Would you explain the one designated "RCT"?
Colonel FOLSOM. The abbreviation "RCT" is--represents radio code test. There are three scores in this, ranging from one to three, with one being the highest. The minimum, or the range in Grade III is from 90 to 109. As Oswald achieved 92, he was in the bottom, practically, of Group III.

Mr. Ely.

Which is the lowest group.
Colonel FOLSOM. Which is the lowest.

Mr. Ely.

Now, directing your attention to page 8, which is a summary court memorandum: this relates, I believe, to his first court-martial, and in general is self-explanatory. I want, however, to ask you about one sentence which to me seems to be in error.
According to the notation made here on page 8, under the title "Convening Authorities Action Dated," it states that that part of Oswald s sentence confining him at hard labor for 20 days would be suspended "for 6 months at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 20 days will be remitted without further action."
However, turning our attention down to Section 11, page 8, it was noted that on June 27, 1958, which would be the time of his second court-martial, "Confinement at hard labor for 28 days vacated on June 27, 1958."
So the way it is worded it says that the confinement would be vacated. Am I correct in assuming, Colonel, that what it really means to say is that the suspension of the sentence was vacated?
Colonel FOLSOM This is correct.
However, there appears to be an error here, since the original sentence was for 20 days, and not 28 days, as shown under the subject entry.

Mr. Ely.

Right.
So I suppose we have a typographical error, substituting 28 for 20 and we also have a misleading sentence in that it implies that the sentence was vacated rather than that the suspension of the sentence was vacated.
Colonel FOLSOM. This is correct.

Mr. Ely.

However, Colonel, what did happen is that when he was court-martialed the second time, they then sentenced him to both the sentence for the second court-martial and at that time gave him the sentence that he received in connection with the first court-martial?
Colonel FOLSOM. Well, that portion of it--unexecuted portion of the first sentence.

Mr. Ely.

That is correct. Thank you.
On page 9 of the exhibit we have some records relating to the second court-martial. At this point, again, I think the page is in general self-explanatory. However, under the section marked "Findings" on each charge, and specifications, there is the notation that on Charge II he was found not guilty, and then it goes on to say, "On specification of" Charge I. Am I correct in thinking that is a typographical error and that it should be that on the specification of Charge II, he was found not guilty?
Colonel FOLSOM. That is correct.

Mr. Ely.

So the record should read, on page 9, that Oswald was found guilty on Charge I, which was a violation of Article 117 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Similarly he was found guilty on the specification under Charge I, which was wrongfully using provoking words to a staff noncommissioned officer. However, on Charge II, which was a violation of Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he was found not guilty, and he was similarly found not guilty on the specification of that charge which was assaulting a staff noncommissioned officer by pouring a drink on him.
Colonel FOLSOM. This is correct.

Mr. Ely.

Turning now to page 10 of the exhibit, the title of which is "Administrative Remarks" I note entries dated April 14, 1958, indicating that a request for an extension of Oswald's overseas tour had been received and approved. Must such a request come from the marine whose overseas tour is involved?
Colonel FOLSOM. Yes. This must be a voluntary request from the individual concerned.

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:33 CET