INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 27, 28, AND DECEMBER 29, 1978 VOLUME V Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-379 0 WASHINGTON: 1979 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 052-070-04907-3 SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS LOUIS STOKES, Ohio, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut District of Columbia CHARLES THONE, Nebraska YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, California HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut HAROLD E. FORD, Tennessee FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania Subcommittee on the Subcommittee on the Assassination of Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. John F. Kennedy WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, Chairman HAROLD E. FORD YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE FLOYD J. FITHIAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD ROBERT W. EDGAR CHARLES THONE STEWART B. McKINNEY HAROLD S. SAWYER LOUIS STOKES, ex officio LOUIS STOKES, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio (II) CONTENTS September 27, 1978: Page Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director...1 Testimony of Lewis McWillie, Las Vegas, Nev.......................2 Narration by G. Robert Blake, chief counsel and staff director..240 Testimony of Jose Aleman .......................................301 September 28, 1978: Testimony of Santos Trafficante ................................346 Testimony Ralph Salerno ........................................378 Testimony of Judge Burt W. Griffin .............................471 December 29, 1978: Narration by Prof. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director ................................................................499 Testimony of: Prof. Mark Weiss, presently of the Department of Computer Science of Queens College of the City University of New York and Ernest Aschkenasy, assistant to Prof. Mark Weiss..................555 H. B. McLain, police officer, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Tex ......................................................617 AFTERNOON SESSION Narration by Prof. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....641 Testimony of Dr. James Barger, chief scientist, and man in charge of acoustical analysis at Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc......................645 Final comments by Prof. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director ...............................................................690 Closing remarks by Chairman"Louis Stokes" ...............................697 (III) INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C The committee met at 9:35 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room .345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richardson Preyer, presiding. Present: Representatives Preyer, Stokes, Dodd, Fithian, Ford, Edgar, Devine, and Sawyer. Present also: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; G. Cornwell, deputy chief counsel; D. Purdy, staff counsel; Elizabeth Berning, chief clerk; I. Charles Mathews, special counsel; S. Jonathan Blackner, staff counsel; Mr. J. McDonald, staff counsel; and Howard Shapiro, attorney. Mr. PREYER. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Congressman Preyer. During yesterday's hearings, the committee heard a report on a computer survey of Jack Ruby's telephone calls in 1963. One conclusion that seemed to flow from it is that Jack Ruby must have had reason to call a number of individuals who are reportedly connected to the hierarchy of organized crime, the American mafia. Since there is no way of being certain of the topic of the conversation, what is known just from the fact of a phone call or calls is itself not certain. In some cases, we have the testimony of the persons called. Generally they either don't remember being called by Ruby at all, or it was about the AGVA, American Guild of Variety Artists, dispute, or whatever. In the committee's final report, the Ruby associates, that is, those who have been identified by the telephone survey or by other means as in some way connected to Jack Ruby will be examined in detail. But to illustrate the investigative process the committee has followed in this important area, one of Ruby's associates has been selected for public examination at this hearing this morning. That associate is Lewis J. McWillie who was in 1963, as he is today, a Las Vegas casino employee. The committee's investigation has shown that Mr. McWillie's friendship with Jack Ruby goes back to the fourties, in Dallas. Since (1) 2 that time, Mr. McWillie has worked in gambling casinos in Havana, Cuba, as well as Las Vegas, Nev. Mr. McWillie has entered under the rules of the committee a specific request that there be no photographic coverage of his appearance and no electronic coverage. That means no one is to photograph or keep lights on or use any tape recorder to record Mr. McWillie's voice or face. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate if an order be entered into that effect. Mr. PREYER. Pursuant to rule 16 which reads in pertinent part, at the request of any witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, television or still photography coverage, all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for coverage turned off. At this time, the Chair directs that all lenses be covered and that all microphones be turned off. Mr. BLAKEY. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Lewis J. McWillie. Mr. PREYER. The committee calls Lewis McWillie. TESTIMONY OF LEWIS McWILLIE, LAS VEGAS, NEV. Mr. PREYER. Will you stand and be sworn, Mr. McWillie. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you are about to give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, sir. Mr. PREYER. Mr. McWillie, pursuant to your request, all microphones and lenses, broadcasting equipment, have been cut off. The Chair recognizes counsel Donald Purdy for questioning of this witness. Mr. PURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McWillie, what is your full name and where do you live? Mr. MCWILLIE. Lewis J. McWillie. Mr. PURDY. Where do you live? Mr. McWILLIE Las Vegas, Nev. Mr. PURDY. How long have you lived there? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, off and on since 1963. Mr. PURDY. What is your present occupation? Mr. MCWILLIE. I work in a gambling house. Mr. PURDY. Prior to your present employment, where did you work? Mr. McWILLIE. Binion's Horse Shoe Club. Mr. PURDY. Have you been involved in working in gambling casinos since you moved to Las Vegas in 1963? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, sir. Mr. PURDY. For how many years have you been involved in gambling casinos and gambling operations throughout the country? Mr. MCWILLIE. I would say 46 years. Mr. PURDY. In what cities have you been involved in gambling operations or casinos? Mr. McWILLIE. Oh, what cities? Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. Mr. McWILLIE. In this country? Mr. PURDY. Or in other countries. Mr. MCWILLIE. Well, I started off in Memphis, Tenn., and then I was in Mississippi. 3 Mr. PURDY. Approximately when? Please give the years in which you were in those cities also. Mr. MCWILLIE. Oh, I would say Memphis, 1932-36. Mr. PURDY. What city were you working in gambling casinos after that? Mr. McWILLIE. Prior to that? Mr. PURDY. After that. Mr. McWILLIE. After that? Mr. PURDY. Subsequent to 1936? Mr. McWILLIE. Then I was in Jackson, Miss. after that. Mr. PURDY. How long were you working and living in Jackson, Miss.? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, a short while, and then in Osyka, Miss. Mr. PURDY. Were you also involved in gambling there? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes sir. Mr. PURDY. When did. you leave there and where did you go? Mr. McWILLIE. I left there, lets see, I would say 1939 or 1940. I don't know exactly. Mr. PURDY. What cities did you work in since then? Mr. McWILLIE. Dallas. Mr. PURDY. Were you involved in gambling in Dallas? Mr. McWILLIE. I was a dealer there, yes. Mr. PURDY. During what years did you live in Dallas? Mr. McWILLIE. I would say from 1940 to 1958. Mr. PURDY. Where did you go after you lived in Dallas? Mr. McWILLIE. After I left Dallas? Mr. PURDY. Yes. Mr. McWILLIE. I went to Cuba. Mr. PURDY. Were you involved in gambling in Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. I managed the Tropicana Night Club. Mr. PURDY. Were you involved in gambling? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes sir. Mr. PURDY. Subsequent to your work in Cuba, where did you move to? Mr. McWILLIE. Subsequent. That means afterwards? Mr. PURDY. Yes. Mr. McWILLIE. I went to Miami and stayed until the first of June. Mr. PURDY. The first of June of what year? Mr. McWILLIE. 1961. Mr. PURDY. Were you involved in gambling in Miami? Mr. McWILLIE. No. Mr. PURDY. Where did you live after you left Miami? Mr. McWILLIE. After I left Miami I went to Lake Tahoe. Mr. PURDY. Were you involved in gambling in Lake Tahoe? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, I was a pit boss. Mr. PURDY. When did you leave Lake Tahoe? Mr. MCWILLIE. I left Lake Tahoe in September of 1961. Mr. PURDY. Did you move to Las Vegas from Lake Tahoe? Mr. McWILLIE. I moved to Reno. Mr. PURDY. Were you involved in gambling in Reno? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes sir. Mr. PURDY. How long were you in Reno? 4 Mr. McWILLIE. 1961. I left there, let's see, right before Christmas of 1963, I believe. Mr. PURDY. And you moved to Las Vegas? Mr. McWILLIE- No, I went back to Miami to visit with my mother. Mr. PURDY. How long were you there? Mr. McWILLIE. Oh, 3 weeks. Mr. PURDY. Where did you go after you visited Miami? Mr. McWILLIE. I went back to Las Vegas. Mr. PURDY. Have you lived in Las Vegas since? Mr. McWILLIE. Off and on yes. Mr. PURDY. You have been involved in gambling casinos while you have been in Las Vegas? Mr. McWILLIE. Well the first, you want me to tell you the casinos? Mr. PURDY. I don't think we need to cover the specific casinos at this time. Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, I was involved in casino work. Mr. PURDY. What has been the nature of your involvement in casino work over these years? Mr. McWILLIE. Working in the gambling part of it, overseeing the gambling. Mr. PURDY. Mr. McWillie, what were the circumstances sur- rounding your first encounter with Jack Ruby? Mr. McWILLIE. What were the circumstances? Mr. PURDY. Yes, how did you meet Jack Ruby? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I told you that in this. I met him in a restaurant. Mr. PURDY. Approximately when? Mr. McWILLIE. I would say 1951. Mr. PURDY. Someone introduced you to him in a restaurant in Dallas in 1951? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes sir. Mr. PURDY. Do you remember who introduced you? Mr. McWILLIE. He introduced himself to me. Mr. PURDY. He just walked up to you? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I noticed him at the counter. We went into this restaurant every night to eat and three or four nights he was at the counter and staring at fellows and myself and I asked someone who he was and I don't know, one of them knew him or not, they said he had a night club or something. Anyway, about the third or fourth night when we got up to leave he walked over and introduced himself to me and I said nice to meet you and what do you want, Mr. Ruby? And, he went on to tell me about he was having trouble with his night club and had some kind of curfew put on him and I asked him, I said, Mr. Ruby, you are Jewish, aren't you, and he said, yes. I said well, there is a gentleman here in town by the name of Julius Schepps that might be able to help you, if there is nothing bad wrong with you, so I suggested that he go see Mr. Schepps, and he did, and he seemed to get his trouble straightened out. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Schepps was able to help Jack Ruby? Mr. McWILLIE. Evidently, because he didn't have any more trouble. 5 Mr. PURDY. What was the nature of your next few meetings with Jack Ruby. How did you happen to see him again after he came up and introduced himself? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, he called me on the phone and he thanked me and I met him back in the restaurant, and from then on he was just around me every time he got a chance he would be around. Mr. PURDY. How would you characterize your relationship with Jack Ruby in the 1950's in Dallas? Mr. McWILLIE. 1950's, I wasn't around him a real lot, you might say, he would come out to my apartment and swim in the pool and he was a kind of a leech, you might say. Mr. PURDY. Kind of a leech? Mr. McWILLIE. Leech. And he was just a hard fellow to get rid of. Mr. PURDY. You say he came over uninvited? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, he came over uninvited after so long a time and he would hang around the pool everyday and swim and have dinner with me and different things. Mr. PURDY. Did you ever have to ask him to leave? Mr. McWILLIE. I don't recall. I could have. I don't recall it, though. Mr. PURDY. Were you and Jack Ruby friends during the 1950's? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, we were friends. Mr. PURDY. Were you aware that Jack Ruby considered you one of his closest friends? Mr. McWILLIE. I would have to say so, yes, on account of the favors I had done him. Mr. PURDY. What was the reason? Mr. McWILLIE. The favors I have done him. Mr. PURDY. So he liked you because you had done favors for him? Mr. McWILLIE. I helped him. Mr. PURDY. How had you helped him other than getting Mr. Julius Schepps to help him? Did you help him in any other way? Mr. McWILLIE. I helped him with, he had a union problem, he called me in Las Vegas in the early part of 1963. Mr. PURDY. We will go into that in more detail in a little while. Mr. McWILLIE. All right. Mr. PURDY. Were you aware that Jack Ruby included you on a list of people who might dislike him? Mr. McWILLIE. He put me on a list of people that might dislike him? Mr. PURDY. Yes. Mr. McWILLIE. No, I am not. Mr. PURDY. Was there any reason that you could think of that Jack Ruby might think that you disliked him? Mr. McWILLIE. No way. Mr. PURDY. Did Jack Ruby idolize you? Mr. McWILLIE. In a sort of way I would think so, yes. Mr. PURDY. Why did he idolize you? Mr. McWILLIE. I guess because I had helped him keep his busi- ness open. Mr. PURDY. What contacts, if any, did you have with Jack Ruby's family, friends and business associates? 6 Mr. MCWILLIE. I didn't even know his family or friends, I didn't know his family. He told me that he had a brother who was sick and his sister was ill, someway. He didn't elaborate. Mr. PURDY. Did you have any mutual friends? Mr. MCWILLIE. Sir? Mr. PURDY. Did you have any mutual friends? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes, we had friends, a friend named Meyer Panitz, and Jake Rifkin, they were good friends of his. Mr. PURDY. They were also good friends of yours? Mr. McWILLIE. Oh, yes, they were friends of mine in Memphis. Mr. PURDY. Is there anyone else you can think of that was a friend of both you and Jack Ruby? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, I don't. He probably knew everybody in town on account of this night club he had. Mr. PURDY. Did you know a lot of people in Dallas also? Mr. McWILLIE. Quite a few, yes. Mr. PURDY. Other than what you have mentioned, did you do anything else with Jack Ruby, such as travel with him? Mr. McWILLIE. No, no, never traveled with Jack Ruby. Mr. PURDY. What knowledge do you have of Jack Ruby's possible involvement in any criminal activities? Mr. McWILLIE. None whatever, sir. Mr. PURDY. What is your opinion of Jack Ruby's personality? What kind of a man was he? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, Jack was a man that, he wanted to be a big man in the entertainment field, I would say, the biggest, and he was kind of an egotist, I guess, and I don't know. Mr. PURDY. Was he a thoughtful man, was he a gentle man? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes, he was, he was as far as I know. Mr. PURDY. Was he ever a violent man? Mr. McWILLIE. Not around me, no sir. Mr. PURDY. Mr. McWillie, did you give a deposition to staff members of this committee on April 4, 1978? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes sir. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Chairman, I ask at this time that that deposition be entered into the record as JFK exhibit No. F-572. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, it will be admitted into the record at this point. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Chairman, I also ask at this time that two FBI interviews of Mr. McWillie be entered into the record as JFK exhibits F-573 and F-574. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, they will be admitted into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-572, F-573, and F-574 follow:] 7 Stenographic Transcript of Hearings Title Page 8 JFK EXHIBIT F-572 To: G. Robert Blakey From: Howard Shapiro Re: Summary of Deposition of Lewis McWillie Taken by Jim Wolf and Andy Purdy 4/4/78 011171 A. McWillie biographical data McWillie was born May 4, 1903 in Kansas City, Missouri (p. 4). His current address is 3627 Eastern Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada (p. 3). He is currently employed as a floorman at the Holiday Inn casino in Las Vegas (p. 4) and has worked at various casions for many years. McWillie worked at the Blue Bonnet Hotel in Dallas in 1941 and 1942 (p. 8). and then worked at the Top of the Hill Terrace in Arlington, Texas for eight or nine years (p. 7). Then he ran a gambling house in Fort Worth for several years called the Four Duces (p. 6). Following this he worked at the Tropicana and Capri Hotel in Cuba (p. 6), and spent some time working in Aruba and Curacao (p. 5). In 1961 he began working in Nevada, at the Cal-Neva Lodge (p. 5). and then at the Riverside Hotel. Thunderbird Club, Carousel Club (Las Vegas), Horseshoe Club, arts finally the Holiday Inn casino (pp. 4-5). B. Relationship with Jack Ruby McWillie met Ruby in 1951. He would see Ruby occasionally in a late-night restaurant and was told that Ruby ran the Vegas Club. "Finally, one night we got up to go out into the lobby of the hotel and he walked up to me and said, 'Is your name McWillie?' I said, 'Yes.' And he explained who he was and that he was Jewish and that he was having a problem with his night club" (p. 9). Ruby's problem apparently concerned a curfew and possible discriminatory enforcement by somebody (p. 11). McWillie advised Ruby to 9 speak to an individual named Schepps (p- 9)- Between 1951 and 1958 McWillie could not get rid of Ruby and they became pretty good friends (pp. 9, 23). The last time McWillie saw Ruby was in 1961 when McWillie was driving from Miami to Las Vegas and he stayed overnight in Dallas (p. 80). While in Las Vegas McWillie received several letters from Ruby which concerned Ruby's Carousel club in Dallas and how nice it was and items of this nature (p. 79). Early in 1963 McWillie called Ruby and wanted Ruby to go to a gun dealer in Dallas (Ray Brantley) and purchase a handgun and send it to Las Vegas, as McWillie stated that he didn't know where to go in Las Vegas to get a gun (pp. 19-20). McWillie did not recall asking Ruby to send him four guns (to Cuba) in 1959 (pp. 21, 69). In 1963 Ruby called McWillie to see if he could help out with Ruby's labor and union (AGVA) problems- McWillie suggested contacting William Miller, who was in the entertainment field. Ruby did this and later called McWillie a number of times to express his thanks for McWillie's aid (pp. 17, 71). McWillie had no familiarity with AGVA's operations in Dallas (p. 71). McWillie several times denied making statements to the FBI in 1963 and 1964 (p. 113) concerning Ruby. C. McWillie in Cuba McWillie was in Cuba from the middle of 1958 until January 1, 1961. Johnny Williams contacted McWillie about a possible job at the Tropicana in Cuba (p. 82), so McWillie went to Cuba and met with the Tropicana's owners, Martinez and Pedro Fox (p. 83). He got the job and 10 was later promised a percentage of the club's profits if it was a success but this did not turn out to be the case (p. 85) When the govern- ment closed the clubs the Foxes went to Miami (p. 86). In Cuba McWillie knew Santos Trafficante and Norman Rothman but Just in the sense of casually seeing them (p. 91). He saw Trafficante in prison once but did not talk to him (p. 92). He did see Dino Cellini in prison, as Cellini was at one time manager at the Tropicana (p. 94) McWillie's reason for visiting the prison at all was to see a younger individual who had been a dealer at the club (p. 95). McWillie also met Jake Lansky in Cuba (p. 96). and he made a num- ber of trips to Miami to deposit money in banks for the Foxes (p. 99) McWillie stated that the Cuban government never bothered him(p. 93). After leaving Cuba he had strong anti-Castro feelings. D. Ruby in Cuba McWillie convinced the Foxes that one way to get more business for the Tropicana would be to have Tony Zoppi, a Dallas entertainment columnist, come to Cuba and then give the club a write-up- To do this Mc- Willie invited Zoppi and Ruby (they were also friendly) to Cuba and he called Ruby in the spring of 1959 to inform him of this plan (p. 12). Ruby said that he would get Zoppi to go along with the plan (p. 106), and McWillie eventually sent two airplane tickets to Dallas (pp. 13, 108). Zoppi couldn't make the trip so Ruby came by himself, in August, 1959, which foiled the publicity angle (p. 13). McWillie did not know why Zoppi did not come (p. 111). 11 McWillie displayed part of a letter written by Zoppi to Hatty Brescia Enterprises in which Zoppi states that any theories concerning the assassination and Ruby and Cuban links are not true (pp. 14-15). Ruby stayed in Cuba for about six days and McWillie believes that he then went back to Dallas (p. 17). McWillie can't remember what he did in Cuba besides annoy him (p. 103). McWillie did introduce Ruby to the Foxes (p. 86), and says that he is not sure if Ruby accompanied him on any prison visits (p. 133). McWillie doesn't recall a one-day Ruby visit to Cuba and says that if this occurred in 1959 then he would know about it. (p. 133). E. McWillie associates McWillie says that he knows R.D. Matthews, a Dallas gambler (p. 40). He knew Joseph Civello in Dallas (p. 59), and he knew Jack Todd and saw Todd once or twice in Cuba, but Ruby wasn't in Cuba at those times (p. 61). He knew Sam Yaras, brother of organized crime figure Dave Yaras (pp. 64-65). McWillie knew George Butler of the Dallas police (p. 74). He knew Meyer Panitz well (p. 100). He knew Mike McLaney and worked for him at one time, in 1975. He also knew Mike's brother Bill McLaney (p. 123). F. Ruby information McWillie says that Ruby always had a gun, in order to protect the receipts from his club, and he remembers the sack wherein Ruby kept the gun and money (pp. 20, 70). There was no gambling activity at the Vegas Club and this club was full of customers all the time (pp. 23, 26). McWillie was never in 12 Ruby's Carousel club. Ruby himself would never gamble on anything and was not involved with gambling in any way (pp. 33, 36, 54). Ruby did not know any of the prominent Dallas gambling figures (pp. 45-46). Ruby was a frugal individual (p. 36). He was always courteous to Dallas policemen and gave them whiskey as Christmas presents (p. 72). McWillie believes that Ruby had wanted to be a big man around Dallas and that he shot Oswald in order to become a martyr of some sorts (pp. 30, 129-130). C. Ruby associates McWillie says that two of Ruby's closest friends were Jake Rifkin, a gambler, and Mark Panitz, although this may be Meyer Panitz (pp. 27-28), whom McWillie later describes as one of Ruby's closest-: friends (p. 101). Panitz is described as a bookmaker. Ruby knew W.C. Kirkwood, but not his son Pat Kirkwood (p. 33). Ruby knew the Campisi brothers in Dallas and thinks that Ruby knew Jack Todd (pp. 59, 62). Ruby knew Gordon McLendon very well (p. 73) About four months ago Earl Ruby introduced himself to McWillie in Las Vegas and said he was in town working on a documentary about Jack Ruby. McWillie told Earl Ruby that he wasn't interested in talking to him and that his relationship with Jack Ruby had already caused him enough problems (pp. 38-39). 