in New Orleans and got a job. Any connection here?

The Reilly Coffee Company is across the street from the then Main Post Office, which figures in this story, next door to the Capital City Garage, where the FBI and Secret Service cars were kept and where Lee Harvey hung out, and a block away from the Newman building, to which we will come in due time, where other center stage actors in intelligence operations and in the drama of Oswald in New Orleans could have been found.

Page 103

5. THE GAY BOYS AND THEIR JIVE-TALKING LAWYER

Consistent with intelligence-agency involvement with Oswald and the Commission's great but publicly undisclosed interest in homosexuality and Oswald is the fascinating, jive-talk testimony of a short and roly -poly, warm and moon-faced, crew-cut, bespectacled, then-brave, articulate and off-beat New Orleans lawyer, Dean Adams Andrews. Had his testimony been given in public or to anybody other than this Commission, had it been taken by almost any lawyer other than Wesley Liebeler, had it been heeded in any way, it could have made the writing of this Report impossible.

When he was belatedly called as a witness, three months too late, friendly, affable, talkative and seemingly intending to be helpful, Andrews laid out the bizarre story of Oswald's connections with "Latinos," "Mexicanos" and "Cubanos" and the homosexual ring never once mentioned in the Report. He introduced the Jekyll-Hyde character of Clay Bertrand and additional and unmistakable inferences of CIA involvement. Yet the name of Clay Bertrand is not once mentioned in the Report; nor are the connections and involvements of those gay men of Cuban and Mexican ancestry.

The International Trade Mart in New Orleans was built with solid commercial purposes in mind. It had the proper objective of fostering international trade, of making New Orleans famous, drawing commerce to her port.

It has given New Orleans a kind of fame and it has promoted trade. These are not, however, identical, for the international fame of the International Trade Mart began with the odd activities of this odd man, Lee

Page 105

Harvey Oswald, then an unknown. On August 16, 1962, he staged the third of his now-famous distributions of pro-Castro literature right outside of it, of all the buildings in New Orleans.

The first of these was a mid-June 1963 picketing of the fleet in the harbor (22H803ff). Oswald arrived in New Orleans the end of April (R725, 26H762). The second was the more famous event, the one that served to get him front-page attention, the one that Carlos Bringuier so conveniently broke up. The third is less well known, although the Commission did mention it

in its hearings. But then, those hearings were secret. About a sixth of all the hearings had as few as a single member of the Commission present. Most had but the Commission lawyer, empowered to administer oaths, the stenographer and the witness. These were, in effect, star chamber proceedings. They were the equivalent of back rooms, mostly in Dallas. Of particular interest to us here are those few in New Orleans, which is where what little testimony we have was taken. Not all the testimony that could and should have been taken was adduced. The most important witnesses never appeared before the Commission or its lawyers.

In these proceedings, there was no opposing counsel, a sad lack. The press was not admitted. The testimony was not available at the time the Report was issued. When it was later released, it came in such a verbal tidal wave that no one could compare it with the Report and vice versa. There was then and is now no logical way of following the testimony, comparing it with the Report that ostensibly comes from it or with the many but inadequate exhibits that are entirely chaotic and unclassified, unindexed and incomplete.

Thus, we know and can learn almost nothing about the man who helped build and for years, until his rather early retirement in his 52nd year, apparently in excellent health, successfully managed the Trade Mart. Fascinating, exotic and important as he may be,

Page 106

he is also one of the characters in this story about whom these files say least. They do not mention his right name -- not once!

He attracted the greatest attention to the Trade Mart when he was arrested on March 1, 1967, charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the assassination. He was first publicized in connection with the assassination in Whitewash where I brought him to light under the alias by which he was known to Dean Adams Andrews.

Andrews had been called as a witness but not heard in the first series of New Orleans hearings held April 7 and 8, 1964. Here, again, Wesley J. Liebeler took the essential testimony and examined, if this word is appropriate, the main witnesses. It is Liebeler who called but did not hear Andrews in April and who did on July 21, 1964. By this time, the month after the hearings had been scheduled to end, Carlos Bringuier and Nelson Delgado, among others, had testified. In these two instances also, the testimony had been taken by Liebeler.

Andrews should have been the first or one of the first of the New Orleans witnesses. His testimony should have been used as the basis for interrogating other witnesses who, not surprisingly, were never called by the Commission.

