: | Oo | 1-141 ! i : Mr. Dodd, Cable dated 23 November 19632 | iy 2 | Ms. Goodpasture, ves, sir. | | . Myr. Dodd, : I-read to you again paragraph 2. “In view — ot 4 : Oswald Soviet union. In. fact, he claimed on l October, the | s § | envoy" -- whatever that is ~- "to have visited the Soviet _ | 5 5 | Embassy 28 September, Subject paragraph 1 probably Oswald. E 7 j seston unable to compare voice as first tape erased prior mo second call." S ; ; | That is November, 1963 and in October of "64, "Voices : 10 | compared by I Which is. true? | : i Ms, Goodpasture, The notation was made in 1964 on this | 3 12 | newspaper article. I think that I was referring to the trans- eo ' c = 13: i criber, Mr. Tarasoff's, identifying the man as having made | z 4 | both calls in Listening to the tapes. | E a Mr.. Dodd, Why did you not make that same observation | 7 6 | on 23 November 1963? | = : "| Ms, Goodpasture: That was a mistake I made that I should Z “tal not have made, I should have stated it exactly as it occurred| 2 13 Iso we would not. be in doubt now. But I do not know. j § 29.1 Mr< Dodd. So the statement made on 23 November '63 is | cceme'' | Macourater | | ; a : © pe’ 22 7 Ms. Goodpasture. To the best of my knowledge, it is.. ii am sure I. could not. locate the tapes, or I would not have put. that in the cable, ha aan 901288 | | Mr. DDodd. . Thank you. | { i $ i | , i i DERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. HW 50955 Docld:32277224 Page 143 ALSSRSON REPORTS
1-142. | ago and spoke broken Russian, that it was apparent that Oswald, go1284. HI 1 | a Counsel, you may proceed. | | Mr. Goldsmith. Thank you. 2 | tn this regard, 1 would like to refer. to Stack. B, the | document, page 1 in Stack B, which is the transcript oftthe 2 s) conversation in reference to Oswald. That. is Stack B, page | 3 e) a This is a transcription of a conversation involving : 7 Oswald that. took place on. 1 October 1963. | S a - . By the line which immediately follows the number 151 : : in brackets it says "the same person who. phoned a day or so : ra ago and spoke. in broken Russian." | g | Viewing this language in connection with page 67 of a | coe, ; . 12 | stack Cc, that is the newspaper article that we were just . | > = 13 ) referring to =< | . | : te : Ms. Goodpasture. 67. | E | Mr. Goldsmith, Page 67, the newspaper article that | i. i é 13 we were just referring to. I direct your attention to the | 4 17 | last paragraph of that.article, the one that is marked off, “| 2 1a] specifically the one that is adjacent. to your marginal nota- : z 19 | tion. oe - , < Zo - Would you please read that? | el Ms. Goodpasture. Yes. | OSS a | ae. - © y+ | Mr. Goldsmith. Might it not be said that, viewing these| 2) two itens together, the language in this paragraph and the © 23 statement in brackets, the Same person who phoned a. day or so : +3 | | . “ . ALEERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. HW 50955 Docld:32277224 Page 144 uo
in fact, had visited the Cuban Embassy earlier? bh Ms’, Goodpasture,. Would you repeat that again, please? | 3 | Mr. Goldsmith. Viewing these two documents ‘together, the last paragraph of the article, the language. in brackets, ian feo a ees eye - S = it says, “The same'person ‘who phoned a day or so ago and © é 4) spoke in broken Russian." | S. 7 | Does it not become apparent that Oswald, in fact, had = . visited the Cuban Embassy earlier? = : 1 Q I admit that is not a direct inference that can be : ‘al @rawn, but if you follow the transcripts, if you go back to | S i | E i the preceding Saturday and you review the transcripts from | $ 12 that day, it becomes apparent that Oswald had been at the Cuban ag | . 