13 Index of Names for McWillie Deposition Dick Anconi 58 Johnny Avon 43, 46 Barney Baker 64 Babe Baron 88 Dominic Bartone 118 Sam Benton 118 Benny Bickers 44, 46 Benny Binion 42, 43, 45, 46, 49.51, 61 Willie Bischorf (aka Lefty Clark) 87, 88 Johnny Blaine 134 Ray Brantley 20 James Breen 67 Bunny Breen 67 Edward Browder 118 Fred Browning 7, 44, 45, 46 Angelo Bruno 87 George Butler 74 Billy Byers 57-58 Joe Campisi 59-60 Sam Campisi 59-60 FNU Carraway 56 Dino Cellini 94-95, 134 Berle Cheek 43-44, 46 Oscar Cheninder 86, 132 Joe Civello 59 Jim Clunen 17 Raymond Cortez 131 Earl Dalton 7-8, 42, 51-52, 75 Richard Danner 126 James Henry Dolan 71 Paul Dorfman 65 David Elatkin 132 Marty Field 58-59 William E. Fletcher 131 Martinez, Pedro Fox 83, 85-86, 90, 93, 99, 105, 116-117 Sidney Fruhman 31 Sam Giancana 97, 125 Eva Grant 38 Lois Green 61 Johnny Grizzaffi 60 Dewey Groom 58 Pete Guarisco 40 Steve Guthrie 48 Harry Hall 57 J. Patrick Hemming 122 John Wilson Hudson 93 E. Howard Hunt 127 H. L. Hunt 57, 74 Paul R. Jones 67 Fay Kirkwood 32, 35 Pat Kirkwood 32-34 W.C. Kirkwood 32-35, 44 14 Jay Kosloff 5 Jake Lansky 95, 134 Meyer Lansky 95 Robert Larkin 132 Vincent Lee 71 Mike McLaney 122-123, 125 William McLaney 123-125 Robert McKeown 68, 118 Gordon McLendon 72-73 Carlos, Vincent Marcello 39 John Thomas Masen 68 Elizabeth Ann Matthews 40 Russell D. Matthews 40-41 Joseph Merola 68 Lawrence Meyers 65 Ivy Miller 7-8, 42-43, 45, 51-52, 75 Izzy Miller 62 Misty Lane Miller 102 William Miller 18, 135 Juan Orta 131 Mark, Meyer Panitz 28, 100-102, 135 Tony Pappa 72 Lenny Patrick 64 Sid Richardson 56, 58 T.W. Richardson 83-84 Jake Rifkin 27-29, 135 Helen Alfonse Roan 67 John Roselli 96-97, 125 Norman Rothman 91, 94 Earl Ruby 38 Sam Ruby 39 Henry Savadra 131 Red Scarborough 7, 42-43, 46, 51-52, 75 Julius Schepps 9-11, 22, 75 Mike Shore 72 Sidney Siedband 61 John Eli Stone 63 Frank Sturgis 126 Sack Todd 61 Santos Trafficante 91-94, 134 Harry Urban 51 FNU Ventura 90 Abe Weinstein 132 Ben Whittaker 45-46 Johnny Williams 82-83 Will Wilson 48 Dave Yaras 64 Sam Yaras 64-65 Jess Zilliack 49 Tony Zoppi 12-14, 16, 24, 81, 100, 106-112, 114-115, 119-120 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS DEPOSITION OF LEWIS J. MC WILLIE, a witness produced, sworn, and examined on Tuesday, the 4th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1978, between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon and 6 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, in Room 4-003, Federal Courthouse, 210 Las Vegas Boulevard, before the Select Committee on Assassinations, House of Representatives of the United States of America. APPEARANCES: For the Committee: JAMES WOLF, Deputy Chief Counsel, Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DONALD A. PURDY, Staff Counsel, Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 16 LEWIS J. MC WILLIE of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined on the part of the Committee, deposeth and saith: MR. WOLF: The record should note that the witness has been sworn by Magistrate Ward. My name is Janes Wolf. My co-counsel today is Donald Purdy and we both have been, pursuant to House Resolution 222 and Committee Rule 4, designated counsel empowered to take statements under oath. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLF: Q Will the witness please state his name for the record? A. Sir? Q. Will the witness please state his name for the record? A. Lewis J. McWillie. Q. And, Mr. McWillie, you have been subpoenaed by the House Committee but instead of an appearance in Washington, you requested that this deposition take place in-- A. (Interrupting) Yes, I just had an operation on my eye. Q. Excuse me, sir. A. I just had an operation on my eyes. I had a de- 17 tached retina in my left eye, right eye, too. Q. And this deposition is taking place at your re- quest, then, to avoid an appearance in Washington, is that correct? A. I wanted to be close to my doctors, yes. Q. Mr. McWillie, you are aware that under our Committee's rules, you have the right to have counsel with you at this deposition. A. I don't need any counsel. I don't think. Q. And, Mr. McWillie, you have been given a copy of our Committee Rules and House Resolutions 222. 433 and 760, is that correct? A. To tell you the truth, I didn't read it. I just knew it was a subpoena. Q. Well, are you aware of Committee Rule 4. which is about the designated counsel taking your statements under oath? You have been given a copy of the Committee Rules. is that correct? A. Yes. BY MR. PURDY: Q. Mr. McWillie, could you please state your present address? A. 3627 Eastern Avenue. Q. In Las Vegas? A. Las Vegas, yes. 18 Q. What is your date and place of birth? A. Kansas City, Missouri, 1908. What was the month and day? A. May 4th. Q. What is your present occupation? A. I'm a floorman in a casino. Q. What casino is that? A. Holiday Inn. Q. How long have you worked there? A. I 've worked there a little over a year, about 14 months. Q. Where did you work before that? A. I worked before that at the Horseshoe Club. Q. How long did you work there? A. I worked there on and off many years, since 67, I believe - Q. Do you recall where you worked prior to that? A. I worked at the Carousel Club. Q. How long did you work there? A. Let me see, about three years, I guess. Q. That would be 1964 to 19677 A. I would say so. I'm not sure but I would say that's about the date. Q. What city was that? A. Here in Las Vegas. 19 Q. Where did you work prior to 1964? A. 1964 I worked at the Riverside Hotel in Reno. Q. How long did you work there? A. I worked there the latter part of '61 through '62. Q. What was your job prior to that? A. What was my job, where did I work prior to that? Q. Yes. A. I worked at the Thunderbird Hotel. I left there and went to the Thunderbird Hotel. Q. How long did you work there? A. I worked there about a year. Q. Where did you work prior to that? A. I went to an island named Arruba, the Netherland Antilles. I stayed there maybe a month and then was transferred to Curacao. I stayed there about nine months. Q. Who transferred you to Curacao? A. Jay Kosloff. K-o-s-l-o-f-f. Q. Prior to working in Arruba, where did you work? A. I went from Arruba to Curacao, last place I worked. Q. No, I mean prior to Arruba, where did you work? A. Prior to Arruba I worked at the--wait a minute now. Wait just a minute. I skipped one place I didn't tell you. Before I went to the Riverside, I worked at the Cal Neva Lodge. In '61 I was at the Cal-Neva Lodge. 20 6 Q. So you worked-- A. (Interrupting) Then I went to the other places. Q. Then you went on to Arruba and Curacao? A. Yes. Q. Prior to working at the Cal-Neva Lodge, where did you work? A. Prior to that I worked in Cuba. Q. Did you work in Havanna at that time? A. Yes. sir. Q. Did you work at the Tropicana then? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you work at any other-- A. (Interrupting) I worked in the Capri Hotel, I don't know how long, it wasn't very long, though. Q. Where did you work prior to working at the Tropicana and the Capri Hotels? A. In Dallas. Q. Where did you work in Dallas? A. Well, I had a little gambling house, let me see, in Fort Worth. Q. How long did you run that gambling house? A. We had it a couple or three years, I guess. I don't exactly remember how long. Q. What was the name of that gambling house? A. The Four Duces we called it. Prior to that I 21 worked at the Top of the Hill Terrace in Arlington, Texas. How long did you work there? A. Oh, I'd say eight years, nine years. Q. Who did you work for there? A. Who did I work for? I worked for a man named Fred Browning and I worked for Earl Dalton, Ivy Miller and a fellow named Scarborough- Q. What kind of work did you do at that club? A. I was a manager. Q. You managed the gambling activities? A. The gambling. yes. Q. When did you begin the gambling operation at the Four Duces? A. Doggone if I know. I think it was '51, I'm not sure, not positive. Q. What kind of gambling went on there? A. Dice games and 21 game. Q. Just dice and card games? A. Yes. Q. Was there any numbers operation working out of there? A. No, no, it was a little place. Q. Where did you work prior to the Four Duces? A. I told you that, at the Top of the Hill Terrace. Q. Where did you work prior to that? 22 A. Let me see. I worked in Dallas at a place called the Blue Bonnet Hotel, I believe it was. Q. Was there a gambling operation there? A. Yes. Q. What kind of gambling was there? A. Dice game. Q. Who did you work for there? A. I worked for Miller. Q. Ivy Miller? A. Ivy Miller and Earl Dalton, the only two I know I was working for. Q. When did you begin your work at the Blue Bonnet? A. Let me see. It was so long ago. I'd say '41 or '42, I 'm not sure. Q. So you worked at the Blue Bonnet from 1941 to '42 until you worked at the Four Duces? A. I don't think I worked for the Blue Bonnet but about a year. Then I went out to the Top of the Hill. Q. So you worked in Dallas at the Blue Bonnet, then the Top of the Hill, then the Four Duces? A. That's right. Q. So the first club that you owned, what was the first club that you owned? Was that the Four Duces? A. That was the Four Duces, yes. Q. So the other places you worked for other people, 23 23 is that right? A. Other people, yes. Q. Mr. McWillie, when did you meet Jack Ruby? A. Jack Ruby, I 've tried to think what year it was. Do you want me to tell you the whole story about Jack Ruby from the beginning to the end? Q. I think that would be a good idea, yes, sir. A. I believe it was when I was at the Four Duces and a couple of dealers and myself would stop in an all-night restaurant and get a bite to eat when we come in, maybe 2 o'clock, 1 o'clock, 3 o'clock. I noticed a fellow at the counter with a hat on, which was very unusual to see a fellow with a hat on around Dallas. I asked one of the fellows, I said, "Who is that fellow?" He kept looking at us. He said, "That's a fellow named Jack Ruby that runs a club named the Vegas Club out on Oak Lawn", I believe it was. About three or four nights he was there. Finally, one night we got up to go out into the lobby of the hotel and he walked up to me and said, "Is your name McWillie?" I said, "Yes." And he explained who he was and that he was Jewish and that he was having a problem to with his night club. He talked like a real nice fellow. I said, "Why don't you go see Mr. Schepps, a man named Julius Schepps." He owned a big liquor distributing place there and he used to play with us at the Top of the Hill, a 24 10 real nice man. MR. WOLF: Could you spell the name Schepps? WITNESS: I'd have to say it was S-c-h-e- p-p-s. BY MR. PURDY: Q. Do you remember his first name? A. Julius. BY MR. WOLF: Q. Also for the record, what year was this that you first met Jack Ruby? A. I don't know. I think it was around '51, I be- lieve. I would have to say it was around '51, I don't know exactly. I tried to think what year it was. BY MR. PURDY: Q. What was the name of the restaurant you say you saw him? A. It was a place called Webb 's Coffee Shop in the Southland Hotel. MR. WOLFE: Continue. A. And then I suggested that he go see him. He was a big Jewish leader in the city. And he did. From then on I cold never get rid of Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby was at my apartment. He was around me all the time. He just appreciated, I guess, what I had done for him. So, finally, I went to Cuba, I think, in '58, I 25 11 believe. BY MR. PURDY: Q. Could we back up just a little bit before we move on to '58. What was the nature of the problem that Jack Ruby was having with his club? A. They were making him close early or something. Q. Was this a curfew? A. They enforced a curfew on him. so he said, I don't know. Q. Was it your impression that they were enforcing a rule against him that they were not enforcing against other clubs? A. That 's what he said. Q. Why did you refer him to Mr. Schepps? A. He said he was Jewish, therefore, Mr. Schepps was a big leader in the Jewish community, and I didn't know if he could do him any good or not, to tell you the truth. But he evidently did him good. He didn't have no more trouble after that. Q. Did Mr. Schepps have good connections with the authorities in Dallas that could help Jack Ruby? A. He was a well-known man and a well-liked man. He was just a fine man, Mr. Schepps was. Q. What was his occupation? 26 12 A. He had a liquor distributing, I think it's Sea- grams. Q. Do you want to proceed with your story about Jack Ruby? A. If you want me to. Q. Please, sure. A. So when I go to Cuba in, I believe it was the middle of '58, I'm not positive of what date it was, and I get this job at the Tropicana Hotel, managing the Tropicana Hotel with a promise of a percentage of the place when it got to doing good, which it never did much good on account of the revolution coming up and all that. I stayed there until, I don't know how long I stayed there. I stayed there after Castro got there anyway, '59, maybe in the latter part of '59 or '60. And then I went up--they didn't close it, the government took it. And from there I went up to the Capri and stayed there a very short while. I don't know how long, before the government took it. And from then on I wasn't doing anything until I went to Miami. Q. Could you continue on your contact with Jack Ruby over those years? A. When I was in the Tropicana, they were hunting for business, trying to get business, and I suggested that I call Jack Ruby and have him get a hold of Tony Zoppi. Tony Zoppi is a well known columnist like Bishop, Earl Wilson, 27 13 people like that. That's the kind of a man he was in Dallas and all society people read his column. He wrote me back that they 'd come over on a certain date. So I sent him two tickets, which the place paid for. Then I explained to him we would pay for their room. We figured we would get a lot of publicity from it and people from Dallas would come to Cuba. Later on, if I remember right. Jack came and said that, what's his name, Tony couldn't make it. That's the cause of all my problems. Here's a letter. Would you care to see this? It's from my brother to me. A fellow had written my brother a letter and put a piece in there where Zoppi had--my brother's letter is kind of a personal letter. BY MR. WOLF: Q. Is this the letter you would like us to read? A. That's from my brother. It explains that he's sending me this piece. It's just a personal letter but in it he states where he 's sending me a--would you like me to come over there? Q. Yes, if you would, to explain these. A. This is part of the letter and this is the man that sent my brother the letter. This is really what I wanted you to see (indicating). Q. This is a copy of a portion of a letter that 28 14 Tony Zoppi sent to-- A. (Interrupting) That 's the original letter. Q. This is the original letter? A. That's the original part. The other part of the letter didn't mean a darn thing to me. Q. Tony Zoppi sent this to whom? A. To the man's name you've got there in your right hand. Q. To Matty Brescia Enterprises? A. Yes. Q. Mr. McWillie, could we retain these for the record? A. Could you make a copy of it and give me back that part? MR. WOLF: For the record, Mr. McWillie has given us part of a letter allegedly sent by Tony Zoppi to a Matty Brescia, B-r-e-s-c-i-a, Enterprises at 4990 Popular, Suite 331, Memphis, Tennessee 38117, and I will read that portion of the letter which Mr. McWillie has given us. It states. "Give my regard to Mcwillie next time you are in touch. Jack Ruby and I were supposed to visit him in Havana but I got side tracked. Jack went on ahead and it has caused Mac a lot of trouble over the years. The quick buck artists are saying Jack went down there to 29 15 plan the assassination. He couldn't have planned a gas station holdup in those days. All of a sudden, he's a CIA agent, a Mafiadon, et cetera, et cetera, sickening. Keep in touch and God bless. Keep up the good work and I will say another prayer for Buddy." THE WITNESS: That's his kid that got killed MR. WOLF: "Sincerely, Tony." Buddy is Tony's son who got killed. THE WITNESS: They're good friends, both in the same kind of work. This fellow writes for a variety magazine. MR. WOLF: you're speaking of Marry Brescia? THE WITNESS: Tony is a published, man at the Riveria Hotel. BY MR. PURDY: Q. Who is Buddy? A. Read it over about Buddy. MR. WOLF: "Keep up the good work and I will say another prayer for Buddy." A. Buddy was his son. young son. He was sitting in a window and he fell out of the window and it killed him. BY MR. WOLF: Q. Is that Mat Brescia's son? A. Matty Brescia's son. You can keep that if you want to if you give me a 30 16 copy of it. MR. WOLF: Surely, thank you. BY MR. WOLF: Q. You've not given us the top of the letter. Do you know approximately what date this was written? A. It's on the envelope with the date I received the letter from my brother. Q. It's stamped Memphis, Tennessee, 18 August 1976. A. It must have been right around that time. I guess. Q. To the best of your knowledge, your brother for- warded this to you as soon as your brother had received it? A. I 'm sure he did, yes. Q. And how did your brother get the letter from Mr. Brescia? A. Brescia gave it to him. Q. And your brother's located in Memphis, Tennessee? A. Isn't there a yellow piece of paper in there from Brescia, a white piece maybe? I think there's a letter in there from Brescia. Q. Yes, there's a portion of a letter that says, "Hi, Jim." Is that your brother's name, Jim? A. Jim, yes. Q. It says, "Thought you'd want see this letter from Louie's and my friend, Tony Zoppi, former columnist in Dallas, now big executive at the Riveria in Vegas. Show 31 17 this Louie when you see him. He would like it. Pray for our dear son and us. It was a tragic loss. Jim, Monsignor Clunen, C-l-u-n-e-n, delivered the mass and eulogy. God bless you always. Your friend and Louie's and your family, Matty Brescia." Thank you, Mr. McWillie, we'll make copies and return them back to you. BY MR. WOLF: Q. If you could continue, you were talking about inviting Jack and Tony down to visit you at the Tropicana. A. Tony didn't come and he came. I think he stayed around there about six days. I was at the Tropicana at the time. He was there every night that he was in Havana and after that he went back to Dallas. That's the last time I've seen him in Havana. He never came back to Havana. Q. And if you would continue your relationship to Jack after you came back. A. He'd write me letters. Oh. I'll tell you another thing about him. In, I believe it was the early part of 1963, he called me up and he was having some trouble with the AGVA. That's the American Guild of Variety Artists. He said, "Mac, do you know anybody that knows the president of the company?" I explained all of this to the FBI. You can check with them. I don't think I told them about Zoppi. I forgot about it. I didn't tell them. 32 18 He said, "If you can find somebody that knows the president, I'm having a lot of trouble with my competition." I understand he'd had another place. At that time he had a place up town right next to this other place. I said, "Well, I know a man that might know him", a man named Bill Miller who was an entertainment director at the Hilton Hotels. I called Bill and I said, "Bill. there's a friend of mine that's having trouble with the AGVA." I knew he knew the president because I had heard him speak of it. I ran the place in Reno for him. I said. "Is there anything you could do for him?" I gave him Jack's number. I said, "Call him and see what you can do for him." So another day or two went by and Jack called me. If he called me once, he called me five times thanking me, thanking me, thanking me, like to ran me crazy. Then I got letters from him. Prior to that he got into some of razor blade deal, some kind of razor blade that came out in England, what do they call it, but it was supposed to be terrific razor blade. So he sent me three or four packages in an envelope, just stuff like that. Jack was a kind of a, he wanted to be a big man, do you know what I mean. He was kind of an egotist. That was about it with Jack. He just wanted to be around me for some reason. I don't know why. He just did. Q. What were the nature of your contacts with Jack 33 19 Ruby after he left Havana other than that one phone call where he called you for help with the union ? A. I called him one time, I was working the grave- yard. they call it the graveyard, at the Thunderbird at the time. That's from 2 to 12 in the daytime, I think it was 2 to 12. And there were a bunch of people holding people up around there. If they didn't have any money on them, enough for them. they would beat them up. So I called Ruby and asked Ruby to send me a gun. At that time the kids were just little kids, six and five, seven or six. I never did take the gun out. I just let it go back. My wife was scared the kids would get a hold of it some way and maybe get hurt. BY MR. PURDY: Q. When was that that you asked him to send you a gun? A. Let me see, the gun came, you can check the gun, check the place where he got it from. It must have been around August, I would say. I wouldn't know for sure. though. Q. August of what year? A. Let me see, I think I was here, the first time I was here was in '60. I would say the early part of '63 is when he sent it. Q. Why did you ask Jack Ruby to send you a gun? A. I didn't know where to buy one here. I didn't even know you could buy a gun in a store. I hadn't been 34 20 here long enough to know that. Q. You had been here about two years before you asked him to send you a gun? A. I had been here a very short time, '63. I think I came here in '63. I think when I went to work at the Thunderbird. I came down from Reno. I think it was the first part of '63. I think, February of '63. This might have happened in March, I believe, I don't know. You can check that out. Q. What made you think that Jack Ruby could get you a gun? A. Because I told him to go to this place because I had always bought shotguns to hunt with and rifles to hunt deer with and everything and I knew the man. Q. Do you know if Jack Ruby had been there before? A. No, I don't. Q. Was it Ray Brantley? A. It was Ray's place. Q. Do you know whether or not Jack Ruby had a gun prior to that time? A. Jack always had a gun, he always carried a gun. He didn't carry it. He had it in his car. He would have his receipts every night to go drop it in the bank depository. Q. Did he have more than one gun in his home? A. I don't know how many he had. I wouldn't think he 35 21 had more than one. I never did see more than one. Q. Do you recall telling the FBI the Jack Ruby had a number of guns in his home? A. No. I don't. I don't remember. I don't remember the FBI even asking me if he had any guns in his house. Q. Can you presently recall whether or not Jack Ruby had more than one gun? A. No, sir, I don't. Q. Did you ask Jack Ruby to send you four guns in 1959? A. No. sir. I don't recall anything like that. I've been asked that a lot of times. I don't recall that, no. Q. Did you ever ask Jack Ruby to obtain a gun for you other than the incident you previously testified to today? A. The only gun I ever had him get was the one that I told you about just now. Q. Did you ever ask him to get you other guns? A. No, I don't recall anything like that Q. Did you ever discuss with him how to obtain a gun other than that particular incident? A. I knew how to obtain a gun. At this Ray's place, like I say, I bought a lot of guns, rifles and shotguns. Q. But you never bought pistols there? A. Not that I recall. 36 22 Q. Did you take any of the guns that you'd bought at Ray's place with you to Cuba? A. I left them in Dallas. My wife and I separated and she took the guns and everything. Q. Mr. McWillie, between the time that you asked Julius Schepps to help Jack Ruby or you suggested to Jack Ruby that he go to Mr. Schepps for help-- A. (Interrupting) I suggested that he go and talk to Mr. Schepps. Q. (Continuing) --what was the nature of your re- lationship to Jack Ruby after that prior to the Cuba incident? What kind of a relationship did you have? A. I never could get rid of him- He was around me all the time. I 'd have to insult him to get rid of him Q. Do you know what I mean? He'd come by the apartment and he'd swim and eat dinner at the house a lot of times. I just couldn't get rid of him that's all I can tell you. Not that I wanted to. He was a nice fellow. Whoever thought he would do anything like this, I didn't. Q. Did you get to be pretty good friends with him? A. Yes. Q. What kinds of things did you do together? A. Went out to dinner. I dropped by his club maybe once or twice when he had it out on Oak Lawn. At that time rock and roll had just started. 