So unique, so important, so unlike anything else in official proceedings of any kind Andrews testimony -- what Liebeler would allow, not what he could have dug out and did not -- that we shall examine it later in Andrews own words.

Many of the real-life characters in the real story of the assassination, only some of whom were witnesses before the Commission, are as unlikely as though they had been created by an unrestrained novelist. There are school dropouts with a yen for education and total recall, perjurers, police with convenient memories, strippers and a whore who need not have been one,

Page 107

psychiatrists patients and psychiatrists without current knowledge or information, mental deficient, narcotics addicts and those who beat the habit, homosexuals, degenerates, and the heads of government agencies and of the government itself.

In his own way, Dean Andrews is one of the more improbable ones. The years are rounding his short frame. He is a devoted father who takes his son to the New Orleans Athletic Club Sunday mornings to play handball with fellow lawyer -- and his personal lawyer Sam Monk Zelden, thus combining his responsibilities to his son and to his waistline. He is a politician who, at the time of the assassination, was running for Jefferson Parish judge (from a hospital bed for two-thirds of the last fortnight) in an election held Pearl Harbor Day and who, three-and-a-half-years later, at the time of the inquiry by his friend Jim Garrison, was assistant district attorney of that Parish whose then most famous or infamous resident had been David William Ferrie.

As a lawyer Andrews was true to the ethics and responsibilities of his profession, taking unpopular cases, including those of political and sexual deviates. This is what makes him part of the story of the assassination and of Oswald in New Orleans. It is doubtful if there was ever a lawyer in any kind of official proceeding who employed fewer legal phrases or more slang. At times he had to translate himself so Liebeler could understand him. On the stand or in court, he speaks as he does in private life, in the language of his less conventional clients. His speech is exotic, pungent and direct, having its own kind of rare expressiveness. Although flamboyant as Bourbon Street, his testimony was pointed, consistent, hard and unretracted despite the unhidden government dissatisfaction with it, apparent in Liebeler's questioning as it was in the suppressed and unsuccessful FBI effort to get him and his associates to retract.

Page 108

Instead of opening the New Orleans Investigation on April 7, 1964, as planned, with Andrews one of the first witnesses, Liebeler delayed his appearance until, by the Commission's April design, the investigation would have been completed and the Report made. Not until July 21 was Andrews heard, not until the fiction of a New Orleans investigation was over. Although most witnesses were, from the record, requested by letter to testify, Andrews was subjected to the legal formality and the compulsion of a subpoena. The record shows no unwillingness on his part to testify or cooperate in any way. The problem he presented was a different one: He was anxious to testify and to place on record his belief in Oswald's innocence and the complicity of others. In this he remained steadfast under pressure most people are inclined to yield to, declining to be persuaded or intimidated into changing any of it.

To pretty it up a bit, because the government knew he could not, Andrews was commanded to bring with him:

All records, papers, notes and other documents in your possession or under your control pertaining to any possible representation of Lee Harvey Oswald by you during the period April 1, 1963 through December 31, 1963; including any such writings indicating that Oswald called in your office, either alone or in the company of others, or any such writings indicating any attempt which may have been made by any person including one Clay Bertrand to retain your services on behalf of Lee Harvey Oswald in connection with his involvement with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and any other such writings pertaining to that assassination.

This is what is known as a subpoena duces tecum. If impelled by a desire to leave a record adverse to Andrews, it was, like so many other things that permeated everything the Commission did, a lemming-like compulsion to self-destruction, a record of duplicity. In naming only Oswald and Clay Bertrand in this confidential document, in not naming the man who used what the Attorney General himself, on March 2, 1967, said is the alias of Clay Bertrand, the Commis -

Page 109

sion betrayed its own dishonesty and the intent of the investigation to pin a bum rap on Oswald, whom the public had already been bamboozled into thinking (or seeming to think) was alone, unassisted and alienated assassin, and to sweep everything else under the rug.

Knowing who Clay Bertrand really was -- and this knowledge was the entire defense of the government when Garrison made the identity public -- the Commission could not with honor and honesty avoid confronting Andrews with him, prior to the hearing or at it. Instead, knowing Andrews did not know who played Hyde to Bertrand's Jekyll, it pretended it also did not know. Nowhere in the millions of printed words is there the name of the man who went as Clay Bertrand. Nowhere in the 900 pages of the Report is his real name or his alias mentioned. Not once in the 15 printed pages of Andrews's interrogation and testimony (11H325-39) did Liebeler hint at government knowledge of the identity.