13 Embassy on Saturday. The point that I am getting at is that | 14 independent of these documents here, it would seem that a is voice comparison, in fact, would have to. have been. made. | i ; t 18 | Ms. Geodpasture,. I-’think that he recognized the voice | | | | 7 from having listened to a tape ofthe Cuban Embassy that had ‘listening to two tapes. ¢ i 18) Russian on it: but did not have a name, instead of just Mr. Goldsmith... Going back to pagé 22-,of Stack. C it 300 7TH STREET, SoM. REPOUTERS GUTEDTNG, Ha ey gays, "station unable to compare voice as first tape erased : - antl - 4 { i n EF prior receipt second call.::" 2 con) Does that suggest to you at at the time that this cable i ' i ' f | i i) ee was sent the second tape wasgstill in existence? It says one tape was. destroyed or erased; the. second one. was not. O01285 ; © ALSERSON RESORTING COMPANY, INC. HW 50955 Docld:32277224 Page 145 ALZERSON RESOR meee
| : ' 4 1 if | i t I i j : 4 t 7 t of - | = goa “a ~ ~ i ' H a 2 il wt 3 i | = ~ 4 = = 7 c ; Se j ™ i Pa 9 | < oo aan cs i es i = Me wa ; - | & : = ; @ 2B 134 oon Ww Sd i =: | = 14 | = 1é | = | rn Pe - f je en Loos 4 aA ~ co ' = 70 | a: ti : i H Sau ae |} acy a tf fl q HW 50955 Docld: 32277224 Page 146 13 | 1-144 Ms, Goodpasture. No, I think that it had been erased. Mr. Goldsmith. You say both have been erased? This says, "station unable to complete" -- “Ms. Goodpasture. The first tape -- Mr. Goldsmith, ‘Right. The first tape, according. to this cable, had been erased, What about the second tape? Ms, Goodpasture, Pardon me? Mr. Goldsmith. What. about the second tape? . There are two tapes we are. talking about. ‘Ms. Goodpasture, YOu. said what about the second tape. Mx. Goldsmith. Yes, that is what I said. This seems to suggest that while the first tape had been erased, the second tape has not. been erased. “Ms. Goodpasture, That is right. Mr. Goldsmith. - This cable is dated November 23, 1963. What. happened to the tape that was in existence on November 23, 1963? | Ms, Goodpasture. ‘I do not think that it was still in existence in November, 1963 but I think that it. still was in existence when the tape from the second call came back to us. But the first one, we discoveréd, had been erased. Mr... Goldsmith. This says, "station unable to compare. voice as. first tape erased prior receipt second call." Why does. not thé cable say instead -- Ms. Goodpasture, They both were erased. I do not know. | 901286 ALDERSOM RESORTING COMPANY. INC. i
(“1-145 Mr. Goldsmith. I recalled earlier that your testimony | was. that you looked for the tapes and that you could not | | 43 find the first.one. That also suggests that this second one, | in fact, was found. . oo a i Was the second tape found? Cory e “ eS é Ms, .Goodpasture, Would you repeat that, please? , _ ens . i oo 7 Mr. Goldsmith, Your testimony earlier was. that you | | | a : . : . 3 | looked for the tapes but you were unable to find the. first S 202h (202) 554-2345 tape, You did not say that you were unable to find either n.c Go UM ms tape. You said that you were unable to find the first tape. | : vl That, again, suggests that the second tape was found. | 12 ‘Ms. Goodpasture, No, t do not think I was able to find og 2 13 | any of the tapes that had Lee Oswald’ s calls on them. I found 2 1d | the original transcripts, but t could not find the tapes that | : 15 | had those calls. ; | | a | Z iF) Mr, Goldsmith. The calls in question came in between ; | Septenher 27 and October 1, 1963, is that correct? | Z | Ms. Goodpasture. The first call? . S *| | Ms. Goodpasture;: Yes. | em t ‘Mr. Goldsmith. “The first.call came in, as it turns ! oo Pe 2 | out, September 27th. The. last call that was attributed to 2 Oswald came in October Ist.. So we have a timespan here of five a % or six days in which the calls came in, and your testimony is’ | 25 | that the first tape was erased prior to the receipt of the _— 7 . 9o128% | :! RERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. ALSERSON Fez HW 450955 Docld: 32247224 ‘Page i147