[104-10423-10337.pdf — page 8]
matters. In other words, I want to make it clear we do not regard patriotic citizens as informants.Mr. STERN. I take it you also would not have regarded Lee Oswald as an informant from the contacts with him that you have told us about and the other agents have told us about?Mr. BELMONT. Indeed not; in no way could he be considered an informant; in no way.Mr. STERN. Did you supervise or assist in the preparation of the information contained here?Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir.Mr. STERN. And you are familiar with it?Mr. BELMONT. Yes; I am.Mr. STERN. And to your knowledge, does it accurately and completely state the Bureau's practice in recruiting a prospective informant?Mr. BELMONT. That is correct.Mr. STERN. Is there anything you would like to add to the information covered in there with respect to your practices regarding informants?Mr. BELMONT. No; only in my personal knowledge this is a correct statement and Lee Harvey Oswald was not an informant of the FBI.Mr. STERN. Did you ever use the term "agent" to apply to anyone other than an employee, a special agent employee of the FBI?[^1]Mr. BELMONT. No; we do not.Mr. DULLES. Could I ask you, Mr. Belmont, whether Mr. Fain's separation from the FBI had anything whatever to do with the Oswald case or in his handling of the Oswald case?Mr. BELMONT. No; indeed not. Mr. Fain came to the retirement age and decided he wanted to retire, which is his privilege, and he retired and is presently working in Texas and very happy, I understand.Mr. DULLES. Thank you.Mr. BELMONT. He retired in good graces, good standing, so far as the FBI is concerned.The CHAIRMAN. And a year before the assassination.Mr. BELMONT. Frankly, I don't recall.The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it was August 1962, he testified.Mr. STERN. You have already covered this, Mr. Belmont, but just so that the record is completely clear on this point, was Lee Oswald ever an agent of the FBI?Mr. BELMONT. Lee Oswald was never an agent of the FBI.Mr. STERN. The letter of February 6, 1964, from Mr. Hoover, alludes to testimony furnished the Commission by District Attorney Wade. Have you subsequently been advised that Mr. Wade had not testified before the Commission?Mr. BELMONT. Yes; we received a letter from the Commission advising us that the incident referred to was an informal discussion rather than actual testimony before the Commission.Mr. STERN. And also to complete the record, have you been advised that Mr. Wade was not suggesting that he believed the rumor about Oswald as an informant, but felt obliged to call it to the attention of the Commission?Mr. BELMONT. The Commission's letter so advised us.Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted with No. 835?The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted under that number.(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 835 for identification, was received in evidence.)Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, I show you a letter dated February 12, 1964, a number of affidavits by special agents, attached to it. It was identified yesterday, parts of it were identified yesterday and it therefore carries the number for identification 825. Can you identify this letter for us?Mr. BELMONT. In order to be sure I beg your pardon. This is a letter dated February 12, 1964, to the Commission from the FBI, to which is attached affidavits of FBI personnel who had reason to contact Lee Harvey Oswald and who were in a supervisory capacity over the agents who contacted Oswald.Mr. STERN. Did you supervise the preparation of this material?Mr. BELMONT. These affidavits were prepared, of course, by the men themselves.[^1]: 1