After this all became public and the subject of banner headlines, front-page newspaper treatment, Liebeler was quoted by Gene Roberts in the New York Times of March 3 as saying "that a 'very substantial' investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation" had been conducted in New Orleans. It is always someone else with Liebeler.

As will be seen in the testimony that follows, Liebeler used the FBI reports when they served his purpose. The very first thing he did after properly and briskly getting Andrews's identification into the record was to invoke the FBI:

Mr. Liebeler: I am advised by the FBI that you told them that Lee Harvey Oswald came into your office some time during the summer of 1963. Would you tell us in your own words just what happened as far as that is concerned?

Mr. Andrews: I don't recall the dates, but briefly, It is this: Oswald came in the office accompanied by some gay kids. They were Mexicanos. He wanted to find out what could be done in connection with a discharge, a yellow paper discharge, so I explained to him he would have

Page 110

to advance the funds to transcribe whatever records they had up in the Adjutant General's office. When he brought the money, I would do the work, and we saw him three or four times subsequent to that, not in the company of the gay kids. He had this Mexicano with him. I assume he is a Mex because the Latins do not wear a butch haircut.

Mr. Liebeler: The first time be came in he was with those Mexicans, and there were also some gay kids. By that, of course, you mean people that appeared to you to be homosexuals?

Mr. Andrews: Well, they swish. What they are I don't know. We call them gay kids.

Mr. Liebeler: Had you ever seen any of those kids before?

Mr. Andrews: None of them.

Mr. Liebeler: Have you seen any of them since?

Mr. Andrews: Since the first time they came in?

Mr. Liebeler: Since the first time they came in.

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: You have?

Mr. Andrews: Yes

Mr. Liebeler: Did they ever come back with Oswald?

Mr. Andrews: No; Mexicanos came back.

Mr. Liebeler: Where did you see these gay kids after the first time?

Mr. Andrews: First district precinct. Police picked them up for wearing clothes of the opposite sex.

Mr. Liebeler: How many of them were there?

Mr. Andrews: About 50.

Mr. Liebeler: They weren't all with Oswald, were they?

Mr. Andrews: No; Oswald -- you see, they made what they call a scoop and put them all in the pokey. I went down for the ones I represented. They were in the holding pavilion. I paroled them and got them out.

Mr. Liebeler: You do represent from time to time some of these gay kids, is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: You say that some of the gay kids that you saw at the time the police arrested this large group of them for wearing clothes of the opposite sex were the ones that had been with Oswald?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Were you able to identify them by name?

Mr. Andrews: No, you see, they just -- we don't even open up files on them. We don't open a file. We mark what we call a working file. We make a few notes and put it in the general week's work. If you come hack and the office is retained, we make a permanent file and -- but these kids come and go like -- you know.

Mr. Liebeler: When were these people picked up by the police as you have told us?

Mr. Andrews: Let me think. Some time In May. I went and checked the records. I couldn't find nothing on it. I believe it's May of 1963.

Mr. Liebeler: They were picked up in May of 1963?

Mr. Andrews: On Friday.

Mr. Liebeler: That was after Oswald had been in your office?

Mr. Andrews: After Oswald's initial contact. I think he had come

back with this Mexicano one more time.

Mr. Liebeler: Before these people were arrested?

Page 111

Mr. Andrews: Yes; then the second time he came hack, we talked about the yellow paper discovery, about his status as a citizen, and about his wife's status.

Mr. Liebeler: Now before we get into that, let me try and pin down how long it was after the first time Oswald came in that these kids were arrested. All 50 of them for wearing these clothes?

Mr. Andrews: I don't know it was 50. That I can't remember.

Mr. Liebeler: Was it a month? Two months? A week?

Mr. Andrews: No; it wasn't that. Ten days at the most.

Mr. Liebeler: I suppose the New Orleans Police Department files would reflect the dates these people were picked up?

Mr. Andrews: I checked the first district's blotter and the people are there, but I just can't get their names. You see, they wear names just like you and I wear clothes. Today their name is Candy; tomorrow it is Butsie ; next day it is Mary. You never know what they are. Names are a very improbable method of identification. More sight. Like you see a dog. He is black and white. That's your dog. You how them by sight mostly.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember what day it was that that large arrest was made?