37 23 Q. Which club was that? A. The Vegas Club. Q. What kind of operation did he have at the Vegas Club? A. Let me think. He had a band and he was the emcee and he served, I think he served beer. I don't believe he served whiskey, beer. That's about all there was to it. He had this other club after I left Dallas. I never did even see that place. That was the one up town. Q. Was that the carousel Club? A. Yes, I never saw that. Q. You're never been in the Carousel Club? A. No, never in my life. Q. Did any gambling go on at the Vegas Club, to your knowledge? A. No. Q. What can you tell us about Jack Ruby's political views? Did you ever discuss politics with him? A. No, I never did. When I was around Jack Ruby, I think Eisenhower was president, I believe he was. Q. That would be the 1950's? A. When was Truman president, do you remember? Q. Prior to 1952. A. Truman was president. And I met Jack right around the first part of the '50's, I'd say the first part of the 38 24 '50's and Truman was president and Eisenhower was president. Q. How did he feel about Truman and Eisenhower? A. I never discussed politics with him. Q. Do you know how he voted? A. He wouldn't bet anything. I don't think he ever bet a nickel on anything. Q. I was asking who he voted for. Do you know who he voted for? A. I don't know. There would be no way I'd know. Q. Did you discuss with Jack Ruby any major events in the country that went on in the 50's? Did you discuss the Korean War, for example? A. Nothing. We never discussed politics. Q. Did you ever discuss Cuban-American relations? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you ever discuss Castro or Batista with Jack Ruby? A. No, I never discussed any kind of politics with Jack Ruby at all. Q. Do you ever recall Jack Ruby talking about the Kennedys, how he felt about the Kennedys? A. Just what I read, I think it was in Tony Zoppi's office right after it happened and he was crying and carrying on, what I read in the paper and you did, too, I'm sure. But I never recall him saying one word about the Kennedys. 39 25 You don't recall him expressing a great love for the Kennedys? A. No. I don't, because Kennedy wasn't president. Eisenhower was president, I'm sure. Q. What kind of man was Jack Ruby toward people? A. Like I said, Jack Ruby wanted to be a bigman. He wanted to be the biggest night club operator in Dallas. That is my assumption. Like I said before, he was kind of an egotist and wore a hat all the time, which was very unusual I thought at the time. Nobody else ever wore a hat around Dallas. Q. Did you find him to be a violent man? A. No, sir, he sure wasn't. Now, in his club if someone got out of line, that means fighting or something, he would just take them and put them out. I never saw him hurt anybody Q. You never saw him even strike anyone? A. No, I never did. Q. Did you ever know of him beating up anyone? A. I don't recall ever hearing him beat up anyone. Q. Did Jack Ruby ever get in any arguments with you or anyone else over any subject? A. He never got in an argument with me for sure. I can't recall him ever having an argument. He had a lot of friends around Dallas, different people. 40 26 Q. Do you remember him getting in any arguments about his union troubles? A. No. Q. Do you remember him getting in any arguments about paying his employees? A. No. Q. Do you remember him getting in any arguments about the strip-tease shows? A. Like I said, when I was there, he didn't have a strip-tease joint. I don't think it was strip tease. I don 't think he ever had strip tease out at the place. Q. Please continue- A. I think all he had was a stage in the middle of the place, a room a little bigger than this one. He had a stage up against one wall and he would come out and do the emcee and everybody would laugh because he didn't know how to talk, you know. Q. That was the Vegas Club? A. Yes: he had a band and as far as I can recall, I don't believe he had any strip tease. I'm almost positive he didn't. Q. How successful was the Vegas Club? A. He said it was doing all right. I wouldn't have any way of knowing. It was full all the time. Q. Did he ever ask you for money? 41 27 A. No. Q. Do you remember if he ever got money from any other individuals? A. No. Q. Do you remember that he had any business partners? A. No, I don't think he did, to tell you the truth. No I'm sure he didn't Q. Do you remember if he ever got in any financial trouble? A. What, sir? Q. In financial trouble. A. No, sir, I don't think he ever did as long as I knew him, he didn't. At least he never said anything about it. Q. Did Jack Ruby have problems with his incom taxes? A. Not that I know of. I didn't know him that well to know all his business, you know, his personal business. He could have had anything and I wouldn't know it. Q. Did he ever propose any business deals with you? A. Never, never Q. Do you know any people who were particularly good friends with Jack Ruby? A. Well, I know two real good friends of his. One fellow named Jake Rifkin, he's dead. He died a year or so ago. And another one named Mark Panitz, P-a-n-i-t-z. They 42 28 were two of his close friends. Q. What did Jake Rifkin do for a living? A. He was a gambler. Q. Where did he gamble? A. Around Memphis, around. let's see if he ever dealt any gambling houses. yes, he has dealt in gambling houses, I don't recall which one, around Memphis years and years ago. many years ago. Q. How did Jack Ruby get to know him? A. Through me. They were friends of mine. Q. Did Jake Rifkin gamble in Dallas? A. I think he worked around Dallas, I believe dealing around there some. Q. Do you know who he worked for? A. He might have come out and worked for me a couple of times up at the Top of the Hill, a few times. Q. During what period of time did he get to be good friends with Jack Ruby? A. Did he get to be? I'd say about the same time I did. They were both my good friends. Q. So that would have been late '40's or early '50's? A. I'd have to say the early '50's. I'm pretty sure it was early. it could have been the late '40's. but I think it was early '50's. Q. For how long a period of time was Jake Rifkin and 43 29 Jack Ruby good friends? A. Let me see. I'd say six or seven years, eight years maybe. Q. Why did they stop being good friends? A. I don't really know. They were still good friends as far as I know. I don't know. Jake left there. Let me see, I think he went to Hot Springs. He used to go to Hot Springs every year. Q. Do you know-- A. (Interrupting) And he could have worked over there, too, I don't know. Q. Who were some of the people Jake Rifkin gambled with in Dallas? A. I really wouldn't know. I wouldn't know, different gamblers. I wouldn't know. Q. What type of gambling would he have been involved in ? A. Oh, hell. he'd do anything, shoot dice, bet on horses, baseball games, football games. Herd bet on any- thing. Q. Did Jack Ruby have any other friends who were involved in gambling? A. I can't think of any, no. But these two fellows, they were friends of his. Q. How did you know they were good friends of his? 44 30 A. They would be at my apartment and we would swim and they would be there all the time. Q. I believe you stated that Jack Ruby thought very highly of you? A. He did. On account of me doing him so many favors I guess. Like I told you about the union, straightened that out, Bill Miller. And he called me later and said, what kind of people are you having me call, calling me. Well, what the hell, pardon me, I didn't know that Jack Ruby was going to do what he did. There wasn't any way in the world I would know that. I thought he was harmless. And I still think that he did it. I thought he thought it would make him a big man, that's all I can say. And I 've told everybody that. And that's exactly the reason I think he did it. He thought it would make him a martyr or something. Q. Was Jack Ruby very interested in money for what it could buy for him? A. I didn't get that, sir. Q. Was Jack Ruby very interested in money for what it could buy for him? A. He didn't seem to be, no, he really didn't. When I was around him, he seemed to be perfectly happy with his place. Q. You're saying he was much more interested in be- 45 31 coming a big man around town? A. That's what I think, yes. I really think that. in the entertainment field. Q. Did he see you as a big man in Dallas? A. I guess he might have thought that. Q. Why would he have thought that? A. I don't know why he thought that. He evidently did think that the way he hung around. I always conducted myself in the proper manner. Q. Who were some of the influential people in Dallas that you had good connections with? A. That I had good connections with? I didn't have any good connections with any of the big legitimate people. I did know a man named Sidney Fruhman. We used to play gin at his house a lot of Sundays. That was about the extent of my running with the legitimate people, if you know what I mean. Q. Did you say with illegitimate or with legitimate? A. Legitimate, with legitimate people, I mean business people. Q. How do you spell his last name? A. F-r-u-h-m-a-n. He's dead, too. Q. What was his occupation? A. He had a chain of hat stores named Rhelle, Rhelle 46 32 Hat Stores. I don 't know if they're still in operation. I'm sure they are. Q. Did Jack Ruby frequent the Top of the Hill Club? A. No, I think the Top of the Hill Club was closed when I met jack Ruby. I 'm pretty sure, I 'm positive it was, almost positive. Q. Did any gambling go on at the Top of the Hill Club? A. Yes. Q. And that was the dice and the cards that you spoke of before? A. We had a roulette wheel or two and dice games, maybe three, and one twenty-one game. Q. Did jack Ruby frequent the Cellar Club in Fort Worth? A. The Steller Club, I never heard of it. Q. The Cellar Club. A. Costello? Q. Cellar, C-e-l-l-a-r. A. I never heard of it. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Pat or Fay Kirkwood? A. Yes, that's where I was at in Fort Worth. Don't get them mixed up. One of them is the son and one is the old man. The old man that I was with was rained W.C. Kirkwood. Pat is kind of a hippie type young fellow. He was young then. He's not young now. 47 33 Q. Did Jack Ruby know W.C. Kirkwood? A. Just to say hello to him. He may have been out there maybe once or twice. Q. What was the name--was it a club that Mr. Kirkwood ran? A. It was a home. We were sneaking gambling is what we was doing. Q. Over what time period was there gambling in Mr. Kirkwood' s home ? A. I'd have to say, I believe from '51 to '53. I'm not sure. While I was there, he had some gambling there before. But when I was there '51 to '53. I 'm not positive but I think so. Q. And you say you think Jack Ruby may have gone there once or twice? A. That's all. Q. Did Jack Ruby gamble there? A. No, he wouldn't gamble. I told you he wouldn't bet anything, on anything. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Pat Kirkwood? A. No, I 'm sure he didn't. Q. What occupation was Pat Kirkwood in? A. Last I heard of Pat Kirkwood, he had a hippie, we call it a joint, a hippie joint where they lay on the floor on pads. I never was in it but I heard about it. 48 34 He grew a beard and long hair and prior to that he had been a race driver but he opened this place and kind of went, I don't know, it was during that hippie period, wasn't around the '50's. Q. What time period did Pat Kirkwood operate that place? A. Pat Kirkwood, I just don't know. Let me see, I left there in '53. I'd say he must have started around I believe. I 'm not positive, though. I couldn't say for sure. Q. What was the name of Pat Kirkwood's place? A. I don't know. I just heard about it. Q. Where was it located? A. It was in Fort Worth in the city, I think. Q. Now, you said Pat was W. C . Kirkwood's son ? A. His son, that's right. Q. Do you know where he is now? A. I have no idea. Q. When was the last time you had communication with Pat Kirkwood ? A. I haven't had communication with Pat Kirkwood, I haven't heard from Pat Kirkwood in years, even thought about him. I've seen his father. His father's been out here maybe once or twice. He's half blind. Q. Where does W.C. Kirkwood live now? 49 35 A. I'm sure he still lives at the same place. Hers been there many, many years. Q. Where is that? A. 2222 Jacksborough Highway. Q. In what town? A. Fort Worth. Q. You were describing the place that Pat Kirkwood ran as having pads on the floor. A. I just had people telling me about it. I was never in there, don't even knew what street it was on and where it was at. But I heard people laughing about it and talking about it Q. Basically they were talking about the fact that he had sexual activity going on in his place? A. No, they were just talking about what a bunch of crummy looking people patronized it, you know. At that time everybody was growing a beard. It was the start of the hippie period. Q. What were the pads on the floor for? A. I don't know, to sit on, I guess. I mean that's hearsay to me. I haven't been there so I couldn't tell you for sure. But I'm sure that you could find out very easy. Q. Did you know a Fay Kirkwood? A. That was W.C.'s wife, a very nice lady. She had a dancing horse and she'd ride in rodeos every once in a 50 36 while at that time. Q. Did she ever run a club? A. No, she was strictly a rodeo performer. Q. You stated previously that you didn't know any times when Jack Ruby was in particular financial trouble. Were there any times when he was particularly successful financially? A. No, I think he just made a certain amount of money. I have no idea what he made but he couldn't have made too much money. He made a comfortable living. It was nothing to brag about. Q. Would you describe him as a free spender or was he frugal? A. I 'd have to say he was frugal. He wasn't a free spender. Q. Are there any incidents you can describe that demonstrate that he was frugal? A. Like I'd go out to eat with him and he'd never offer to pay a check. That's one way he was frugal. That's the only way I would know he was frugal. I never saw him throwing any money away. Q. Did you and Jack Ruby ever go out for drinks together and he offered to pay? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby drink? 51 37 A. I don't Jack Ruby even drank, to tell you the truth. I never did see him take a drink. you ever travel outside of Dallas with Jack Ruby? A. No. not that I know of. Q. Do you know of Jack Ruby traveling outside of Dallas other than the Cuba trip? A. The only trip I know is right there. The FBI asked me if he had been out here. He's never been out here as far as I know. Q. During the time that you knew Jack Ruby, did he ever travel to Chicago? A. I don't recall him ever going to Chicago. I've heard him talk about Chicago. I think he was from Chicago. I'd have to say he was. I don't recall him ever going anywhere. Q. What do you recall Jack Ruby saying about Chicago? A. Nothing. That he came up in a poor neighborhood and how rough it was for him. He had a tough young life. That's about it. Q. Do you recall him talking about his family living in Chicago? A. I think his family lived in Dallas. His sister out there and he always said she was sick or something. He had a brother. I think he had two brothers. One of them. 52 38 was a little, I don't know, he said he was sick. Q. He said who was sick? A. The brother, the brother and sister both he said were a little sick some way. I don't know. Q. Was he talking about them being physically A. He just said they were sick. Q. Did you ever meet any of Jack Ruby's brothers or sisters? A. I want to tell you something that happened here about, it's been about four months ago. I don't think I ever saw any one of his family in Dallas. I might have seen his sister. Q. His sister was Eva Grant. A. Eva Grant, yes, that's the one I'm talking about. I think I saw her in a restaurant one night with him and I didn't even go, I went to the counter to keep from going around them. He's got a brother named Earl Ruby. He was out here about four months ago and he came by to see me. I was working. He came in the pit. We call it the pit, you know. He said, "Mr. McWillie?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I'm Earl Ruby." Well, I like to fell down. I said, "Earl Ruby?" I said, "What do you want, Earl?" Well, "I just want to say hello to you." I've never seen him in my life before. I said, "What are you doing out here?" He said, "We're going to make a docu- 53 39 mentary", NBC or one of the others. I said, "Listen, will you do me a favor? Would you just get on out of here and get away from me. I've got enough problems about your brother already uncalled for." I don't know if he got mad or not but he left. He was there about five minutes. That's the first time I had ever laid eyes on him. Didn't he have two brothers? Q. Yes, he had a brother named Sam. Did you ever meet Sam Ruby? A. No, I didn't meet him. Have you ever seen any of them? It seemed like he had a little bitty skinny brother. What the hell was his name? But I didn't meet him anyway. I've seen him. But this Earl, I had never laid eyes on him. And when he came into the pit and said, "I'm Earl Ruby", well, I like to fell out. I didn't want to see any Rubys any more. Q. Did Jack Ruby ever travel to New Orleans? A. To New Orleans? If he did, he traveled after I left Dallas. I don't ever recall Jack Ruby ever leaving Dallas the whole time I knew him. Q. Do you know whether or not Jack Ruby knew Carlos or Vincent Marcello? A. Is that the fellow in New Orleans? I wouldn't think so, no. I wouldn't think he'd know him. 54 40 Q. Did you know Carlos or Vincent Marcello? A. No. sir, I sure don't. Q. Never met them? A. Never met them in my life. Q. Did Jack Ruby know a man named Pete Guarisco? A. Who? Q. Pete Guarisco. A. Not that I know of. Q. Did you know Pete Guarisco? A. No, never heard of him. Q. Did Jack Ruby travel to Shreveport, Louisiana? A. Not that I know of. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Elizabeth Anne Matthews? A. Elizabeth Anne who? Q. Matthews. A. Elizabeth Anne, no. I mean I don't know whether he knew them or not. He could have known all of them, I don't know, but I don't think he did. Q. Do you know R.D. Matthews? A. Oh, yes. Q. Did you know his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Anne Matthews? A. I met her just I think one time. Q. Do you recall when you met her? A. I met her at the Horseshoe, I think. 55 41 Q. Was she married to R.D. Matthews at the time? A. I really wouldn't know. I'm sure this is the lady he's married to now. I don't know. I didn't know R.D. too well. I mean not intimately, do you know what I mean. He worked there a while. Q. Do you recall when Jack Ruby came from Chicago to Dallas? A. I have no idea. Q. Do you know how long after he came to Dallas you met him? A. No, I don't have any idea. The first time I ever saw him in my life was like I told you sitting there with that hat on, and it just attracted my attention and I kept looking at this fellow. Q. Does it refresh your memory to know that Jack Ruby came to Dallas around 1947? A. No, I wouldn't know when he came there because I didn't know him. hadn't heard of him. Q. What is your best recollection as to when you met Jack Ruby? A. I'd say the first part of the '50's because I think I was in Fort Worth. I either went over there in '51 to '53 or '53 to '56. I don't recall the exact dates. I met him while I was at the Four Duces. Q. Prior to Jack Ruby's arrival in Dallas in 1947, 56 42 what was the status of gambling in the Dallas area? A. I don't understand what you mean, the status. Q. What kinds of gambling was going on in the Dallas area in the time, say, 1945 to 1947? A. Well, there were a few crap games and a few horse books is all I know of. Q. Was there any betting on sporting events? A. Not that I know of. I never bet on them myself. It could have been, I don't know. Q. Who was involved in this gambling that you described in 1945 to 1947? A. In Dallas? Q. In the Dallas area, Dallas-Fort Worth area- A. I don't really know. I knew a fellow named Scarborough, Red Scarborough. and like I said. Miller and Earl Dalton. Q. How much numbers activity was there in Dallas? A. I have no idea about the numbers. At the time I was a dice dealer when I was in Dallas. Q. Did you know of any numbers activity in Dallas? A. No, sir, I wouldn't have any way or knowing that because-- Q. (Interrupting) Were you aware of Benny Binion's numbers operation in Dallas prior to 1947? A. No. 57 43 Q. Did you know Benny Binion at that time? A. Know him to see him. Q. You knew him to see him at that time? A. Just to see him. Q. Did you know that Ivy Miller and Red Scarborough worked for Benny Binion in a numbers operation? A. No. I didn't. Q. What gambling activity did you know that Ivy Miller and Red Scarborough were involved in? A. They were involved in the Southland Hotel and could have been involved in the place where I worked, Blue Bonnet, and they were involved in the Top of the Hill. Q. What gambling activity was Benny Binion involved in at that time? A. I have no idea. Q. Was Benny Binion involved in any gambling at that time? A. I don't know. There's no way I'd know. Did you ever see Benny Binion gamble? A. Ever see him gamble, no, never did. Q. Did you know Johnny Avon? A. Johnny Avon, not well. He had had a gambling place around there before I ever got there. He wasn't in gambling when I was there. Q. Did you know Berle Cheek? 58 45 A. Who? Q. Berle Cheek. A. Berle Cheek, yes, I knew him, too. He had been in gambling prior to my going to Dallas. Q. What kind of gambling was he involved in? A. I don 't really know but I knew he was a gambler. Q. Was he involved in gambling while you were there? A. No. Let me see. wait a minute now. We borrowed some money from Berle Cheek, I think, while I was at the Top of the Hill, I don't know, $10,000 or something. Q. When you say we, you mean you and Fred Browning? A. Me and Kirkwood at the Four Duces. Q. You and W.C. Kirkwood? A. Yes. In two or three days we gave it back to him because we didn't want his money. Q. Was there any loan sharking activity going on in the Dallas area at that time? A. Not that I know of. Q. Did you know Benny Bickers? A. Yes, very well. Q. What gambling activity was Mr. Bickers involved in? A. I don't know. I really don't know what he was involved in. 59 45 Q. Did you know that he worked with Benny Binion in a numbers activity in that area? A. No. Q. Did you know Ben Whittaker? A. Very well. Q. What kind of gambling activity was Mr. Whittaker involved in? A. Mr. Whittaker had race horses and all he did, that I knew of, was bet on his own horses, go to the track, a very nice man. Q. Did he run a gambling operation? A. Not that I know of. He didn't run one while I was there. Q. What kind of gambling was Fred Browning involved in? A. He was involved in the Top of the Hill Terrace. Q. Was he involved in any other gambling? A. No. he had the Top of the Hill for years. Q. Did he ever work with Benny Binion in gambling? A. Fred Browning? Q. Fred Browning. A. Not that I know of. Q. Did JaCk Ruby know Benny Binion? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Ivy Miller? 60 46 A. No. Q. Would Jack Ruby have known of Benny Binion? A. I don't think so. I wouldn't know why he would have known him. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Johnny Avon? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Berle Cheek? A. No, not that I know of. I have to say not that I know of because I'm positive he didn't. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Red Scarborough? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Benny Bickers? A. I don't think so. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Ben Whittaker? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Fred Browning? A. I think we were closed. I don't believe he did know Fred Browning. We were closed when I met Jack, I'm positive of it. Q. How organized was gambling in the Dallas area? A. I really don't know. There's no way I'd know how it was organized. Q. Was Dallas an open or a closed city? A. It had a few crap games in it. I don't know if you'd call that open or closed or whatever it was. But it 61 47 had a few crap games like more cities in the United States at that time. Q. Did the individual who was running a particular crap game have to get anyone else's permission to do A. Have to do what, sir? Get anyone else's permission. A. I really don't know. I was just working there. Q. When you ran your gambling places in the Dallas area, did you have to pay any money to anyone? A. No, sir. we were sneaking as I told you a while ago. Q. You were what? A. We were sneaking, what we call sneaking. I don't know how to explain it. We were doing it against the law I guess you'd call it. Q. Did any of these secret gambling operations have troubles with the police? A. Yes. they got raided every once in a while. The Rangers would raid them. Hell, the sheriff would raid them a lot of times. Q. When you say the Rangers, you mean the Texas Rangers? A. Yes. Q. Did anyone ever have to pay off the police? A. Not that I know of. I wasn't in a position to 62 48 know that but I wouldn't think so. I really don't know about that because I wasn't involved in it. Q. Did anyone have to pay off the prosecuter? A. I wouldn't think so. Q. Were you aware of a crackdown on gambling in the Dallas area in 1947 when a new prosecuter came into office? A. Yes, there was a crackdown, sure was. I don't know if it was the prosecuter. Q. Would that have been when Steve Guthrie became the sheriff? A. I really don't recall. Q. What effect did this crackdown have on gambling? How successful was the crackdown? A. There just wasn't any more gambling. I thought it was Kefauver that did it. I'm not sure. What time was Kefauver, '58? Was it that late, '58? MR. WOLF: Early '50's. MR. PURDY: Kefauver was early '50's. A. As I understand that was the crackdown in gambling everywhere. BY MR. PURDY: Q. But you recall a crackdown in Dallas in 1947 either with the new sheriff or when Will Wilson came in? A. I remember we got closed up, we got raided around Dallas. 63 49 Q. Did this crackdown cause anyone to leave Dallas? A. I'm sure all the dealers left. Q. Do you recall people leaving Dallas and going to Las Vegas around 1947? A. A number of them, yes, a number of people came out here. Most everybody came out here. Q. Do you remember Benny Binion leaving at that time? A. Yes. Q. Who else do you remember left at that time? A. I don't know if it was at that time or not, but I remember Benny Binion left there. Who else left there? Let me see, a fellow named Jess Zilliack. Q. How do you spell his name? A. I don't know, Zilliack. Q. Who else left Dallas and went to Vegas, do you remember? A. Fred Browning even came out here but he didn't come out here to do business. He brought race horses out here. He had a track out here about that time. There's a lot of people. Everybody came out here over the years because there wasn't any place to gamble but here Q. After the crackdown on gambling in the Dallas area, could you please describe for us how much gambling went on in the Dallas area between 1947 and, say, 1958 when you last 64 50 had contact with Jack Ruby in Dallas? A. Well, they had stag parties. We did have stag parties for a while where they run them in the country clubs. That was the extent of the gambling around Dallas. Q. What type of gambling went on at these stag parties? A. Dice games. Q. How often were they held? A. Maybe once a month, most every two months. Q. Did Jack Ruby ever go to any of those stag parties? A. Never Q. Did you ever go to them? A. Sure, I went to them. Q. If Jack Ruby had gone to them, would you have known about it? A. Oh, yes, I would have seen him. If you saw him once, you'd never forget him with the hat on. Q. If Jack Ruby had gone to the stag parties, would you have seen him there? A. Yes, I wouldn't have known him, but I would have seen him, I would have remembered him because I do remember faces. Q. Was there any link between Dallas and Las Vegas in terms of gambling between, say, '47 and 1960? 65 51 A. I'd have to say no. Q. Did you know Harry Urban? A. Didn't know him intimately I knew him to speak to him. Q. Did you know he was a partner of Benny Binion? A. No. Q. Was Harry Urban involved in any gambling in the Dallas area? A. I don't think so. Q. Were you familiar--go ahead. A. I forgot what I was going to say. Q. Which clubs were the stag parties held in? A. The stag party was held at the, let's see, it was the country club out on. there was one downtown. I can't think of the name. The Main Street Club or something. It was at the corner of Field and Main. We held them there. I mean I ran them a pretty good while, maybe six or seven times. There was a country club out on the, kind of a freeway there. They changed the name of it since then. I don't recall the name of it. Then there was one named the Cipango Club. Q. Who ran the operation at the Cipango Club? A. Ivy Miller and Earl Dalton. Scarborough was dead. Q. During what time period did they run that? A. Like I said, I don't recall. I think it was the 66 52 late '40's maybe, I don't know. Q. Did they run the Cipango Club at all during the '50's? A. The club is still there, I think, but not gambling. Q. Did they have any of the stag parties at the Cipango Club during the '50's? A. That's what they call stag parties but they let their wives come, too. They just called it stag parties. Q. Did that go on during the '50's? A. No, it stopped, I'd say, in the late '40's. There wasn't too many out there, maybe five or six. Q. Who ran the operation in the country club when they had the stag parties? A. Who ran the gambling? I ran it myself but the same two people I mentioned, Scarborough and Miller. Q. You had said Dalton and Miller? A. I meant Dalton and Miller. Scarborough was dead Q. Did you also run the operation at the Cipango Club with them? A. Yes, I ran the stags for them. Q. And did you also run the operation at the club on Main Street with them? A. Gambling, yes. Q. Were any of the stag parties held during the 67 53 1950's? A. No, I'd have to say no. I'm not for sure, but have to say no for sure. Q. What kind of gambling went on at the stag parties? A. Just dice games. Q. I believe previously in response to my question about gambling between 1947 and 1958, you said stag parties were held. Are you now changing that and saying that they didn't go on in the '50's? A. I don't recall, to tell you the truth. It could have gone on in maybe '51. I don 't know for sure. There's no way I can remember. But I told you that I did run them for them. That's all I can tell you. I don 't know what years exactly. The last years I don't know. I just don't know. It could be and it could not be, I just don't know. Q. Did any gambling go on in Dallas in the 1950's? A. No. Q. Was there any gambling in private homes in the '50's? A. There could have been, I don 't know about that. Q. You left for Cuba, you said, in 1958? A. '58. Q. So if there was no gambling in the '50's, that means that-- A. (Interrupting) It was in the '50's in Fort 68 54 Worth. I told you that I was running this place sneaking over in Fort Worth. Q. Was Jack Ruby involved in any gambling in the 1950's. A. He was involved in nothing in the way of gambling, no way. Q. Were you interviewed by the FBI in Las Vegas on November 25, 1963? A. Yes, sir. I don't know if it was the exact date or not. They like to ran me crazy. I'd be working and they would call me out of the pit to talk to them. I finally asked them, I said. "Please come out to my home and let me talk to you." I was interviewed by them many times. Did you tell the FBI on November 25, 1963, that Jack Ruby had been involved in gambling as a player? A. No, I did not because he never had been involved in gambling as a player. Like I say, Jack Ruby wouldn't bet 25 cents on anything. Q. The FBI report dated November 27, 1963, which is a report of your interview with the FBI on November 25, 1963. which was conducted in Las Vegas, Nevada, by special agents Stevens and Salisbury, that report says that you stated, the report says, "He stated he does not know Ruby to have ever been involved in any bookie activity or in any gambling of any nature other than as a player." 69 A. He never played in his life. I never saw him play. Does that accurately reflect what you told the FBI on November 25, 1963, that Ruby was involved as a player? A. No. sir, I didn't tell them that. I did not tell them that. I have never seen Ruby gamble on anything. And, incidentally, when I went to Arruba, the day I left. the FBI went to my mother, went to my sisters, my brothers, and Jack Ruby had happened to be visiting me in my apartment when my mother and sister were visiting me, and they thought he was the finest man in the world and that's what my mother told the FBI. I 'm sure. So I asked Mr. Stevens, I said. "If you don't mind, my sister has been with the Veterans Hospital for many years and she's the head nurse there in the operating room, charge of the operating room", I gave him a number at home, and I said. "If you will call her after 5:30. she'll invite you out to the house and talk to you." Well, they went up there and like to scared her to death. So the day I went to Arruba, Mr. Stevens. I 'm glad to remember that name. he came out to the house and told my wife I had been cleared of any wrong doing and my wife asked him. "Well, what's he been cleared of. he hasn't done any- thing." "Just known this nut", which it turns out he was. I didn't know he was that nutty. 70 56 Q. When was that that your family members met Jack Ruby? A. I don't know, it was in the '50's. It was in the '50's.I can only recall the year. I'm sure they have a record of it, my mother and my sister both. He had a habit of, if he met anyone. like herd meet you, he'd want to know your name. he'd want to know your address, what your birthday was. and he would send you a birthday card, a Christmas card. I don't know why he did that but that was a habit he had. Q. when was it that you went to Arruba? A. Arruba in '64, I believe. Q Was it just a coincidence that the FBI came to you the day you were leaving for Arruba? A. It was after I went to Arruba and Mr. Stevens told my wife' that I had been cleared of anything. I don't know what the devil he was talking about. Q. Do you know any oilmen in Dallas, the Dallas area? A. A lot of oilmen played at the Top of the Hill, quite a few. Q. who were some of those oilmen? A. Hell. I don't recall the names any more. Let Be see. there was a fellow named Cartaway, he was an oilman. Sid Richardson would come out there, he didn't do much playing. I don't think he played at all. Billy Byers, a 71 57 man named Billy Byers, he played out there. Big oilmen, H. L. Hunt. he played out there. Q. How often did H. L. Hunt gamble out there? A. Not very often. He would go upstairs and eat. We gave away the food. And he would take 12 people up there and wouldn't tip the waiter but he would gamble, he did gamble. Q. Was Jack Ruby ever there when any oilmen were there? A. No, I never knew Jack Ruby when the Top of the Hill was open. I'm almost positive that I met Jack Ruby after it was closed. Q. Did you know Harry Hall? A. I knew a dealer years and years ago by the name of Harry Hall. Hell, he's been dead 30, 40 years. Q. He also went by the name Harry Sinclair, Jr. A. No. Q. Or Harry Haler, H-a-l-e-r? A. No. Q. Regarding Mr. Bill Byers. do you recall an incident when a number of people considered robbing him? A. No. I didn't knew he ever got robbed. He lived in Tyler, Texas. He didn't live in Dallas. Q. Did Jack Ruby know H. L. Hunt? A. No, I'm positive he didn't. 72 58 Q. Did Jack Ruby know Bill Byers? A. No, he never knew any of those people that I talking about. Q. Did Dick Anconi ever come to the Top of the Hill Club? A. No, I knew Dick Anconi. Dick Anconi was a big Oilman. He died a number of years ago. Q. Did Jack Ruby know him? A. No. Q. Were you familiar with the Petroleum Club? A. No, I know where it was but you couldn't go in there unless you were an oilman. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Sid Richardson? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Dewey Groom? A. Who? Q. Dewey Groom. A. How do you spell it? Q. G-R-O-O-M. A. I don 't know. I don't know who he knew . I've never heard of him. Q. You've never heard of Groom? A. No. Q. Do you know Marry Field? A. Marty who? 73 59 Q. Marry Field. A. He used to work at the Sands a few years ago, also used to work in Cuba. also went by the name of Marty Schwartz when he was a fighter. A. No, I don't think I knew him. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Joe Civello? A. Joe Civello. I don't think he did. Q. Did you know Joe Civello? A. I knew him. yes. I didn't know him intimately, but I knew him to speak to him. Q. What did Joe Civello do for a living? A. I have no idea. He had a whiskey store, that's where I met him, in a whiskey store. Q. Did he ever gamble, to your knowledge? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did he ever go to any of your clubs? A. No, never did. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Joe or Sam Campisi? A. I'm sure he did, yes. They have a restaurant there. Q. What restaurant did they run? A. Egyptian Lounge. Q. Were you ever with Jack Ruby when he was with either of the Campisis? A. I could have eaten out there with Jack Ruby but 74 60 that was all. Q. There might have been a time when you all ate together? A. They would come over and say hello probably or something like that. They were pretty good hosts Q Do you recall h/ring dinner with Jack Ruby and the Campisis in 1954 or '55? A. I don't recall it but it's possible. Q. were you ever present with either of the Campisis when Jack Ruby was present when business deals were discussed? A. No, they would have no business dealings with Jack Ruby. Q. Do you know whether or not the Campisis ever went to Ruby's club? A. Everybody went to Ruby's club to see those hippies. Q. I don't know that they did. but I'd have to say they had been. Q. Were the Campisis ever involved in gambling? A. Not that I know of. Q. Did they ever come to your club? A. No. Q. Did you know Johnnie Grizzaffi? A. No, not that I recall him. I don't recall knowing him. What did he do? 75 61 Q. Johnnie Grizzaffi was an associate of Lois Green and Beeny Binion. A. No. Q. Did you know Sidney Siedband? A. Who ? Q. Sidney Siedband, S-i-e-d-b-a-n-d. A. No. Q. Did you know Jack Todd? A. Jack Todd, yes, I knew Jack Todd. Q. What did Jack Todd do? A. Jack Todd, to tell you the truth, I don't know what Jack Todd did. He was in Cuba, too. Q. What did Jack Todd do in Cuba? A. Just came over there visiting. Q. Did he see you when he was in Cuba? A. I saw him once or twice, yes. Q. When was that that he visited Cuba? A. I don't know. I don 't have any idea. Q. Would that have been the late A. It had to be the late '50's. Q. Was jack Ruby there at the time Jack Todd was there? A. I don 't think he was. I'm positive he wasn't I can't say for sure but I'm positive he wasn't. Did Jack Ruby know Jack Todd? 76 62 A. I'm sure he did. I 'm not positive he did but I would say he did. Everybody who went to that club knew Jack Ruby. Q. Was Jack Todd a safe cracker? A. I don 't really know. I wouldn't have any way of knowing. Q. Did Jack Todd gamble? A. I don't recall ever seeing him gamble. Q. Did he have any business dealings with you? A. Not any with me. no. Q. Do you know anyone he had business dealings with? A. No. Q. Are you familiar with Sue's Used Car Lot? A. Whose? Q. Sue's Used Car Lot. A. What city is that in? Q. In the Dallas area? A. No. never been around a car lot in my life. Q. Do you know that Jack Ruby and Jack Todd often frequented Sue's Used Car Lot? A. No, I didn't. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Izzy Miller? A. It's possible. They're both jewish, it's possible. Q. Did you know Izzy Miller? A. Yes. 77 Q. What did he do for a living? 63 A. I don't know what he did. He was a crap dealer for awhile. Q. Did he ever gamble at your club? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know John Eli Stone? A. Who? Q. Johnny Eli Stone. A. Not that I know of. Q. Do you know him? A. I wouldn't know. I don't know who he knew. But I wouldn't think so. I never heard of him. Q. You never heard of Johnny Eli Stone? A. How do you spell the last name? Q. S-t-o-n-e. A. I know Johnny Stone, .yes, but Jack Ruby would never know Johnny Stone. Johnny Stone, when I knew him, ran a bar up on. called it the Turf Bar. Q. was there any gambling at the Turf Bar? A. Not that I ever saw. Q. Do you know why Jack Ruby moved to Dallas? A. I have no idea. Q. Did you and Jack Ruby ever discuss why he came to Dallas? A. No, never. 78 Q. You said before that Jack Ruby discussed Chicago with you generally. A. He said he came up in Chicago and he came up in a poor neighborhood and he would talk about what a rough time he had when he was a kid and that's the extent of his talk about Chicago. Q. Did he ever discuss anyone he grew up with? A. No. Q. Did he ever discuss any people he still knew in Chicago? A. No, never. Q. Do you know if Jack Ruby knew Barney Baker? A. Barney Baker? Barney Baker. no. Q. Did you know Mr. Baker? A. No, I did not. Q Did Jack Ruby know Lenny Patrick? A. Lenny Patrick, I have no idea. He could have I don't even know who Lenny Patrick was myself. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Dave yaras? A. I don't know. I don't think so. Q. Did you know Dave Yaras? A. I knew who he was. Q. Had you ever met him? A. I don't think so. I knew his brother. He had a brother named Sam Yaras. I don't think I ever met Dave. 79 65 Is his name Dave? Is that the name? I don't think I ever met him. I met his brother. His brother had slot machines. He was a slot machine man, repaired slot machines. Q. Where did he repair slot machines? A. Right in his building. Q. What city was that in? A. I believe it was Field Street. I 'm not sure. I wouldn't say for sure. Q. What city was that in? A. Dallas. In fact, his brother died in Dallas. Q. Do you remember when Sam Yaras came to Dallas? A. Who ? Q. Do you know when Sam yaras came to Dallas? A. I have no idea. Q. Do you know if Jack Ruby knew Sam Yaras? A. No, he didn't know him. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Paul Dorfman? A. I have no idea. I don't know who Paul Dorfman is. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Lawrence Meyers? A. Lawrence who? Q. Meyers. A. I don't know. I don't know him. Q. Did anyone from outside of Dallas consider moving to Dallas to get into gambling operations? 80 66 A. I don't know. I really don't know. Q. Did you ever hear of outside gamblers wanting to come into Dallas? A. No, it's a possibility that it would happen and I wouldn't know anything about it because it wasn't any of my business. Q. Was Jack Ruby involved in any prostitution related activities? A. prostitution? Q. Related activities- A. No. Q. Were any of his employees involved in prostitution? A. Not that I know of, no. I don't know 'about the Carousel, that's a different proposition. I don't know about that. I don't think he would be, Q. was it common in Dallas for club employees to be involved in prostitution? A. No, I don't think so. I never heard of it. Q. Was there much prostitution in Dallas? A. Not too much, by George, there wasn't too much. Q. Where was the prostitution that there was? A. I don't know where it was. Q. Did it operate out of hotels? A. It's a possibility they worked out of hotels. 81 67 Q. Did you know a woman named Helen Alfonse Roan? A. Helen Alfonse what? Q. Roan, R-o-a-n- A. Not that I recall. no. Q. Do you know if Jack Ruby had close relations with any of his employees? A. No. I don't- Q. Do you know whether or not there was any narcotics activity in the Dallas area? A. Never heard of it. never. Q. Did you know Paul Rowland Jones? A. No. I didn't know of him. I've read about him. It seemed like he got into some trouble in Mexico. It seemed like when I read about him. he got into some kind of trouble in Mexico. I never knew him. Q. Did Jack Ruby know him? A. No; I couldn't say for sure but I wouldn't think so. Q. Did Jack Ruby know James or Bunny Breen, B-r-e-e-n? A. I never heard of them. See, a lot of these people you're asking me if Jack Ruby knew, he could have known them and I didn't know it. But as far as I know. I didn't (know them myself.) Q. Was there any illegal gun sales in Dallas when you were there? 82 68 A. No. not that I know of. Q. Was there any transportation of guns to or from other places? A. Not that I know and I'm positive that there wasn't. Q. Did you know Robert Ray McKeown? A. No, I never heard of him either. I read about him in some of those articles about him but I never heard of him. Q. You didn't know if Jack Ruby knew him? A. No. If he had, I think he would have told me if he knew of those people you said about. He's that kind of fellow. I never heard of any of these people you're asking most of them. Q. Did you know of a John Thomas Mason? A. No, John Thomas Mason. Q. Did Jack Ruby know of him? A. I don't believe so. Like I tell you, I don't know who he knew. He could have known several of those people I wouldn't know it. you know. Q. Did you know Joseph Merola. M-e-r-o-l-a? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know him? A. I don't know. Q. To your knowledge. 83 69 A. I have to keep telling you I don't know who Jack Ruby knew, but I wouldn't think so. Maybe he did, I don't know. Q. You stated previously that you did not ask Jack Ruby for four guns in 1954? A. I don't recall that, no. I've been asked several times and I don't recall it. Q. Does it refresh your recollection to know that Jack Ruby said that you requested four Cobras in 1959? A. No. it doesn't. The only gun I can remember is a gun he sent out here and I let it go back, didn't take it out of the-- Q. (interrupting) Can you think of any reason you would have wanted guns in 1959? A. No reason I would have wanted guns in '59. I was in Cuba. I 'd get myself killed if I had guns over there. Q. You stated previously that, to your knowledge. Jack Ruby only owned one gun? A. One gun as far as I know. He could have owned two or three but I didn't know about it. There wouldn't be any way I'd know it. Q. Do you recall being interviewed by the FBI in June of 1964 by special agents McFaul and Stevens in Vegas? A. I remember being interviewed by the FBI a lot 84 70 of times. I don't knew the exact dates. Q. Did you tell the FBI in June of 1964 that Jack Ruby kept a couple of guns at his residence although he was not a gun collector? A. If I did, I don't recall that. The only gun I ever saw that Jack Ruby had was a gun that he carried in a sack, when he closed up at night, he'd take his gun out of his sack and put it in his pocket and go deposit his money and then put the gun in his glove compartment. That is all I recall. Q. If you told the FBI in June of 1964 that you had seen a couple of old guns in Jack Ruby is residence, would that have been the truth at that time? A. That I saw a couple of old guns? It's a possibility that he had two guns. I don't remember, to tell you the truth. But I do remember the gun that he always had on him when he went out to his club. Q. You mentioned earlier a couple of times when Jack Ruby asked you for help. One was with reference to the curfew problem and one was with reference to AGVA. Did he ever call you for help on any other matter? A. No, not a thing. Q. Did you ever ask him for help on anything? A. No. Q. Why did Jack Ruby think to call you long distance 85 71 to ask about his problems with AGVA? A. He was just like that. He would call me on most any of his darn problems. He was just like that. Q. Did he call about any other problems? A. That's the only problem he had, I guess, was the AGVA and Miller, he got it taken care of that same day, I belive. It must have been a minor thing or something. Q. Did you have any previous contacts with AGVA that would make him think that you could help him? A. No, I don't think he would know I had any con- tacts. He just called me and asked me if I knew anyone that knew the president of AGVA. It just happened that I did know Miller and I called Miller to help him. Q. Were you familiar at all with AGVA in Dallas? A. Not at all. Q. While you were there. A. No. Q. Did you know Vincent Lee? A. Who? Q. Vincent Lee who worked for AGVA in Dallas. A. Vincent Lee, no, I didn't. Q. Did you know James Henry Dolan who worked for AGVA in Dallas? A. It seems like I met him. Did he work for AGVA? Was that the union he worked for? 86 72 Q. He did work for a while. A. He worked for some union. I didn't know what union it was. I met him once or twice, I think. Q. Do you know anything about his activities with the union? A. Nothing. I didn't evenknow it was AGVA. I knew it was a union. Q. Did you ever have any dealings with any other unions? A. None whatsoever. Q. Do you know Tony Pappa? A. No. Q. Do you know Mike Shore? A. No. Q. What can you tell us about Jack Ruby's relations with the Dallas Police Department? A. I can just tell you--I've been asked that before. too. He was always, I don't know. I guess he thought it would help his place. He was always courteous to them. At Christmas time I think he would give some of them presents, whiskey or something. That's my idea. I don't know for sure. He was very close with them. A TV announcer there named, I can't think of his name, but one of the TV announcers, he just liked to get everywhere. Q. Was it Gordon McLendon? 