Mr. Andrews: No; every Friday is arrest day in New Orleans. They clean them all up. The shotgun squad keeps the riots, the mugging, and all the humbug out. They have been doing that very effectively. You can pick just any Friday.

Mr. Liebeler: This was on a Friday?

Mr. Andrews: It had to he a Friday or Saturday.

Mr. Liebeler: In May of 1963?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: After you saw these kids at this big pickup on Friday or Saturday, did you ever see any of them again after that?

Mr. Andrews: No until looking for them. They owe me a fee.

Mr. Liebeler: They are always the hardest ones to find.

Mr. Andrews: They usually pay. They are screwed in.

Mr. Liebeler: What did Oswald say to you about his own citizenship status? You say that he mentioned that the second time he came back. What did he talk to you about in that regard?

Mr. Andrews: They came in usually after hours, about 5, 5:15, and as I recall, he had alleged that he had abandoned his citizenship. He didn't say how; he didn't say where. I assumed that he was one of the people who wanted to join The Free World and -- I represented one or two of them. They had belonged to The World Citizenship -- I explained to him there are certain steps he had to do, such as taking an oath of loyalty to a foreign power, voting in a foreign country election, or some method that is recognized defectively as loss of citizenship. Then I told him, "Your presence in the United States is proof you are a citizen. Otherwise, you would be an alien with an alien registration with a green card, form 990."

Mr. Liebeler: Had he told you he had been out of the country?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he tell you where he had gone?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Since he had been out of the country, the fact that he

Page 112

was back and didn't have an alien card was proof he was a citizen?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember any other part of the conversation?

Mr. Andrews: When he asked the questions -- I don't know which visit it was -- about citizenship of his wife I asked the birthplace or origin cited for citizenship purposes -- that's what counts -- and be said Russia so I just assumed he had met someone somewhere, some place, either; in Russia or in Europe, married them, and brought them over here as a GI, a GI bride and wanted to go through the routine of naturalization, which is 3 years after lawful admission into the United States if you are married and five years if you are not, maintain the status here in the States cumulatively for 5 years.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he indicate that he wanted to institute citizenship proceedings for his wife?

Mr. Andrews: Yes: I told him to go to Immigration and get the forms. Cost him $10. All he had to do was execute them. He didn't need a lawyer. That was the end of that.

Mr. Liebeler: How many times did he come into your office?

Mr. Andrews: Minimum of three, maximum of five, counting initial visit.

Mr. Liebeler: And did you talk about different subjects at different times? As I understand it, the first time he came there he was primarily concerned about his discharge is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: Well, I may have the subject matter of the visits reversed because with the company be kept and the conversation -- be could talk fairly well -- I figured that this was another one of what we call in my office free alley clients, so we didn't maintain the normalcy with the file that -- might have scratched a few notes on a piece of pad, and 2 days later threw the whole thing away. Didn't pay too much attention to him. Only time I really paid attention to this boy, he was in the front of the Madison Blanche Building giving out these kooky Castro things.

Mr. Liebeler: When was this approximately?

Mr. Andrews: I don't remember. I was coming from the NBC building, and I walked past him. You know how you see somebody, recognize him. So I turned around, came back, and asked him what he was doing giving that junk out. He said it was a job. I reminded him about the $25 he owed the office. He said be would come over there, but he never did.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he tell you that he was getting paid to hand out the literature?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Did he tell you how much?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember telling the FBI that he told you that he was being paid $25 a day for handing out these leaflets?

Mr. Andrews: I could have told them that. I know I reminded him of the $25. I may have confused, the $25. What I do recall, he said it was a job. I guess I asked him how much he was making. They were little square chits a little bit smaller than the picture you have of him over there (Indicating).

Mr. Liebeler: He was handing out these leaflets?

Mr. Andrews: They were black and-white pamphlets extolling the vir -

Page 113

tues of Castro, which around here doesn't do too good. They have a lot of guys, Mexicanos and Cubanos, that will tear your head off if they see you fooling with those things.

Mr. Andrews: This is Oswald.

Mr. Liebeler: That's the fellow who was in your office?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you have any doubt about that in your mind?

Mr. Andrews: I don't believe; no. This is him. I just can't place it. This isn't where I saw him. This is probably around the vicinity of the International Trade Mart.

Oswald did distribute his handbill outside the International Trade Mart a week later, on August 16, 1963.

Mr. Liebeler: (handing plcture to witness). I show you another picture that has been marked for identification as "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1," and ask you if you recognize anybody in that plcture and the street scene.

Mr. Andrews: Oswald is marked with an X, and a client of mine is over here on the right-hand side.

Mr. Liebeler: Is that a paying client or what?

Mr. Andrews: No; paying client (Indicating). And this dress belongs to a girl friend.

Mr. Liebeler: Which one is your client?

Mr. Andrews. It should be three. There's two sisters and this young lady (Indicating).

Mr. Liebeler: What's her name?

Mr. Andrews: I don't remember.

Mr. Liebeler: You are referring to the woman that appears on the far right-hand side of the picture with a handbag on her arm?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Now you say Oswald is marked wlth an X, and you identify that as the man that you saw in your office and the same man you saw passing out pamphlets?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: I call your attention specifically to the second man who is standing behind Oswald to his right and facing toward the front wearlng a white, short-sleeved shirt and necktie, who also appears to have some leaflets in his hand. Have you ever seen that man before?

Mr. Andrews: The Mexicano that I associate Oswald with is approximately the same height, with the exception that he has a pronounced short butch haircut. He is stocky, well built.

Mr. Liebeler: The fellow that I have indicated to you on "Bringuier Exhibit No. 1" in too slightly built to be associated with Oswald: is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: He is stocky. Has what they call an athletic build.

Mr. Liebeler: Was this other fellow taller than Oswald or shorter than Oswald?

Mr. Andrews: Very close. Not taller. Probably same height; maybe a little smaller.

Mr. Liebeler: How much would you say the Mexican weighed approximately?

Page 114

Mr. Andrews: About 160, 165..

Mr. Liebeler: You say he was of medium build or heavy build?

Mr. Andrews: Well, stocky. He could go to "Fist City" pretty good if he had to.

Mr. Liebeler: How old would you say he was?

Mr. Andrews: About 26. Hard to tell.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember what he was wearing when he came into the office with Oswald on these different occasions?

Mr. Andrews: Normally, different colored silk pongee shirts, which are pretty rare, you know, for the beat, or what appeared to be pongee material.

Mr. Liebeler: Did you ever talk to this other fellow?

Mr. Andrews: Well, he talked Spanish, and all I told him was poco poco . That was it.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you speak Spanish?

Mr. Andrews: I can understand a little. I can if you speak it. I can read it. That's about all.

Mr. Liebeler (handing picture to witness). I show you a picture which has been marked "Frank Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C," and ask you if that is the same man that was in your office and the same man you say was passing out literature in the street.

Mr. Andrews: It appears to be.

Mr. Liebeler: Would you recognize the Mexican again if you saw him?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember telling the FBI that you wouldn't be able to recognize him again if you saw him?

Mr. Andrews: Probably did. Been a long time. There's three people I am going to find: One of them is the real guy that killed the President; the Mexican; and Clay Bertrand.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you mean to suggest by that statement that you have considerable doubt in your mind that Oswald killed the President?

Mr. Andrews: I know good and well he did not. With that weapon, he couldn't have been capable of making three controlled shots in that short time.

Mr. Liebeler: You are basing your opinion on reports that you have received over news media as to how many shots were fired in what period

of time; is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: I am basing my opinion on five years as an ordnance man in the Navy. You can lean into those things and with throwing the bolts -- if I couldn't do it myself, 8 hours a day doing this for a living constantly on the range, I know this civilian couldn't do it. He might have been a sharp marksman at one time, but if you don't lean into that rifle and don't squeeze and control constantly, your brain can tell you how to do it, but you don't have the capability.

Mr. Liebeler: You have used a pronoun in this last series of statements the pronoun "It." You are making certain assumptions as to what actually happened, or you have a certain notion in your mind as to what happened based on material you read in the newspaper?

Mr. Andrews: It doesn't make any difference. What you have to do is lean into a weapon, and, to fire three shots controlled with accuracy, this boy couldn't do it. Forget the President.

Mr. Liebeler: You base that judgment on the fact that, in your own

Page 115

experience, it is difficult to do that sort of thing?

Mr. Andrews: You have to stay with it. You just don't pick up a rifle or a pistol or whatever weapon you are using and stay proficient with it. You have to know what you are doing. You have to be conniver. This boy could have connived the deal, but I think he is a patsy. Somebody else pulled the trigger.