87 73 A. I think that 's the name, yes. He knew Gordon very well. I 'd hear him speak of him all the time. Q. I'm sorry, you would hear Jack Ruby speak of McLendon? A. Yes; maybe he ran ads with him or something. I don't know. Just like Tony, I think the reason he knew Tony was on account of his ads in the papers and things, I would say. Q. Did you know Gordon McLendon? A. No, sir. Q. Did Jack Ruby ever talk to you about Gordon McLendon? A. To tell you the truth, he either introduced Brescia, in that letter I gave you, to Gordon or Brescia introduced him to Gordon McLendon. I'm not sure which way it was. But Brescia used to come to Dallas with a professional basketball team. What's the name of that trick team? Q. Globetrotters? A. It was another one. It was a well-known team. And Brescia was a publicity man for them. Q. Did Jack Ruby have any friends with the Dallas Police Department? A. I really don't know. I have no idea. I wasn't that familiar with him to know who his friends were. 88 74 Q. Did Jack Ruby ever tell you that he had pull with the Dallas Police Department? A. No, he didn't. Q. To your knowledge, did Jack Ruby ever exercise any pull with the Dallas Police Department? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. Were you familiar with the Dallas Police Associa- tion? A. No. sir. I don't think I knew many policemen in Dallas. Q. Did you know Lieutenant George Butler who formerly headed the Dallas Police Association? A. I didn't know him intimately. I knew who he was. Q. What did you know about Lieutenant Butler? A. I think he was the head of the vice squad, I be- lieve. I'm not sure. Q. How did you happen to know him? A. I don't remember how I met him. Q. Was he an associate of H. L. Hunt? A. I wouldn't think so. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Lieutenant George Butler? A. Did Jack Ruby know Butler? I wouldn't think so. He could have, I don't know. Q. Did Jack Ruby ever complain that he had some problems with the police other than that one curfew incident? 89 75 A. That's the only time I ever heard of. I think it was about a curfew. I sent him to Schepps. He said he was being harassed because he was Jewish and I said the man for you to go to see is go see Mr. Schepps and explain it to him. Maybe he can straighten it out. Q. Did members of the Dallas Police Department ever come to Jack Ruby for information? A. Not that I know of. Q. Did members of the FBI office in Dallas ever come to Jack Ruby for information? A. I don't know but I wouldn't think so. Q. During the time you were in Dallas, did organized crime have any impact on activities in Dallas? A. Organized crime, no. Like I told you, the people that had the gambling there was Miller and Scarborough and Dalton, as far as I know. Q. So it was your impression that it was a local operation? A. Local Operation. Q. Was there anyone from outside who had an influence on Dallas that you know of? A. Not that I know of. I would have to say no. Q. On November 20. 1963. what contact did you have with an agency of the federal government? A. On what? 90 Q. On November 20, 1963. did you have any contact with any agency of the government? A. Maybe it was the FBI questioning me. Q. That was prior to the assassination. A. Was that prior? Q. Yes. A. I don't know of any in '63, no. Q. Do you recall on November 20, 1963, that you applied for the renewal of a work card in Nevada? A. Sure. Q. Do you remember around that time that you had to get a renewal? A. '63, let me see, '63, that was when I got into the Thunderbird, yes. Q. What did you have-- A. I got a sheriff's card. Q. A what? A. A sheriff's card. You had to get a sheriff's card. I 've got one in my pocket. Do you want to see it? Would you like to see? Q. Sure. A. Everybody that works here has to have one of these. Q. So the fact that you were applying for the work card was not because you were in any kind of trouble? 91 A. Of course not. Q. Did you have a card previously? A. I had a card. I've got it somewhere. Here is one I had downtown (indicating). MR. PURDY: Mr. McWillie is showing me a Las Vegas Police Department registration card, A-58376. which is a permanent card. He's listed as a pit boss. His address and signature and the signature of the Chief of Police are listed. THE WITNESS: That's a sheriff's card. I got that in '63 when I came here. MR. PURDY. He's also handed me a Clark County Sheriff's Department ID card. No. 63658, which is dated February 15, 1963. His name is listed. He has signed it and it is signed by Sheriff Ralph Lamb, L-a-m-b. THE WITNESS. And it shows where I worked at the Thunderbird, they scratched it out. This other card was a permanent card. When you work downtown, you have to have one of these (indicating), it was permanent. Now you have to have one of these (indicating).You don't have to have this combined now with the sheriff. BY MR. PURDY: Q. So right now all you need is a card from the police department and you don't need a card from the sheriff's office? 92 78 A. You have to have a card from the sheriff's office, not this card (indicating). Q. Not the Las Vegas Police Department card. A. The sheriff is more or less a police chief. Q. Since you still have and obviously had or was issued in February of 1963, what reason would you have had in November of 1963 to apply for any other kind of card? A. 1963, maybe that was when I was going to Arruba. I had to go to the police chief, I think, and I had to get a letter from the police chief to get cleared down there because they cleared you through Scotland Yards and the FBI and the local here. That's the only thing I can recall. Q. Do you recall a Mr. Robert Kellerer, an identification officer with the Reno Sheriff's Office? A. No. I don't. Q. Did you-- A. (Interrupting) I had a card up there, too. I threw it away I think. Q. On November 20, 1963, would there have been any reason that you would have needed to contact the Reno Sheriff's Office for a renewal of a card or for any other reason? A. Maybe they contacted them down here. That's probably what happened. Q. By November 20, 1963, you had already moved from 93 Reno to Las Vegas, is that right? A. November '63, yes, I came here in '63 at the Thunderbird. Now, it's a possibility that checking me out, they checked with the Reno Police Department. I would have to say that they might do that. They would do that, wouldn't they? Q. Mr. McWillie, you stated previously that you re- ceived a phone call from Jack Ruby sometime in 1963 about his problems with AGVA? A. That's right. Q. About when in. 1963 was that? A. It was the early part of 1963, I think. Let me see. '63 now. I went to the Thunderbird in '63. It had to be the early part of '63. Doesn't the FBI have it on its report? I told them about it. I 'm sure they do. It 's hard for me to remember dates. Q. We understand. I think you're doing very well. Now, that communication had been in the form of telephone calls, right? A. He must have called me three or four times. The FBI even asked me why he called me. Q. After that contact with Jack Ruby, what other contact did you have with him prior to the assassination? A. He would write me letters about his club, the new club he had and how beautiful it was and about the razor. 94 80 blades, he sent me some razor blades once or twice, Sheffield razor blades I think they called them. Q. Did you and Jack Ruby ever talk again on the phone prior to the assassination? A. Prior to the assassination? Q. Right. A. Just about the AGVA. Q. Did you see Jack Ruby again after those phone calls about the AGVA and prior to the assassination? A. No, never saw him again. Q. When was the last time that you saw Jack Ruby prior to the assassination? A. The last time I saw Jack Ruby prior to the assassination, I was driving from Miami to Cal-Neva Lodge where I was going to work in June in 1961. I stopped at his house and slept there that night and then drove on. Q. Did you see Jack Ruby again after the assassina- tion? A. Never, never seen Jack Ruby after that time I saw him. Q. Did you and Jack Ruby ever exchange any letters after the assassination? A. No, sir. I had all I wanted of Jack Ruby. Every time I turned around the FBI was questioning me about him. You know I wouldn't write him. I'm not that silly. 95 81 Q. Did you and Jack Ruby ever talk on the phone after the assassination? A. No. sir. Q. Did you and Jack Ruby ever send any messages of any kind to each other after the assassination? A. No, sir. After the assassination I didn't want to hear his name again. MR. WOLF: Let the record reflect that we've re- turned to Mr. McWillie the original letters that he received from his brother concerning Tony Zoppi and the trip to Cuba. THE WITNESS: My brother got it from Matty Brescia and Matty Brescia got it from Tony Zoppi. BY MR. WOLF: Q. Mr. McWillie, I'd now like to question you con- cerning the time when you were in Cuba and several individuals you may have met while you were there. You've testified that you moved to Cuba in approximately the middle of 1958, is that correct? A. I went there in '58, yes, right. Q. Was that your first trip to Cuba? A. I had been to Cuba, I took my mother and wife and daughter to Cuba in the '40's, just for a trip overnight on a boat. We took a ship over there, the Florida, I think they called it. Q. Had you been there any other time prior to the 96 82 middle of 1958? A. No Q. On your first trip in 1958, how long did you stay in Cuba? A. I stayed until we broke relations with Cuba in '61, January 1, 1961. Q. And you testified that when you moved to Cuba, you went to work at the Tropicana Hotel, is that correct? A. That's right. Q. And how did you obtain the job at the Tropicana Hotel while you were in Dallas? A. A fellow called me from Cuba and asked me if I'd be interested in going over there to work and I set up an appointment and went there and talked to them and then went back to Dallas and went back to Cuba in about a week, I believe. Q. So you did return to Dallas after the first trip to Cuba? A. I think maybe a week, ten days. Q. Who was that who called A. A fellow named Johnny Williams. Q. How did he get your name? A. I met him in Dallas. I don't know how I met him but I did meet him and he found out I was in the gambling business and he said, "Maybe I can get you a good job over 97 83 in Cuba." Sure enough, he called me a week or so after he left Dallas. Q. Where did Mr. Williams work? A. Mr. Williams didn't work. I don't know what Mr. Williams did, to tell you the truth. Q. Where did he live? A. He lived in Boston. Q. And where did you first meet Mr. Williams? A. I met him in Dallas. Q. He was just visiting at that time? A. Sir? Q. He was just visiting at that time? A. He was just visiting Dallas. I don't recall how I met him, but I met him in Dallas. Q. And who did you see when you first went to Cuba for the interview? A. I went to see the Foxes. They had a meeting there was Martinez Fox and Oscar Cheninder. Q. Was Pedro Fox present? A. Pedro Fox, that's Martinez's brother. There were several Cubans there and an interpreter. Q. Were the Foxes the owners of the Tropicana? A. They were the only owners. I was the only American in there. Q. Do you know Mr. T.W. Richardson? A. Yes, sir, sure do. 98 84 Q. And how do you know Mr. Richardson? A. How long have I known him? Q. How long have you known and how do you know Mr. Richardson? A. I 've known Mr. Richardson since I started dealing dice about 40 some odd years ago, 47 years ago. Q. You met him in Dallas? A. No, I met him in Mississippi. I was dealing dice in Mississippi then. Q. Did Mr. Richardson have any connection with Cuba? A. I think T.W. had something to do with the managing the Capri. Q. Did you see him while you were in Cuba? A. Didn't see him too much. I did see him in Cuba. Q. Did you see him that first time when you went over to take the job at the Tropicana? A. No, I didn't see him. He didn't know I was there. T.W. was in the Riverside Hotel and he left. He was the manager of the Riverside Hotel. I took his place when he resigned in 162, I think. But I've known T.W. for years. He's a very nice man. Q. You stated that you met the Foxes when you first went over to interview for your job with the Tropicana and you also stated that you were promised a percentage of the Tropicana if things were successful. 99 85 A. Martinez promised me a percentage if it ever did any business, but it never did any business. That was right at the time of the revolution. Do you have what date I went over to work there? Q. Approximately September of '58. A. I was going to say August. It must have been September. Q. Was the Tropicana successful prior to the revo- lution? A. It had been successful. It was a very beautiful place, beautiful shows, beautiful gaming room. Q. Were the Foxes financially well off? A. Yes, I'm sure they were. Q. Were they the whole owners of the casino? A. Were they what? Q. Were they the whole and sole owners of the casino? A. Yes, I would say they were. I 'd have to say I'm almost positive. Q. They had no partners? A. No. Q. Do you know if they ever received financial backing from anybody? A. They didn't need any financial backing. Q. Did they ever get any loans from anybody? 100 86 A. I wouldn't think so because they had a big business that made nothing but money for years and years. They had the numbers and every other thing. Q. Do you know, did Jack Ruby know the Foxes? A. Yes, I introduced him to the Foxes. Q. When he came to Cuba? A. When he came there, I introduced him, yes. Q. Did he have any other dealings with the Foxes? A. He ran around with me. The whole time he was there he was running around me except when he went to bed. Q. What happened to the Foxes when the government closed the hotel? A. Well, they eventually all went to Miami. Q. They did not stay in Cuba? A. Sir? Q. They did not stay in Cuba? A. They stayed there for a while but eventually they left and went to Miami. Q. And you took a job at the Capri Hotel, is that correct? A. Right. Q. Who did you know at the Capri Hotel to get the Job ? A. If I remember correctly, I think it was Martinez told me to go up there, that I could get a job up there if 101 87 go up there. And I went up there and saw some fellow, Angelo, I don't know his last name, but his first name was Angelo. Q. Could the last mine have been Bruno? A. No. Q. Do you know a Mr. Angelo Bruno? A. I've known him to see him in Cuba. I've seen him in Cuba. I don't know Mr. Bruno. Q. You never met Mr. Bruno? A. No, just to say hello. He knew who I was because in this business I'm a pretty good man in the gambling business. I 've been in it so many years. Q. Do you know a Mr. Willie Bischoff? A. Lefty Clark, that was his name. Wasn't his name Lefty Clark? I never did know his right name. Q. Yes. also known as Lefty Clark. A. I took his place in the Tropicana. They let him go and I took his place there. Q. Why was Mr. Bischoff let go, do you know? A. Well, it had something to do with the Black Jack getting cheated or something, something like that. That's what I heard. I don't know why they let him go. Q. Did you associate with Mr. Bischoff at all after he was let go? A. No, just to say hello. 102 88 Q. Do you know if Jack Ruby knew Mr. Bischoff? A. No. I'm sure he didn't. Q. Do you know a Mr. Babe Baron? A. No, I know who he is. If it's the fellow thinking about, he used to be at the Sands. Q. Yes. A. I don't know him but I know who he is. He may be dead. Is he living? Q. He's still alive. A. I didn't know that. But I know who he is. They call him the General. But I never met him in my life. Q. Did you know that he was in Cuba? A. No, I didn't. Q. Do you know if Jack Ruby knew him at all? A. If Jack Ruby met him? Q. Right. A. I wouldn't think so. Q. Who were the owners of the Capri? A. I don't know. I don't have any idea. I went in there and took charge of the day shift and I don't know how long I was there to tell you the truth. But it wasn't too long. I went to open up one morning and they stuck machine guns in my stomach and I gave them the keys and turned around and walked off. Q. Did you ever work at the Riviera Hotel? 103 89 A. No. Q. Did you have any affiliation with the Riviera? A. No. Q. When you were at the Tropicana, what were your primary duties? A. To manage the casino. Q. Were you familiar generally with the prior management of the casino operation? A. No, not the bookkeeping and all that kind of thing. I was familiar with running, seeing that the games didn't get cheated and the dealers and everything stayed in line. Q. Were you responsible for hiring individuals to work in the casino? A. No. they hired all them. There wasn't nothing but Cubans working there when I was there. Q. Did the casino have to pay a tax to the Cuban government to operate? A. I really don't know. I wouldn't know. Q. Did Cuban officials have to be bribed to have a casino operation? A. I don't know. There wouldn't be any way I'd know that. Q. Were you familiar with any of the Cuban officials in the government at that time? 104 90 A. No. Q. Do you recollect any of their names? A. No, I could not recollect one name. Ventura, I think he was the chief of police, I believe it was, but I didn't know him. I 'd see him come in there with his bodyguards. Q. Do you recall any other names of Cuban officials? A. Officials? Q. Officials who would have responsibility to supervise casinos. A. Supervise the casinos? Q. Or involved generally. A. No. Ventura didn't have nothing to do with the casino. I Just knew him to see him because he was supposed to be a very vicious fellow. Q. How about any other Cuban officials in the government generally, can you recall any of their names? A. No, I wouldn't have any reason to know any of them. Q. Did the casinos make payments to any non-government officials to continue operating, the owners of the casinos? A. No, I wouldn't think so. It belonged to them. Q. The Foxes never discussed that with you? A. I didn't understand. Q. Did the Foxes ever discuss the general operation of the casino with you? 105 91 A. No, in fact, they couldn't even speak English. One could speak English, Pedro. Q. Do you know a Mr. Norman Rothman? A. I know him to see him. Q. Have you ever met Mr. Rothman? A. It was in Cuba, yes. He'd come in and out of the Tropicana every once in a while. He came up and introduced himself to me and shook hands with me. I'd see him gambling there when I'd go around to different places. Q. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. Rothman? A. No. Q. Do you know a Mr. Santo Trafficante? A. Know him to see him. Q. Have you ever met Mr. Trafficante? A. Like I say, he knew who I was and he shook hands with me when he saw me. but that was it. I've been asked that a lot of times. too. But I didn't know Mr. Trafficante intimately, no. Q. Did anybody introduce you to him or did he introduce himself to you? A. Maybe Pedro did, I don't know, when he would come in a party or something. Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Trafficante apart from being in Cuba in the casinos? A. Not that I remember, no. 106 92 Q. You never met Mr. Trafficante in the United States? A. Not that I recall. Maybe I did, I don't think so. Q. Are you aware that Mr. Trafficante was imprisoned in Cuba? A. Yes, there were a bunch of them imprisoned. Q. Were you in Cuba at that time? A. Yeah. Q. Did you know why Mr. Trafficante was imprisoned? A. To tell you the truth, I don't. I think they just wanted to get them out of there myself. Q. Did you visit Mr. Trafficante in prison? A. I didn't visit him. I went out there once or twice to visit a fellow, he was a dealer. He had a young son and a wife and he gambled all his money away. At times we would take up a collection amongst dealers and give money. I went out there once or twice to see him. Q. Did you see anybody else in prison? A. I saw everybody out there. Trafficante, I think he was in there. Q. Did you see Mr. Trafficante? A. I saw him but I didn't talk to him. Q. You saw him but you could not talk to him. A. I didn't know him that intimately. Q. Do you know of anybody who did visit Mr. Trafficante in prison? 107 93 A. No, I don't. I went out there with someone but I don't recall who it was. Q. Do you know a John Wilson Hudson? A. Who? Q. A John Wilson Hudson. A. Hudson ? Q. Yes. A. No, sir, I don't. Q. Were you afraid of being imprisoned yourself? A. They never did bother me for some reason. I don't know why. They never did the whole time I was there. Q. Do you have any accounting for that? A. Sir. Q. Do you know any reason why they would not bother you? A. Sir? Q. Do you know any reason why they would not bother you? A. I don't know. It could have been the Foxes, I don't know. I don't know why they didn't but they didn't. I never was arrested there. If I'd have stayed there, I'd probably have gotten arrested after we broke relations with them. I left the first day of January 1961, I think it was. Q. Was Jack Ruby in Cuba visiting you during the time when you went to visit the prison and saw Santo Trafficante 108 94 there? A. I don't think so. He could have been but I don't think so. He could have been but I don't really think he was. I don't remember what date Jack was there. Q. Did you discuss with Jack Ruby the imprisonment of many of the people that were working in Cuba? A. No, I didn't discuss things like that with him. Q. What other individuals did you see during your visit to that prison? Do you remember the names of them? A. I saw Dino, Dino Cellini. He was the manager of the place, too, where I had worked. Q. Which place was that? A. Tropicana. Then he was at the Riviera. Q. And you knew Mr. Cellini? A. I didn't know him initimately. I knew him to talk to him, how's business and this and that. Q. Did you ever have any business dealings with Mr. Cellini? A. Never. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Mr. Cellini? A. No, he wouldn't know Dino. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Mr. Trafficante? A. No. Q. Was Mr. Rothman put in prison? A. I don't think so. I don't believe he was. 109 95 Q. Did you visit Mr. Cellini when he was in prison? A. Sir? Q. Did you visit Mr. Cellini when he was in prison? A. I said hello to him because I knew him. Q. But the primary reason for your going to the prison was-- A. (interrupting) To see this fellow Degeorgio or whatever his name was. Q. Was there only one prison where all the people were kept? A. No, they had two prisons. They had one they called principle, was a real bad prison. This one didn't look like a prison. It had a wire fence around it. Q. What could you do to try and help a friend of yours who was in prison to get out? A. I wasn't trying to help him get out. I Just went out there to say hello to him. Q. Was there anything one could do, even if not yourself, generally? A. No, I don't think so. I wouldn't know, but I wouldn't think they could get them out. Q. Could you bribe anybody to get them out of prison? A. I don't really know about that, I don't know. Q. Did you know Mr. Meyer Lansky? A. No. sir, never laid eyes on him in my life. I know 110 96 his brother, knew his brother. Q. Jake? A. Jake, very fine man. Q. How did you know Jake? A. I knew Jake in Cuba. Q. How did you first meet Jake? A. I don't recall how I met him. I just don't re- call. I did meet him. It might have been through Dino. Q. Did Jack Ruby know Jake Lansky? A. No, positive he didn't. Q. What was the nature of your relationship with Jake Lansky? A. Just to say hello and that's all. Q. Did you ever have dinner with him? A. No. Q. What casino did Mr. Lansky operate at? A. Mr. Lansky was around the Riviera. I don't know if he operated it or what but he was there, Jake Lansky I'm talking about. Q. Did you know Mr. John Roselli? A. I didn't know him. I've seen him around town here like I told the FBI and then Mr. Fenton. I've seen Mr. Roselli around here. Any time I would go in the Sands to see a show. I would see him there. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Roselli outside of Vegas? 111 97 A. Never in my life. Q. You never saw him in Cuba? A. I don't think he was in Cuba when I was there. Q. Did you ever talk to him while he was here in Vegas? A. I never talked to him while he was there. He's kind of a belligerent fellow. I had no reason to say anything to him. Q. Do you know a Mr. Sam Giancana? A. No. Q. Have you heard of Mr. Giancana? A. I don't know him. Q. You never met Mr. Giancana? A. No. Q. Do you know if Mr. Roselli or Mr. Giancana had interests in Cuban casinos? A. There wouldn't it be any way I'd know that. Q. Had you heard that before? A. I never heard of it, no. What attracted me to Mr. Roselli was any time I ever maw him he had on dark glasses, and he was a well dressed fellow and a fellow you would notice in a crowd, you know, especially with the dark glasses on. Q. You stated that you were the only American working at the Tropicana, all the other employees were Cuban? 112 98 A. That's right. Q. Was that characteristic for most of the other casinos? A. No, the other casinos had mostly Americans on them, especially on the dice games, you know. The dice games are pretty hard. to deal and understand and learn. So it was mostly American dealers. Q. When you were hired at the casino, did you have to apply for an employee work card like you're shown us for here in the state of Nevada? A. No, I had to go to Dallas and get, after Castro got there. I had to go to Dallas and get a letter from the sheriff. Q. What type of letter? A. Sir? Q. What type of letter from the sheriff? A. As to my character, you know, I hadn't been in trouble there. Q. That was after Castro took over? A. Yes; and I took it back and gave it to the Foxes. Q. Prior to Castro taking over in 1958 or '59, 1958, did you have, in September of '58 when you first got your job at the Tropicana, did you have to apply for a work card through the Cuban government? A. No, I just went in there and talked to them and 113 99 got the job and went to work. Q. When did you leave Cuba? A. January 1, 1961. Q. You stayed approximately two years, then, after Fidel Castro took over? A. '59, '60, yes, almost two years. Q. From 1958 through 1961, did you ever return to the United States for visits? A. Many times, yes. I used to bring money and deposit it for the Foxes. Q. And where would that be deposited? A. Sir ? Q. Where would that be deposited? A. Well, I deposited money in the Pan American Bank and I deposited money in the. I think it was a Miami bank. I don't know. Q. Were most of your trips to Miami? A. Sir? Q. Were most of your trips from Cuba to Miami? A. To the banks, yes. Q. Did you ever go anywhere else besides Miami when you returned for a visit? A. No. Q. How did you keep in touch with your friends in the United States while you were in Cuba? 114 100 A. I didn't keep in touch with them. Q. Did you write them at all? A. Very few of them. Q. Did you phone them at all? A. No. Q. Did you ever make any phone calls while you were in Cuba back to the United States? A. I don't recall getting any. Maybe Jack Ruby called about Tony Zoppi, maybe, said they were coming or something like that. Otherwise I never got any calls. Q. Did you ever place any calls from Cuba to people in the United States? A. Not that I recall. I don't know who it could have been. Q. You told us about Mr. Meyer Panitz. A. Sir? Q. Mr. Meyer Panitz, P-a-n-i-t-z.. A. Panitz, yeah. Q. Did you ever call Mr. Panitz in Miami? A. It's possible that I did because he's a very close friend of mine. Q. Could that phone call have been right after Jack Ruby visited you? A. Oh, no, I think Panitz was in Cuba when Jack Ruby was there. I believe he was in Cuba. 115 101 Q. He was a close friend of Jack Ruby, is that correct? A. Panitz, yes. Q. What activities did Mr. Panitz engage in? A. Years ago, many years ago. he was a book maker. Q. How many years ago was that? A. Oh, Christ. I'd say 35, 40 years ago. Q. After that, what type of activity did he engage in? A. He could have worked in Cuba, I'm not sure. I think he worked in Cuba. Q. You knew him in Dallas, is that correct? A. Yes; Memphis, too. Q. And did there come a time when he moved to Miami? A. Did what? Q. Did Mr. Panitz move to Miami? A. He was in Dallas, he worked in Dallas. He worked for me at the Top of the Hill, what we call, box watching the crap games, sitting down. Where else did he work? He could have worked around the Top of the Hill. I remember that, and I believe he worked in Cuba. I believe he worked the Capri too in Cuba. Q. What period of time was that? A. I don't have any idea. I'm sure he worked there. Q. Did Jack Ruby see Mr. Panitz while he was in 116 102 Cuba? A. I couldn't say for sure. Q. You assume he would have if Mr. Panitz was there? A. I'm sure if Panitz was there at the time. yeah. Like I say. I don't know what year he was there. Q. Is Mr. Panitz alive today? A. He's dead. Q. And you don't recall calling Mr. Panits from Cuba right after Jack Ruby was there? A. Right after Jack Ruby was there? Q. Right after Jack Ruby visited you. you don't recall calling Panitz in Miami? A. I don't recall calling him. It's possible. Q. Do you know Misty Lane Miner? A. Yes. Q. How do you know Ms. Miner? A. I used to go with her for a few months. She was in Cuba too. Q. When was she in Cuba? A. I don't know. She wasn't there to see me. She just came over there. we had broken up a couple or three years before. I think she was there around a week. I'm not sure. Q. Did she see you when she was in Cuba? A. Yes, I said hello to her. 117 103 Q. Did she give you any message from Jack Ruby? A. No. Q. Did Jack Ruby know her? A. He knew her, sure. Q. How long did Jack Ruby stay in Cuba when he visited you? A. To the best of my recollection. I'd say six days maybe. not over a week, I don't think. Q. Can you remember what activities Mr. Rudy did while he was down there? A. He was right out there where I worked. Every morning when I got up he was there. When I left the place, he went with me to eat and went to bed. Q. Were there any special shows during that period of time that Mr. Ruby wanted to see or things to do? A. The best show down there was at the Capri. Maybe he went there once or twice. Q. Do you remember anything in particular that Mr Ruby did during that week? A. I don't remember a darn thing he did but bug me all week. Q. When was this that Mr. RubY visited you in Cuba? A. I'd have to say it was in '59 Q. Do you remember the month it was? A. It might have been august. I don't recall. I be- 118 104 lieve it was August. I don't know for sure. Q. How do you pinpoint the date of August? A. It just seems like to me it was in August. I told Mr. Fenton that, I believe. Q. Is there anything particular that sticks out in your mind? A. No, it Just seems like it was the middle of the year. I'd have to say it was right around august, I'd say. I'm not sure. There's no way I could tell you for sure. Q. was it during hurricane season? A. No, I don't think so. I think the hurricane season starts in September, I'm not sure. Q Did Mr. Ruby, to your knowledge, ever visit Cuba at any other time? A. Not that I know of. I would say no. Q. He never discussed any other visits with you? A. I would say no because I never did see him. there any more. I know if he had been there. I would have seen him. Q. When he was :in Cuba, did you discuss the Castro situation with Mr. Ruby? A. No. Q. You have no idea how long prior to Castro's taking over he was down there? A. No, I don't, I really don't. I know that Castro 119 105 had taken over when he was there, that he had already taken I think he took over New Year's of 1959. I believe. Q. To clarify the dates of Jack Ruby's visit in Cuba, to the best of your recollection. it was August of 1959 ? A. That's what I'd say. I don't really know. Look at the FBI report. maybe they know. I'm not trying to be smart but I don't know the date. Q. I understand that. We're trying to clarify it for the record. In other words, it was definitely after Castro took over? A. Definitely, yes. It was definitely after Castro took over. That's when they really needed business. That's the reason I called him. They were trying to get Tony to come down there. I couldn't say for sure, but I'd have to say it was around July or August. Q. So due to the Castro takeover, you needed business, and you suggested to the Foxes-- A. (Interrupting) I suggested this thing to them before that, too. They finally made up their minds after business got so bad, they was doing anything to try to get business because not many people came over there. tourists after Castro got there. Q. So you suggested to the Foxes that you knew Jack 120 106 Ruby? A. I knew Tony Zoppi and I knew a man that could get him to bring him over there. Q. And when did you first meet Mr. Zoppi? A. I'd say in the middle '40's, Just to speak to him I didn't know him well. He was a columnist and he'd make night clubs and you'd see him around night clubs and restaurants. Q. why didn't you, call Mr. Zoppi directly to see if he would come over? A. Because I didn't know him that well. Jack Ruby did business with him with the paper. He was with the Dallas Morning News. In fact, he was with Zoppi. like I told you, when President Kennedy got shot, I believe. believe he was there the next day or the same day. I I'm going by the papers, what the papers said. Q. How did you first get in touch with Jack Ruby about inviting Tony Zoppi and himself to come down to Cuba? A. I believe I called him on the phone, I'm not sure. It's possible that I did. I might have written him a letter, I don't know. Q. And what was Mr. Ruby's reaction? A. It was all right. He said he could get him to come. He was supposed to come. Q. What did you do in response to Mr. Ruby's reaction? 121 107 A. I Just told him it would help us out at the Tropicana if he could get Tony down there and give us some writeups in his column. Q. Did you wait until Jack Ruby called you back to get in touch with Tony Zoppi? A. I don't recall. I know Tony agreed to come down there. I even called him or he called me, I don't know which. Q. Did you call Tony directly? A. No. I called Jack. I didn't know Tony well enough to talk to him. Q. After your first phone call with Jack Ruby, what period of time elapsed until either Jack called you or you called Jack back to-- A. (interrupting) It was a pretty good while. Q. It was a long time? A. I would say it was a few months. Q. So, then, you probably called him sometime in the spring of 1959 and then it would be a few months. would be August until he finally came down? A. I d have to say that, yeah, then he came by himself. If Tony would have came with him, then all this wouldn't be going on here. It's an unfortunate thing that he didn't come with him. I think I sent him two tickets I 'm not sure. I'm positive I sent him two tickets. 122 Q. You sent Jack Ruby two tickets? A. Two tickets. one for him and one for Zoppi. Q. And that was after Jack Ruby told you that Zoppi had agreed to come? A. That he would come, yeah. I'd have to say that's correct. Q. And the two tickets were being paid for by the hotel? A. They paid me the money. I bought the tickets. Q. You bought the tickets? A. Yeah. I bought the tickets but they gave me the money. Q. They gave you the money? A. Oh. sure. It wasn't a hotel, it was a night club. The Tropicana wasn't a hotel. Q. And they did not expect to be paid back for these two tickets, did they? A. Oh, no. it was part of their publicity. They spent a lot of money advertising. In fact, they had a sign across the causeway in Miami about a block long for years. Q. And you prepaid the two tickets and sent them to Jack Ruby, is that correct? A. I paid for them with money, is that what you mean, prepaid? Q. Yes. 123 109 A. yes . Q. Did you also tell Mr. Ruby that or make for Mr. Ruby any accommodations for where they would stay when they got down there? A. I told them that they would be taken care of in care of any hotel they wanted to. the bill would be taken because that was the agreement I had with the Foxes- Q. And that was not prepaid in advance. was it? A. No. Q. where did Jack Ruby stay when he got down there? A. They didn't pay his way when he got there because he didn't bring Zoppi. He stayed at a little hotel there. I was living at the Foxa at the time, F-o-x-a, it was an apartment building. He stayed in a little hotel. I could look out my window and see it down on the corner. Q. Was his ticket still paid for even though Tony Zoppi didn't come? A. We went ahead and paid that they did rather. I didn't get it back. Q. The letter you've given us today from Tony Zoppi, the portion of the letter you gave to us today, do you still have the top of that letter? A. The whole letter? Q. Yes. A. No, it was a personal letter to this fellow her. 124 110 That's the only part I had of it. Q. The letter was addressed to? A. The letter that Tony sent was sent to Brescia. Q. Right. And did he give you the entire letter or just the bottom portion? A. He gave me the entire letter but I tore off the bottom part because that was the only part that concerned me. It was all personal. Q. And you destroyed the top portion? You no longer have the top portion of the letter? A. There wasn't anything in there that anyone would be interested in. I Just read the bottom part where he concluded his letter and tore it out. Q. Do you still have the top part? A. No. Q. Was there any reason you didn't give that letter to Mr. Cline and Mr. Fenton when they came to talk to you? A. I told them I had it. Q. Did they ask to see it? A. They told me if I got subpoenaed to bring it with pretty sure they did. I'm positive I brought it up to them. You see, when they interviewed me, I was at a friend of mine's house, staying overnight, because they were gone out of town and they were scared someone would break in their house and they came over there. In facts I went down 125 111 and met them. Q. Do you know why Tony Zoppi couldn't go to Cuba? A. Sir? Q. Do you know why Tony Zoppi couldn't go to Cuba on that trip? A. Why he didn't come? Q. Yes. A. No, I don't. I have no idea. I guess he was busy or somethings couldn't make it. Q. Why did Jack Ruby come? A. He just wanted to use the free ticket, I guess. Q. Before Jack Ruby came. did he tell you that Tony Zoppi would not be coming? A. No, he didn't tell me. I would have told him to stay there then I wouldn't have had all this. Q. Do you recall being interviewed by the FBI concern- ing Jack Ruby's visits to Cuba? A. I recall them interviewing me about Jack Ruby, yes. Q. Did you tell the FBI about Tony Zoppi? A. I don't think I did, to tell you the truth. I think about it until I got the darn letter. Then it all came back to me why he was coming down there. Q. And this letter is the letter you received in 1976? A. I received a letter in 1976 from my brother, yes. Q. So from 1963 to 1976. you. had Just forgotten? 126 112 A. I had Just forgot about it. to tell you the truth. I was all shook up about the darn thing happening and it just slipped my mind. Q. Wasn't really the only reason for Ruby to come visit was to get Tony Zoppi? A. That's right. Q. Isn't that the primary reason for him to visit? A. That's the only reason that he came down there was he was supposed to bring Tony Zoppi and he didn't bring him. Q. It wasn't to give Jack Ruby a vacation. was it? A. No. I don't think so. It might have been what I told the FBI because like I say, I was so shook up when I talked to them that first time and I didn't know what to tell them. Q. In an FBI interview dated June 9, 1964, and the interview being conducted on June 8, 1964, by special agents Stevens and McFaul, let me read you part of what you said about Jack Ruby's visit to Cuba. You stated. "In 1959, date unrecalled, he wrote to Ruby and asked him if he would like to come to Havana for a week. He stated there was no ulterior motive and that he had been a close friend of Ruby's and extended this invitation as one would to a brother. He realized Ruby was working hard with his Dallas night club and felt that Ruby needed a rest. Because the cost' of plane 127 113 tickets in Havana could be paid for by pasos for approximately one fifth of the cost of the ticket in the United States, he purchased a round-trip ticket for Ruby at his own expense and mailed it to Ruby in Dallas after which Ruby boarded a plane and flew to Havana for a visit." Later in the report, if I may just read another paragraph, it states. "With further regard to the airline ticket purchased by McWillie, he stated that as best he can recall, the peso evaluation of this ticket was about $75 and that he had personally absorbed the cost. He could not be certain whether Ruby repaid him for this ticket after Ruby reached Havana, again explaining that he purchased the ticket at Havana and mailed it to Ruby at one fifth of what it would cost Ruby to buy a comparable ticket in Dallas. He does not recall standing any other expenses for Ruby in connection with the trip and was unable to state whether Ruby had repaid him for the cost of the ticket or not." Now, is that an accurate account of what you told the FBI? A. I may have told them that but Zoppi was supposed to come with Ruby. It Just slipped my mind about Zoppi, that's all. I 'm sure I sent him two tickets. I paid for them out of my pocket but I got the money from the Foxes. Q. The agents questioned you in fairly explicit de- tail, is that not correct? 128 114 A. Sir ? Q. The agents questioned you in fairly explicit tail, is that not correct? A. They questioned me pretty good, yes. Q. I mean they specifically asked you whether or not there was an ulterior motive for your sending a ticket to Jack Ruby. Don't you think you would have remembered about Tony Zoppi at that time? A. I didn't remember until I got that letter. to tell you the truth. I did not remember about it until I got the letter and then it all hit me at one time and I said to self, well, I should have told the FBI that. Q. There's also an FBI report dated November 27, 1963. the interview being conducted November 25, 1963, by special agents Stavens and Salisbury concerning Ruby's trip to Cuba. Again it says. "McWillie said he had gone to Cuba to work at the Tropicana at Havana, Cuba, and while there-- A. (Interrupting) I didn't understand you. Q. I'm sorry. the report states. "McWillie said he had gone to Cuba to work at the Tropicana at Havana, Cuba. and while there sometime in 1959, Ruby had been in Cuba for about a one week's vacation and he had seen Ruby there at that time. He said he knew of no interests Ruby might have had in Cuba." A. He didn't have any interests in Cuba and he did 129 115 take a vacation when he came by himself. He darn sure did. Q. And again you did not recall that Tony Zoppi was the primary reason that Jack Ruby-- A. (Interrupting) No, I didn't. To tell you the truth, I didn't until I got that letter and it hit me and I said, my, God. I should have told the FBI that. Q. Even when questioned about the cost of Ruy's trip? A. I didn't recall it. Like I say, it was such a terrible thing that happened that I was just shook all up. They came out there the same day, I think. Q. You ere sure, however, that Jack Ruby's trip to Cuba was after Castro took over? Are you sure of that now? A. I'm positive of it, yeah. Q. And the reason you can date that is-- A. (Interrupting) I'd have to say, yes, it was after he took over. Q. And what's the reason you can date that? A. I wasn't there--do you have it there when I went to Cuba? You said September? Q. September of 1958. A. It would have to be after Castro was in. Q. And the reason you're dating that again is because of the decline in business due to Castro's takeover, is that correct? 130 116 A. That's correct. Business declined when Castro got there. Q. How was business generally when you first moved to the Casino in 1958? A. How was what? Q. How was business at the Tropicana? A. It wasn't any good. It was going down then. There was talk in all the papers about Castro going to arrive there and everything It had declined. Q. It had declined at that time? A. Real bad. Q. Could the Foxes have asked you at that time or you had suggested to the Foxes at that time to get in touch with Tony Zoppi? A. I had suggested to the Foxes that we might get some business out of Dallas if we would get him to write articles in his column about it. Q. When was the first time you made that suggestion to the Foxes? A. I made that, I believe, when I first went there. I believe I did. I'm not positive. Then when it got so bad after Castro got there, I went to them again and they decided to go ahead with it. Q. When you first made the suggestion to the Foxes, when you first got there in September of '58, did you tell Jack 131 117 Ruby that, in fact, you had made that suggestion? A. Did I tell-- Q. (Interrupting) Did you tell Ruby even though nothing had been definite with the Foxes? A. No. Q. You never told Jack Ruby you had made the suggestion until the Foxes O.K.'d the deal? A. In '58? Q. Right, in '58. A. I don't think so. I think it was after Castro got there. Q. You never told him you had made the suggestion until the Foxes O.K.'d the deal? A. No, I didn't call him until after they O.K.'d the deal. Q. You stated that you asked or you might have asked Jack Ruby to send you a gun in Cuba just because you could get yourself killed down there, a lot of people had guns. A. Well, it was awful bad down there. It was scary, little kids carrying machine guns. Q. Was there much gun running into Cuba? A. Sir? Q. Was there much gun running into Cuba? A. I don't know about any gun running. No way I'd know about that. 132 118 Q. Where did all the guns come from? A. Castro brought then with him. Q. Do you know how Castro got his guns? A. No, I don't have any idea. Q. Do you know Mr. Robert McKeown? A. No sir, I sure don't. You asked me that before. Q. Do you know Dominick Bartone? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever heard the name before? A. Dominick Bartone? Q. Bartone. A. Never heard of him. Q. Mr. Edward Browder? A. Edward who? Q. Browder. A. No, sir. Q. You never heard that name before? A. No. McKeown's name I've read in articles about Ruby? Q. But you never met him personally? A. No. Q. You just read that. A. I wouldn't know him if I'd see him. Q. Do you know Mr. Sam Benton? A. Who? 133 119 Q. Benton, B-e-n-t-o-n. A. No, sir. Q. We're turning for a moment to Ruby's trip without Tony Zoppi to Cuba. A. O.K. Q. Mr. Zoppi has written an article on the subject. Are you aware of that fact? No, I'm not. Q. In Mr. Zoppi's article. he states that the trip was supposed to be in December of 1958, which is prior to Castro's taking over. A. Maybe I did call him before '59. But I did call him in '59 again. If I did make a call in '58, then I did make a call in '59. Q. Could you explain that? I'm not sure I understand. A. It's possible that I did call in '58. MR. WOLF: Off the record. (Thereupon, a short discussion was had off the record.) MR. WOLF: On the record. BY MR. WOLF: Q. As we were stating, Mr. Zoppi has told us and written that to the best of his recollection, it was in December of 1958 when he was supposed to come down to make this review and, in fact, one of the reasons he did not go 134 120 was he had another show in Las Vegas to review. That was the reason he did not go down to Cuba' with Jack Ruby. He states that he intended going down after the review but did not go down to Cuba because Castro took over. And that's how he places the dates of December 1958 because he's certain that since Castro took over January 1, 1959. he then did not go down. A. Well it's possible that I could have called in '58. But I know I called in '59, too. But it's possible but I'm not sure. Q. That's what we were asking before. The Foxes did approve Jack Ruby and Tony Zoppi coming down together until 1959? A. The first time, it might have been '58, the latter part of '58. I 'm not positive on this. It's been so long, it's been 20 years ago, you know. But I did know that I called Jack Ruby in '59 and he told me he would bring Tony Zoppi. He said, "Don't worry, I'll bring him down there." Now it's possible that I did call him in '58, too, I don't recall it. Q. And Jack Ruby, when he was in Cuba was that before or after Castro took over? A. Jack Ruby's in Cuba after Castro took over. Q. And, to the best of your recollection, that was August of 1959? 