Mr. Liebeler: However, as we have indicated, it is your opinion. You don't have any evidence other than what you have already told us about your surmise and opinions about the rifle on which to base that statement; is that correct? If you do, I want to know what it is.

Mr. Andrews: If I did, I would give it to you. It's just taking the 5 years and thinking about it a bit. I have fired as much as 40,000 rounds of ammo a day for 7 days a week. You get pretty good with it as long as you keep firing. Then I have gone back after 2 weeks. I used to be able to take a shotgun, go on a skeet, and pop 100 out of 100. After 2 weeks, I could only pop 60 of them. I would have to start shooting again, same way with the rifle and machine guns. Every other person I knew, same thing happened to them. You just have to stay at it.

Mr. Liebeler: Now, did you see Oswald at any time subsequent to that time you saw him in the street handing out literature?

Mr. Andrews: I have never seen him since.

Mr. Liebeler: Can you tell us what month that was approximately?

Mr. Andrews: Summertime. Before July. I think the last time would be around -- the last could have been, I guess, around the 10th of July.

Mr. Liebeler: Around the 10th of July?

Mr. Andrews: I don't believe It was after that. It could have been before, but not after.

Mr. Liebeler. Now, you mentioned this Mexican that accompanied Oswald to your office. Have you seen him at any time subsequent to the last time Oswald came into your office?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Can you tell us approximately how long a period of time elapsed from the last time Oswald came into your office to the last time you saw him in the street handing out literature?.

Mr. Andrews: I would say about 6 weeks, just guessing.

Mr. Liebeler: And you have never seen the Mexican at any other time since then?

Mr. Andrews: No. He just couldn't have disappeared because the Mexican community here is pretty small. You can squeeze it pretty good, the Latin community. He is not known around here

Mr. Liebeler: Have you made an attempt to find him since the assassination?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: And you haven't had any success?

Mr. Andrews: No. Not too many places they can go not being noticed.

Mrs. Sylvia Odio and others were pointed in referring to the involvement of men of Mexican, not Cuban, ancestry in the story of The False Oswald. There had been an immediate investigation -- of sorts -- which

Page 116

confirmed Mrs. Odio, then a belated, limited inquiry by the FBI. A month after Andrews's testimony, Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin asked the FBI to investigate, not the story of The False Oswald, not the Mexicans in that or Andrews's testimony, but Mrs. Odio's truthfulness. This investigation was not completed when the Report was printed and distributed, a month after Rankin's request. It would seem that at this point in Andrews's testimony Liebeler might well have shown him pictures of these various characters in The False Oswald; once the FBI did get pictures during the too-little and too-late investigation it ultimately did make. It had pictures of these men that were five years old, pictures taken at the Florida base where they trained Cubans for the invasion of Cuba, and perhaps, eventually, the contemporaneous Dallas police pictures it pretended did not exist although the men arrested in Dallas just before the assassination told the FBI what pictures the police took.

Perhaps Andrews could not have identified these men, perhaps he would not have been willing to. There was but one way to learn, to show him pictures, and that was not done. Perhaps these were different men, but from Andrews's expressed determination to "find" the Mexican, there is no doubt he regarded the Mexican as an important person or clue.

It can still be done, and should be. He can then determine whether he is still willing, still unafraid.

In the testimony that follows, the "Hotel Dieu" is a hospital in New Orleans; Regis Kennedy, an FBI agent; and John Rice, the Special Agent in Charge of the New Orleans Secret Service office.

Mr. Liebeler: Was there anybody else with Oswald that day you saw him handing out literature?

Mr. Andrews: Oh, people standing there with him. Whether they were with him or not, I wouldn't know.

Mr. Liebeler: Did it appear that there was anybody else helping him hand out literature?

Mr. Andrews: There was one person, but they had no literature. They

Page 117

weren't giving anything out. Let me see that picture of that little bitty guy. That weasel before.

Mr Liebeler: (handing pictures to witness). This is Bringuier Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. Andrews: No; he resembled this boy but it is not him. It is a pale face instead of a Latin.

Mr. Liebeler: When you talked to Oswald on the street that day, did he give you any idea who was paying him to hand the stuff out?

Mr. Andrews: No he Just said, "It's a job."

Mr. Liebeler: My understanding is, of course,.that you are here under subpoena and subpoena ducet tecum, asking you to bring with you any records that you might have in your office indicating or reflecting Oswald's visit, and my understanding is that you indicated that you were unable to find any such records.

Mr. Andrews: Right. My office was rifled shortly after I got out of the hospital, and I talked with the FBI people. We couldn't find anything prior to it. Whoever was kind enough to mess my office up, going through it, we haven't found anything since.

Mr. Liebeler: You have caused a thorough search to he made of you office for these records?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: You haven't been able to come up with anything?

Mr. Andrews. No.

Mr. Liebeler: Did there come a time after the assassination when you had come further involvement with Oswald, or at least an apparent involvement with Oswald; as I understand it?

Mr. Andrews: No nothing at all with Oswald. I was in Hotel Dieu, and the phone rang and a voice I recognized at Clay Bertrand asked me if I would 80 to Dallas and Houston -- I think -- Dallas, I guess, wherever it was that this boy was being held -- and defend him. I told him I was sick in the hospital. If I couldn't go, I would find somebody that could go.

Mr. Liebeler: You told him you were sick in the hospital and what?

Mr. Andrews: That's where I was when the call came through. It came through the hospital switchboard. I said that I wasn't in shape enough to go to Dallas and defend him and I would see what I could do.

Mr. Liebeler: Now what can you tell us about this Clay Bertrand? You met him prior to that time?

Mr. Andrews: I had seen Clay Bertrand once some time ago, probably a couple of years. He's the one who calls in behalf of gay kids normally either to obtain bond or parole for them. I would assume that he was the one that originally sent Oswald and the gay kids, these Mexicanos, to the once because I had never seen those people before at all. They were just walk-ins.

Mr. Liebeler: You say that you think you saw Clay Bertrand some time about 2 years prior to the time you received this telephone call that you have just told us about?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; he is mostly a voice on the phone.

Mr. Liebeler: What day did you receive the telephone call from Clay Bertrand asking you to defend Oswald?

Mr. Andrews: I don't remember. It was a Friday or a Saturday.

Mr. Liebeler: Immediately following the assassination?

Mr. Andrews: I don't know about that. I didn't know. Yes; I did. I

Page 118

Mr. Liebeler: You had pneumonia; is that right?

guess I did because I was -- they told me I was squirrelly in the hospital.

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: And, as I understand it, you were under heavy sedation at that time in connection with your treatment for pneumonia?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; this is what happened: After I got the call, I called my secretary at her home and asked her if she had remembered Lee Harvey Oswald's file. Of course, she didn't remember, and I had to tell her about all the kooky kids. She thought we had a file in the office I would assume that he would have called subsequent to this boy's arrest. I am pretty sure it was before the assassination. I don't know.

Mr. Liebeler: You don't mean before the assassination -- don't you mean before Oswald had been shot? After the assassination and before Oswald had been shot?

Mr. Andrews: After Oswald's arrest and prior to his --

Mr. Liebeler His death?

Mr. Andrews: His death.

Mr. Liebeler: Now my recollection from reviewing reports from the FBI is that you first advised the FBI of this, telling them that you recall that Clay Bertrand had called you at some time between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the evening and spoke to you about this matter. Do you remember telling the FBI about that?

Mr. Andrews: I remember speaking with them. The exact words, I do not but that's probably correct.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember what time approximately that Clay Bertrand did call you?

Mr. Andrews: I will tell you: They feed around 4:30. By the time I got fed, it was about 5 o'clock. They picked the tray up. So that's about the right time. It's around that time.

Mr. Liebeler: Now you told that after Clay Bertrand called you, you called your secretary and asked her if she remembered the Oswald file; Is that correct?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; she didn't remember Oswald at all. She knows what occasionally these people walk in and out of the office and she had remembered something, but nothing of any value.

Mr. Liebeler: And do you remember what after you got out of the hospital, you discussed with your secretary the telephone call that you made to her at home?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: And do you recall that she said that she remembered that you called her at approximately 4 o'clock on the afternoon of November 23, 1963?

Mr. Andrews: Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Now have you -- let's take it one step further: Do you also recall the fact that your private investigator spent most of that afternoon with you in your hospital room?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; he was there.

Mr. Liebeler: He was there with you?

Mr. Andrews: Yes; Preston M. Davis.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember approximately what time he left?

Mr. Andrews: No.

Mr. Liebeler: Would it have been before you called your secretary or

Page 119