135 121 A. I'd have to may August. I'm not sure, though. Q. I'm saying though to the best of your recollection, it was August? A. I don't know. Q. Subsequent to your returning to the United States, you were involved in an incident at Miami Airport, is that correct? A. That's right. Q. And is it fair to characterize you as anti-Castro? A. I was in an outfit called Fair Play for Cuba. I'm not very proud of it but I was just mad. Q. It would be fair to characterize your political philosophy as anti-Castro? A. I wasn't trying to do anything. This fellow was talking about the United States and President Eisenhower and different people and what a bum country it was in America, it's lucky I didn't jump on him there because if I had I would have been in jail but I waited until I got to the States. I called the FBI and I explained it to them. He was a school teacher up in Chicago. Q. Subsequent to your return to the United States, were you ever approached by any individuals regarding assassinating Fidel Castro? A. Oh, God, no, of course not. 136 122 Q. Did you ever discuss the political situation in Cuba with any individuals? A. Nobody. It was a very dangerous thing to even talk to Cubans about Castro or anybody else. Q. Even in the United States? A. In the United States? Q. I'm saying subsequent to your return from Cuba, not while you were in Cuba but subsequent. A. While I was in Cuba? Q. After you left Cuba and came back to the United States. A. I would rib Cubans about Castro being a Communist and things like that. Q. Was that here in the United States? A. In the United States. Which Cubans? A. I don't know, just anyone I'd see, viva Fidel, rib them. That's what they all said when Castro got there. Q. Jerry Patrick Hemming, H-e-m-m-i-n-g. A. No. Q. You stated you knew Mr. Mike McLaney? A. Very well. Q. How did you know Mr. McLaney? 137 123 A. I met Mr. McLaney at the, I met him years ago in Miami. He had a restaurant in Miami. I met him one night in there. I was at the races. Q. Was that before or after-- A. (Interrupting) This was in the early '40's, '46 or '47. He had a restaurant called Liaglan. I don't know how to spell it, a French restaurant. I was introduced to him. Q. Did you meet Mr. McLancy while you were in Cuba? A. I met him in Miami first. The next time I saw Mr. McLancy, just introduction, my name, his name, he probably forgot about it. The next time. when I went to Cuba. he had the National Hotel. I used to go over and visit with him. you know like you visit with people. Q. Did you have dinner with him occasionally? A. I don't think I ever did have dinner with him, no. I'd just go over and said hello. And then I worked for McLaney in Haiti, too, Porta prince, Haiti. I stayed down there nine months. Q. What period of time did you work in Haiti? A. 1975, I believe. I didn't stay but nine months. I got sick down there. Q. Did you know Mr. McLaney's brother? A. Oh, yeah, a very good friend of mine, Bill. Q. How did you know Bill? 138 124 A. I met Bill in Cuba. Q. Is that the first time you had met him? A. The first time Bill, yeah. Q. After you left Cuba, did you continue to maintain friendship with him? A. Oh, sure, We're still friends. Q. How often would you see him after you left Cuba speak to him? A. After I left Cuba? Q. Yes. A. I never saw him again until I went to Haiti. No, I worked for him at the Carousel here. They owned the Carousel, McLaneys. Q. Was that in Nevada, Cal-Neva? A. No, didn't I tell you about the Carousel Club? gave you a resume of every place I worked. MR. PURDY: You're talking about the Carousel in Las Vegas? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. WOLF: Q. And they own that club? A. They own that. Q. What did Bill McLaney do in Cuba? A. With his brother, I don't know what he did. Helped with the casino, I guess. 139 125 Q. Did they own it jointly? A. I have no idea how they owned it. Q. Did you ever discuss political attitudes toward Castro with the McLaneys? A. Never, had no reason to. Q. After your return to the United States, did the McLaneys ever discuss their attitude toward Castro? A. Never, never mentioned Castro to me. Q. Were you aware that the McLaneys were involved in anti-Castro activities after their return to the United States? A. No. Q. You never heard that before today? A. Never heard it. I think I read it in a book, too. Q. But you were not aware of that? A. No. Q. When was the first time that you became aware of John Roselli's or Sam Giancana's efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro? A. About what? Q. About John Roselli's or Sam Giancana's efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro. A. Read it in the papers. Q. You had never heard of it before that? A. Never. 140 126 Q. Do you know Mr. Frank Sturgis? A. No. Q. Have you ever heard of Mr. Sturgis? A. I've read books about him. Q. Mr. Frank Fiorini? A. No, I read in the books, though, that he was in Castro's army. That's Sturgis, too, isn't Q. Do you know Mr. Richard Danner? A. Mr. Danner used to be an FBI man in Dallas. Q. How did you first meet Mr. Danner? A. I don't recall. It seems like he was looking for some--I don't recall how I met him but I did meet him one time. Q. Just one time? A. That's all. I 've seen him here. Q. That was in Dallas? A. One time here is all I've seen him. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Danner in Cuba? A. You only saw Mr. Danner one time in Las Vegas? A. I went in thereto look for a job. Q. Do you remember where when you say you went in there? A. The Frontier. He was working for Suma, you know, the general manager of the Sands and at that time they 141 127 didn't need anyone. Q. You never discussed with Mr. Danner Mr. Roselli or Mr. Giancana, did you? A. Of course not. I didn't know those people. Q. Do you know Mr. E. Howard Hunt? A. The one that was in Watergate? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. You never met him? A. No, sir. Q. Did anyone ever approach you after your return to the United States about getting involved in a plot to kill Fidel Castro? Q. No, sir. Q. When the Bay of Pigs invasion occurred, do you remember where you were? A. I was at my mother's home in Coral Gables, Florida Q. Had you been living in Florida? A. I went there from Cuba. I stayed there until June 1st and then went to work in the Cal-Neva Lodge. Q. It was fairly common knowledge around Miami at that time that a large invasion was about to occur. Were that fact? A. No. sir, I wasn't. Q. You were not aware of that fact? 142 128 A. I might have heard rumors, but I didn't pay any attention to it because I didn't think it was true. There was a possibility that it was true but I didn't think so. Q. When Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, where were you at that time? A. Sir? Q. Where were you when Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald? A. I was working at the Thunderbird Hotel. Q. And what was your reaction when you heard the news? A. Where was I when it happened? Q. When it happened. A. I was at home. We've got a TV in the kitchen. My wife was up early and I was working nights and she came running in the bedroom and said. "Come in the kitchen. somebody just shot Oswald." And I jokingly said. "Well, I hope I don't know who did it". Just joking. At first they said a man named Siegal, I think they said. Then a few minutes later they said, "We made a terrible mistake. The man's name is Jack Ruby." Well, I like to fell out. I told my wife, I said, "Margaurita, the FBI will probably come here to see me today or tomorrow." And she said, "Why?" I said, "Well, I knew this man in Dallas." And sure enough in about three hours. the kids and I, I forgot 143 129 what was going on this day, could it have been possible that the funeral of President Kennedy was going on that day? There was some cermony in the rotunda, we were watching it on the TV, the two kinds and myself and my wife. About three hours later there was a knock on the door and my some. he was about six years old, went to the door and said. "Dad. two men want to see you." Well, I didn't want the kids to hear him. I just took them in the kitchen and shut the door and that's where we talked. Q. Do you know how the FBI got to your house so quickly? A. No, I don't know. It was a mystery to me. I don't know how they got there that quick. I'd say it was about three or four hours they were there. Q. Did you call any of your friends or associates right after you had heard that Jack Ruby-- A. (Interrupting) No. Q. Do you know, to your knowledge, did anybody hire Jack Ruby to kill Lee Harvey Oswald? A. Do what, sir? Q. Did anybody hire Jack Ruby to kill Lee Harvey Oswald? A. Sure not. It's like I've told everybody that has been questioning, I 've been questioned by reporters and everything. I think he did it just to--are you all listening 144 130 to me? I think he did it Just to make a big man out of himself. He was that type of a person. BY MR. PURDY: Q. After the assassination and after the shooting of Oswald, did you discuss Jack Ruby with anyone other than your wife and the FBI agents? A. I don't know, I don't think so. I didn't want anybody to know I even knew him. to tell you the truth. Q. Did you discuss Jack Ruby with anyone who already knew that you had known Jack Ruby? A. Who? Q. Did you talk to anyone who knew Jack Ruby and who knew that you knew him after this happened? A. No. Q. After the assassination. A. No, I don't think so. Q. You haven't talked about Jack Ruby with any mutual acquaintances, then? A. No; I might have said something about, what do you think about that nut doing what he did or something like that. I didn't want people to know. It was embarrassing to me when I was working for the FBI to come in and take me off to the side. Like I say, I asked them to see me at home and they did. Q. Did you know Juan Orta? A. Who? 145 131 Q. Juan Orta. O-r-t-a. A. No. Cuban? I don't recall his name. Q. Did you know William E. Fletcher of New York City? A. Yes. I've known him for years. He's from Dallas, an oilman. Q. How did you know him? A. I met him around Dallas. Q. Did he gamble with any of the other oilmen? A. There were two Fletchers. Is he the oilman you're speaking of? His brother was a gambler. Q. What was the gambler's first name? A. I can't think of his first name but there were two brothers and I knew both of them. Q. The Fletcher brothers. A. The Fletcher brothers. In fact, one of them is dead. Q. Did Jack Ruby know either of the Fletchers? A. Jack Ruby, I wouldn't think so. Q. Did you know Raymond B. Cortez? A. No. Q. Did you know Henry Savadra, a former employee of the Capri in Cuba? A. Henry Savaadra, he was a cashier there, I believe. Q. Jack Ruby see him when he came to Cuba? 146 132 A. No, he wouldn't have any reason to see him. Q. Did you know David Elatkin in Cuba? A. Who? Q. E-l-a-t-k-i-n. A. No. Q. Did you know Robert Larkin? A. Robert Larkin, sure I know him. He's a security guard. He worked for Abe Weinstein. He's a bouncer. Q. Did he use to manage the Vegas Club or work with Jack Ruby with the Vegas Club? A. I don't think he did. I don't believe he ever worked for Jack Ruby. I think he worked for Weinstein. He's working as a security guard here in the Fremont Hotel, he was the last I heard of him. Q. Do you think he knew Jack Ruby? A. Did he know Jack Ruby? Yes, he knew him. Q. Did Mr. Larkin ever gamble in Dallas? A. I never saw him gamble anywhere, no. I don't think he made enough money to gamble. Bob Larkin, that's who you're talking about. Q. Earlier you mentioned an Oscar Cheninder. A. Cheninder. Q. Could you spell that name for us? A. I couldn't spell it. C-h-e-m-i-n-d-e-r. He's dead, too, though. 147 133 Q. I believe you previously stated that when Jack Ruby came to Cuba that that was the first time he he'd gone to Cuba, is that correct? A. That's what he said. I've never seen him before. He had never been there when I was there. Q. Did he go to Cuba after that? A. I wouldn't know. I'd have no way of knowing. I never saw him. when I came through Dallas that time. I don't think he did. The FBI even asked me if held been here. I've never seen him out here. Q. Do you have personal knowledge as to whether or not Jack Ruby went to Cuba in September of 1959 for one day? A. No. Q. Do you believe you would have known if he had? A. I would have known it, I believe. I believe he would have called me. Can't they look up the airline tickets and check it out? Q. Did Jack Ruby visit the prison when he was in Cuba? A. I really don't know. It's possible he could have but I don't think, if he did, he went with me and I don't recall it but he could have. I don't know for sure. Q. You said you thought it was possible that someone had gone to the prison with you. 148 134 A. It's possible that it might have been Jack Ruby. Q. Did the person who went to the prison with you speak to anyone that was in the prison? A. Just to this Degeorge and I spoke to Dino and Jake Lansky. Q. Did you say hello to Trafficante there? A. Just said hello. But I talked to Jake because Dino was a friend of mine. I mean not a personal, intimate friend. I used to go down and visit him when he was working. Sometimes he'd drop by and see me. Q. After you left Cuba, how did you get a Job in Nevada? A. I got a Job in Nevada through a friend of mine named Johnny Blaine. He was a book maker years ago. He called me and asked me if I wanted to go up to Cal-Neva Lodge. He said I could go up there and lee Sandy Waterman. He used to manage a casino. I went up there. The 15th of June I went up there. Q. Did Mr. Blaine have anything to do with the Cal-Neva Lodge? A. No. he didn't. He knew Sandy Waterman from old days or something. MR. WOLF: Mr. McWillie. that's the conclusion of our questions. of our questions. If you have anything to add that would help the Committee, we would be most appreciative. 149 135 THE WITNESS: I don't know what I could tell you because, like I said. all the contact I had with Ruby was about the union thing. I don't even remember when it was, in '63. It must have been the early part of '63. I know that whoever Bill Miller did call and to this day he don't talk to me any more because I had Ruby call him. I had no idea Ruby was like he was. MR. WOLF: Do you have anyone else you could suggest we should talk to? THE WITNESS: The only ones I could suggest are those two fellows I named. They were very close with him in Dallas. They were Rifkin and Panitz. MR. WOLF: They're both dead . WITNESS: They died a couple of years ago. They were just friends of his. Nobody ever dreamed in the world this man would do anything like this. He was just a harmless fellow. I don't know what to tell you. I can't tell you anything else. I've told the truth, everything I've told you. But I did leave out the thing about Zoppi with the FBI. I'm sorry I did but I just forgot it. I was shook up that I knew this fellow. MR. WOLF: Mr. McWillie, we very much appreciate your cooperation. This transcript will be typed up and sent to us in Washington. We will then send you a copy of it for you to read. There will be a little statement at the, 150 136 end for you to sign that it's an accurate and true account. If you want to make changes in the transcript. you should get in touch with me. I'll send you a cover letter with the transcript. THE WITNESS: I don't have either one of your cards. MR. WOLF: We'll leave a card with you. If you get in touch with us, we'll send you a statement to sign. If you sign that and return it to us, then we'll send you an official copy of your transcript so you'll have one for your own records. Thank you very much. That will conclude the deposition. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______________day of____________________ 19_______. My commission will expire_________ day of _____________________________________ _______________________ .....Notary Notary Public 151 137 United States of America, ) ( State of Nevada, ) ss. ( City of Las Vegas. ) I, Joseph L. Ward, U.S. Magistrate, do certify that, pursuant to notice, there came before me, in Room 4-003, Federal Courthouse. 210 Las Vegas Boulevard, in Las Vegas, State of Nevada, Lewis J. McWillie, who was by me duly sworn to testify the whole truth of his knowledge touching the matter herein; that he was examined and his examination at the time reduced to writing in Stenotype by Naomi Bolstad and that such examination has been correctly transcribed and is fully and accurately set forth in the 136 preceding pages; that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness, that his said deposition so given was by said witness subscribed and sworn to; that said deposition was taken on the day, between the hours and at the place in that behalf aforesaid, and that said deposition is now herewith returned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand at my office in__________________________________ THIS DAY of______1978 _____________________________ 138 United States of America, ) ( State of Nevada, ) as ( City of Las Vegas. ) I, Naomi Bolstad, do certify that I accurately and correctly reported in Stenotypy the complete proceedings had in the taking of the deposition of Lewis J. McWillie, and have accurately and correctly transcribed the same in the preceding 136 pages. ------------------------------ Naomi Bolstad, Court Reporter 152 JFK EXHIBIT F-573 153 JFK EXHIBIT F-573 cont. 154 JFK EXHIBIT F-573 cont. 155 JFK EXHIBIT F-574 156 JFK EXHIBIT F-574 cont. 157 JFK EXHIBIT F-574 cont. 158 JFK EXHIBIT F-574 cont. 159 JFK EXHIBIT F-574 cont. 160 Mr. PURDY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time. Mr. PREYER. The Chair recognizes Mr. Stokes to question the witness for such times as he may consume. Chairman STOKES. Mr. McWillie, when did you first move to Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. Sir? Chairman STOKES. When did you first move to Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. I believe it was September 1968, I believe. Chairman STOKES. How long was it before you obtained employ- ment in Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. I had employment when I went to Cuba. Chairman STOKES. And where were you employed in Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. The Tropicana Night Club. Chairman STOKES. In what capacity? Mr. McWILLIE. Casino manager. Chairman STOKES. And who had arranged your employment when you went there? Mr. McWILLIE. A fellow that I had met in Dallas. I don't remem- ber exactly how I met him. He asked me about if I had been in the gambling business and I said yes, and he said, well, maybe I can get you something in Havana. Can you hear me, sir? Chairman STOKES. Yes; I can. Mr. McWILLIE. So, a week later I did hear from him and he had asked me if I would like to manage the Tropicana. He thought he could get me a job there. I went over there and had a conference with the owners there and agreed to come back a week later, and then I went back to Dallas and returned to Havana. Chairman STOKES. Who were the owners that you had the confer- ence with? Mr. McWILLIE. Owners of the Tropicana? Chairman STOKES. Yes, sir. Mr. MCWILLIE. There was a fellow named Martin Fox, Pedro Fox, Oscar Cheninder. That's all, the only ones I know. They are all Cubans. Chairman STOKES. Were there any so-called silent partners? Mr. McWILLIE. Silent partners? Chairman STOKES. Yes, sir. Mr. MCWILLIE. I wouldn't think so. Chairman STOKES. How many other major casinos were in Cuba at that time? Mr. McWILLIE. Let me see, I'd say six, maybe. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us the names of those casinos? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, the Riviera, the Capri, National, the Hilton. There was one down in old Havana. I don't really recall the name of it, but I do know the man's name who ran it, it was Batista. He wasn't any kin to---- Chairman STOKES. To the President? Mr. McWILLIE. To the President. Chairman STOKES. To others you just named for us, can you tell us who the owners were of those? Mr. McWILLIE. I have no idea, sir, who they all are. 161 Chairman STOKES. Just the one you are aware of, besides Tropicana. Mr. McWILLIE. Sir? Chairman STOKES. Besides the Tropicana, you are just aware-- Mr. McWILLIE. That's the only one I was aware of. Chairman STOKES. Are you aware of any individuals who might have had ownership interest in more than one casino? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir, no way I would know that. Chairman STOKES. Did you know whether or not Santos Traffi- cante had an interest in any casino there? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir, I didn't. Chairman STOKES. Did Jack Ruby know the Fox brothers that you just mentioned? Mr. McWILLIE. Did he know what, sir? Chairman STOKES. Did he know the Fox brothers? Mr. McWILLIE. I think I introduced Jack to them when he came out to the place while he was there. Chairman STOKES. But he didn't know them prior to your introducing them? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. I see. At some time, did you change jobs and move to the Capri Casino? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes; I did. I managed the Tropicana some time and then the government took it over and I was sent up there by Martin who said you can get a job up there; go up there. Chairman STOKES. Who is Martin? Mr. McWILLIE. He owned the Tropicana, Martin Fox. Chairman STOKES. Then he sent you to the Capri; is that right? Mr. MCWILLIE. Right. Chairman STOKES. When was this? Mr. McWILLIE. Either early 1960's or the late 1950's; I don't know which. I don't recall. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us who owned the Capri? Mr. McWILLIE. No; I didn't know. Chairman STOKES. Do yOU know whether or not Santos Trafficante had an interest in the Capri? Mr. McWILLIE. If he did, I never did see him in there. Chairman STOKES. If I said to you that the FBI files which this committee has gotten hold of in the case indicates that Santos Trafficante had substantial interest in the Capri, would your answer still be the same? Mr. MCWILLIE. That he had a substantial interest in the Capri? Chairman STOKES. Yes, sir. Mr. MCWILLIE. I don't know about that, sir. Chairman STOKES. You know nothing about it? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir. There would be no way I would know who owned the place. Chairman STOKES. During the time you were in Cuba, can you tell us what was the relationship between the casino operators and the Cuban Government? Mr. McWILLIE. None that I know of sir. Chairman STOKES. Were there contacts between the casino owners and the government officials? 162 Mr. MCWILLIE. Not that I know of, sir. There would be no way I would know that. All I did was manage the casino; they didn't discuss their private business with me. Chairman STOKES. Well, prior to Castro coming into power, are you aware of whether or not casino operators had to make payoffs to individuals in the government in order to remain in business? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir, I don't. Chairman STOKES. In 1959, did individuals who had casino interests take special precautions to avoid confiscation of their assets by the government? Mr. McWILLIE. Not that I know of. Chairman STOKES. Well, isn't it true that you made trips to Miami? Mr. McWILLIE. To take money for Fox- Chairman STOKES. From Cuba to deposit money? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Explain that to us, tell us what you were doing. Mr. MCWILLIE. They would ask me to, if I would go to Miami and deposit some money for them, and I would do it. Chairman STOKES. By what you were doing, you were sort of running for them, is that right? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I was a casino manager, and if they wanted me to do that for them, I did it. Chairman STOKES. The effect of what they were doing is they were getting their money out of Cuba into banks or deposit boxes here in the States, is that right? Mr. MCWILLIE. Well, the money I took over there was--I took it to a teller and she put it in their account. Chairman STOKES. In the bank? Mr. MCWILLIE. In the bank; yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Was this for the Fox brothers? Mr. McWILLIE. This was both the Fox brothers and Cheninder, too. Cheninder was one of the partners. Chairman STOKES. Did you do it for anyone else? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. How about when you moved to the Capri, did you do it for anybody there? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Following the takeover by Castro, did a point come when some of the Americans living there were put in prison or otherwise detained? Mr. McWILLIE. I think so; yes. Chairman STOKES. Can you recall about when this was? Mr. McWILLIE. Why, you say? Chairman STOKES. NO; can you recall when this occurred? Mr. MCWILLIE. When this occurred? Either the latter part of 1959 or the early part of 1960; I'm not sure. Chairman STOKES. Were all Americans who had gambling interests there detained? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you know why some were detained and some were not? Mr. McWILLIE. I never did know; no. 163 Chairman STOKES. And do you know where they were detained? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes; they were detained in two prisons, Principal and another one. I don't know the name of that one. That's the one they were detained in. Chairman STOKES. Would that be Trescornia, a place called Trescornia? Mr. MCWILLIE. I think that's the name of it; yes. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us the names of some of the people whom you know were detained? Mr. McWILLIE. I didn't understand you. Chairman STOKES. Are you having difficulty hearing me? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes, sir; it is alright, I can hear you. Chairman STOKES. Can you hear me now? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Can you give us the names of some of the people who were detained? Mr. MCWILLIE. In this prison? Chairman STOKES. Yes, sir. Mr. McWILLIE. Well, Trafficante was in there, Jake Lansky, Dino Cellini, and a fellow named Guiseppe who worked in the Capri, had worked in there, and I don't recall anyone else. Chairman STOKES. Was anyone from the Tropicana detained in there? Mr. McWILLIE. Was anyone besides Tropicana? Chairman STOKES. No; anyone from the Tropicana? Mr. McWILLIE. From the Tropicana; no. Chairman STOKES. How about the Fox brothers, were they detained? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us why they were not detained? Mr. McWILLIE. I really couldn't tell you, sir. I don't know. I guess because they were Cubans, I don't know. Chairman STOKES. Did you ever have occasion to visit Trescornia? Mr. MCWILLIE. I went out there to see a fellow named Guiseppe. He had been a dealer around the Capri and he was a fanatic gambler, gambled his money away. He had a wife and a little kid. We used to give his wife, take up a collection and give his wife money so they could live. I did go out to see him once or twice. Chairman STOKES. What was his full name? Mr. McWILLIE. I really don't remember it, sir. Guiseppe De some- thing. I don't recall what it was. Guiseppe De George. Chairman STOKES. I am sorry. Mr. MCWILLIE. Guiseppe De George. Chairman STOKES. De George. Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall how many times you went out there? I think you just said once or twice--- Mr. McWILLIE. I would say about twice. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall the first time that you went there? Mr. McWILLIE. No, I don't recall the date; no. Chairman STOKES. Can you approximate the date for us? 164 Mr. MCWILLIE. I believe it was some time in 1959. I'm not positive though. Could have been early 1960's; I'm not sure. Chairman STOKES. How about the second time you went back to visit De George? Mr. MCWILLIE. It is possible I could have went back to see Dino the second time, but I'm not sure. Chairman STOKES. To see who? Mr. McWILLIE. Dino Cellini. He had been the manager of the Tropicana before Clark was there. And I became friendly with him and talked to him about casino work and different things. Its possible that I did go see him; I don't know. Chairman STOKES. So that I understand your testimony properly, it is that you went there twice. You think it was late 1959 or early 1960, possibly. The first time you went to see De George. The second time you may have gone to see Cellini; is that correct? Mr. MCWILLIE. It is possible that I went to see both of them. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us why De George was in Trescornia? Mr. McWILLIE. They just picked him up like they did everybody else. I don't know why they picked him up. Chairman STOKES. And what was your reason for going to see him? Mr. MCWILLIE. See De George? Chairman STOKES. Yes. Mr. MCWILLIE. Because he had a wife and a child and we had been giving them money. I had rather, taken up a collection amongst the help to live on. I went out there to let him know they were being taken care of. Chairman STOKES. Was Cellini in there the same time you went to see De George? Mr. MCWILLIE. I think, I'm positive he was. Chairman STOKES. Do you know what he was in for? Mr. MCWILLIE. Why he was in there? Chairman STOKES. Yes, sir. Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. How many people were in the same area where De George and Cellini were? Mr. MCWILLIE. Quite a few people there, Cubans and Americans that I didn't know. Chairman STOKES. Did they have them all housed together; that is, did they have the Americans---- Mr. McWILLIE. Well, it was a kind of a, I would say, a playroom where they all sat around and read and talked, whatever. Chairman STOKES. Well, in the room where you visited them? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Can you describe that room for us? Mr. McWILLIE. As I recall, it was just a large room, had chairs in it. It had a yard outside where they could walk around. It wasn't really a prison. They had a wire fence around it. But, I guess it was pretty well guarded. Chairman STOKES. In this room where you visited with De George and Cellini, were other people visiting in the same room with prisoners? 165 Mr. McWILLIE. I don't recall, sir, I really don't know who was visiting. It could have been--- Chairman STOKES. Well, on your first trip, did you see both De George and Cellini? Mr. McWILLIE. It seems to me like I did; yes. I said hello to Cellini; yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Is it your opinion that both of these men were imprisoned because of their gambling activities or for some other reason? Mr. McWILLIE. I would have to think that they were trying, going to deport them, myself. Chairman STOKES. And do you know why they were being deported. Mr. McWILLIE. Castro was taking over the casinos. I would think that is one of his ways of doing things. Chairman STOKES. And you think it would be in connection with - their gambling activities? Mr. McWILLIE. I would think so; yes. Is it all right if I smoke? Chairman STOKES. Certainly; help yourself. On your first visit there, can you tell us the names of some of the other prisoners you recall seeing there? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I recall seeing Trafficante. I recall seeing Jake Lansky, Dino Cellini, and Guiseppe. Chairman STOKES. And did you have occasion to talk with any of them? Mr. McWILLIE. I did talk to Cellini. I think Jake Lansky might have been there. I didn't talk to anyone--and De George--I didn't talk to Trafficante because I didn't know him that well, just to speak to him. Chairman STOKES. But you did talk, you think, with Jake Lansky on that occasion? Mr. McWILLIE. Just asked how he was, when he was going to get freed, and different things like that. Chairman STOKES. You say you did not talk with Mr. Trafficante? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Did you know Mr. Trafficante? Mr. McWILLIE. Just to see him. Chairman STOKES. And how often would you have seen him? Mr. McWILLIE. Oh, maybe every once in a while. It might be a month or so if I would see him. When I'd see him, I would say hello to him, and he would say hello to me. Chairman STOKES. On your second visit out there, besides the two men that you have named, whom did you see on your second visit? Mr. McWILLIE The same ones were in there. Chairman STOKES. And can you tell us on that occasion how many of them you talked with? Mr. McWILLIE. Just Guiseppe. I could have talked to Dino again just to say hello and pass the time of day. Chairman STOKES. Did ou speak to Lansky? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, he's always with Dino. They were together. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall speaking with Mr. Trafficante on that occasion? Mr. McWILLIE. I didn't know Mr. Trafficante that well. 166 Chairman STOKES. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Trafficante? Mr. MCWILLIE. Just to say hello. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall when that was? Mr. MCWILLIE. Sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall when that was? Mr. McWILLIE. No, I don't I'd see him numerous times around Havana. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall whether you said hello to him in the prison on either one of those occasions? Mr. McWILLIE. I probably said hello to him the second time I was there. Chairman STOKES. Did you do anything else, shake hands with him or anything like that? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Probably just said hello. Mr. MCWILLIE. That's all. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, at this time I ask that JFK exhibit F-436, which is a rough sketch of the layout of Trescornia, obtained during a committee trip to Cuba, be entered into the record. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit F-436 is entered into the record. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-436 follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-436 Chairman STOKES. Was someone in that prison by the name of Charles Tourine? Mr. McWILLIE. Who? 167 Chairman STOKES. Charles Tourine? Mr. McWILLIE. No; I don't know. Chairman STOKES. You don't know anybody by that name? How about Charles Del Monico? Mr. McWILLIE. Del Monico? Chairman STOKES. Del Monico? Mr. MCWILLIE. No. Chairman STOKES. Lucian Rivard? Mr. McWILLIE. Not that I know of. Chairman STOKES. Jake Lansky was there; right? Mr. MCWILLIE. Jake Lansky was there; right. Chairman STOKES. How about Henry Savadra? Mr. MCWILLIE. No. Chairman STOKES. And Cellini was there? Mr. McWILLIE. Cellini was there, yes, Eddie Cellini--I mean Dino. Chairman STOKES. Now, on your two visits there, on either one of those visits, did either De George or Cellini or anyone else ask you to do anything for them outside of the prison? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Who went out to the prison with you? Mr. McWILLIE. Who what, sir? Chairman STOKES. Who went out there with you to the prison? Mr. McWILLIE. Jack Ruby could have been out there one time with me. I don't think he was. I went out there, I think, by myself. Chairman STOKES. Well, you said to us, you just said to us he could have gone out there with me. Mr. McWILLIE. I don't know if he was there at that time or not. If he was, I could have taken him out there with me, yes. I'm not positive about it. Chairman STOKES. Let's talk about Mr. Ruby a little bit. When was Mr. Ruby there? Mr. MCWILLIE. Sir? Chairman STOKES. When did Mr. Ruby come to Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. I don't know; it was August or September; I don't know. Chairman STOKES. Of what year? Mr. MCWILLIE. 1959. Chairman STOKES. And tell us why he came to Cuba? Mr. MCWILLIE. Well, he came over there--I tried to get Mr. Ruby to bring a columnist from Dallas over there in 1958, and so he didn't bring him, he couldn't bring him or something. I don't know what it was. In 1959, I called him again. I believe I called him or wrote him and asked him if he could possibly bring Tony Zoppi in. He said yeah, I will get him and bring him over here. I explained to him that his hotel bill and plane fare would be taken care of. In fact, I sent him two tickets; I am almost positive it was two tickets. When he came over there, he was by himself. He said, Tony couldn't come. I think he just more or less came over there to take a vacation. Course, I never heard from Tony again. Chairman STOKES. So that we understand it, Jack Ruby came to Cuba at your invitation? Mr. MCWILLIE. Yes, he did. 168 Chairman STOKES. And you are the one who sent him the tickets? Mr. MCWILLIE. But he was supposed to bring Tony Zoppi, excolumnist. Chairman STOKES. But instead of bringing Zoppi--- Mr. MCWILLIE. He came by himself; yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. In order to try and get a better idea of when Ruby was there, what is your best recollection as to whether it was August or whether it was September or whether he came in August and left in September? Mr. MCWILLIE. He was just there a week, 6 days, maybe. Chairman STOKES. I am sorry. Mr. MCWILLIE. Sir? Chairman STOKES. I didn't hear you? Mr. McWILLIE. He was there 6 days. I don't recall the exact date when he was there. Chairman STOKES. Can you recall any holidays around that time? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, no, I can't. Chairman STOKES. Now, would it help refresh your recollection if we said to you that there are people who saw Ruby in Havana on September 5, September 6 and September 7? Would that help refresh your recollection. Mr. MCWILLIE. That would be the time he was there then, if people saw him there. Chairman STOKES. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask at this point that the following exhibits be entered into the record: JFK F-575, which is a segment of a letter written by Tony Zoppi; F-576, which is a committee interview with Mr. Zoppi; F-577, which is an FBI report of an interview with Jack Ruby; F-578, F-579, and F-580, which are statements of persons who saw Jack Ruby in Havana, Cuba; and finally F-582, which is an FBI report that further sug- gests that Ruby went to Cuba. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibits F-575 through F-580, and F-582 are entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-575. through F-580 and F-582 follow:] JFK EXHIBIT F-575 169 JFK EXHIBIT F-576 170 JFK EXHIBIT F-576 cont. 171 JFK EXHIBIT F-576 cont. 172 JFK EXHIBIT F-576 cont. 173 JFK EXHIBIT F-576 cont. 174 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 175 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 176 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 177 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 178 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 179 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 180 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 181 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 182 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 183 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 184 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 185 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 186 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 187 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 188 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 189 JFK EXHIBIT F-577 cont. 190 JFK EXHIBIT F-578 191 JFK EXHIBIT F-579 192 JFK EXHIBIT F-580 193 JFK EXHIBIT F-580 194 JFK EXHIBIT F-582 Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that JFK Exhibit F-581, which is a postcard written from Jack Ruby to Alice Nichols which is dated September 8, 1959, also be made a part and entered into the record at this point. 195 Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK F-581 is ordered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK Exhibit F-581 follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-581 Chairman STOKES. Now, you have stated that it is your best recollection that he stayed there a week? Mr. McWILLIE. I would say 6 days, not over 6 days. Chairman SToKEs. Could he have stayed longer? Mr. McWILLIE. No, I think I took him to the airport. 196 Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask that JFK Exhibits F-583, and F-584, which are blowups, be exhibited at this time and also be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK Exhibits F-583 and F-584 are admitted into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK Exhibits F-583 and F-584 follow:] JFK EXHIBIT F-583 197 JFK EXHIBIT F-584 Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Mr. Howard Shapiro of our staff be permitted to approach the easel and explain to the witness what those exhibits are. Mr. PREYER. The Chair recognizes Mr. Shapiro. Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These two exhibits are blowups of materials which the committee acquired from the Cuban Government earlier this year. What we have are two cards which indicate two visits. Mr. PREYER. Just a moment, Mr. Shapiro. I don't believe your microphone is working. Mr. SHAPIRO. Is it working now? Mr. PREYER. Fine. Mr. SHAPIRO. As I said, these exhibits are blowups of materials which the committee received from the Cuban Government earlier this year. We have two cards and we have a blowup of the front side and the back side of each card. The front side of the first card, the back side of the first card, the front side of the second card, the back side of the second card. What these cards indicate are two visits to Cuba by Jack Ruby, and further they indicate the dates of those visits. The first card indicates that Jack Ruby entered Cuba on August 8, 1959, the date of entry being written in on the back of the card. The front of the card indicating that Jack Ruby left the United States from New Orleans. The back of the card also indicates that Jack Ruby left cuba on this visit on September 11, 1959, therefore, the card indicating that Jack Ruby was in Cuba from August 8 to September 11, 1959. 198 The second card indicates that Jack Ruby entered Cuba on Sep- tember 12, 1959, and left on the 13th of September 1959, and the front side of the card would indicate that his entry from the United States was from Miami, Fla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. OK. Mr McWillie, do you understand-- Mr. McWILLIE. Yes sir, I understand. Chairman STOKES [continuing]. That gentleman's testimony? Mr. McWiLLIE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Now, does that information help refresh your recollection, first, as to whether Jack Ruby came in August and left in September, and also whether he remained there over a period of 6 days? Mr. McWILLIE. Sir, he stayed there 6 days, as far as I can remember. One .of them said September what to--to August to September, what date was that? Chairman STOKES. August 8 was his entrance date, a departure date of the 11th--September 11. Mr. McWILLIE. Oh, no, no, he wasn't there that long. Chairman STOKES. He wasn't there that long? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. During the period of time that he was there, did he leave the country and come back again during that 6-day period? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask that JFK exhibit F-588, which is a report confirming that the signa- tures "Jack Ruby" appearing on the two travel cards as well as the post card to Alice Nichols, be entered into the record. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit F-588, is entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-588 follows:] 199 JFK EXHIBIT F-588 200 JFK EXHIBIT F-588 cont. 201 JFK EXHIBIT F-588 cont. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the other exhibits, I would like to have entered into the record an FBI report dated November 29, 1969, concerning the records of the Merchant State Bank in Dallas as they pertain to Jack Ruby. This exhibit should be marked JFK exhibit f-585. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit f-585, is entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-585 follows:] 202 JFK EXHIBIT F-585 203 JFK EXHIBIT F-585 cont. 204 JFK EXHIBIT F-585 cont. 205 Chairman STOKES. That exhibit will reflect information concerning Jack Ruby's use of safety deposit box No. 448. Among other dates listed, that exhibit will indicate that Jack Ruby was admitted to the safety deposit box on August 20, 1959, and September 4, 1959. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to enter into the record at this point the FBI report by Agent Charles Flynn, which is the FBI'S record of the status of Jack Ruby as a potential criminal informant. I would like to have this record entered into evidence as JFK exhibit F-586. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit F-586 is entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-586 follows:] 206 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 207 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 208 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 209 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 210 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 211 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 212 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 213 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 214 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 215 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 216 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 217 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 218 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 219 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 220 JFK EXHIBIT F-586 cont. 221 Chairman STOKES. I would also have the committee know that this exhibit will point out the fact that the record indicates that Charles Flynn, the FBI agent, had personal contact with Jack Ruby in Dallas, Tex. on August 6 and on August 31 of 1959. In summary, what these records will tend to indicate is that Jack Ruby was in Dallas, Tex. on August 6, August 21, August 31, and September 4, 1959. Therefore, if the Cuban records are correct, Jack Ruby was in Havana, Cuba, on August 8, 1959; he must have left Cuba and returned to Dallas and traveled to Cuba again prior to the September 11 departure date that has been mentioned earlier. Now, Mr. McWillie, if Mr. Ruby made a 1-day trip in and out of the country, would you be able to tell us what that trip was about? Mr. McWILLIE. If he did make a trip I would not know it, sir; and I would think I would know it, and I didn't see Jack Ruby after he left that one time. Chairman STOKES. Now, tell us what the two of you did in Cuba during that 6-day period together? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I worked every night, and as a rule he would hang around the casino. Maybe once or twice he might have gone to see a show or something, but he was around me nearly all the time. Chairman STOKES. But during the day what would the two of you do? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I was working at night and I slept most of the day. If he got up early or not I wouldn't know. He would usually meet me out at the casino after I had gone and opened up. Chairman STOKES. What time did you go to the casino in the evening? Mr. McWILLIE. I think about 8 o'clock. Chairman STOKES. And how late would you work? Mr. McWILLIE. Sometimes 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. Chairman STOKES. And you say he would hang around you out at the casino? Mr. McWILLIE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. And during that period of time, he didn't smoke or drink, did he? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir, he didn't. Chairman STOKES. But he would just stand around; is that it? Mr. McWILLIE. Stand around talking to people and carrying on conversations. Chairman STOKES. Did he know other people there? Mr. McWILLIE. Sir? Chairman STOKES. Did he know other people there? Mr. McWILLIE. No, he didn't know anyone there. Chairman STOKES. You were the only person he knew in Havana? Mr. McWILLIE. He knew Panitz. I think Panitz was there at the time, too, Meyer Panitz from Memphis; he knew him, he was from Dallas, too. Chairman STOKES. Was Panitz there during that period of time? Mr. McWILLIE. Pardon me, I am almost positive that he was. Chairman STOKES. That he was? Mr. McWILLIE. That he was working in Havana. 222 Chairman STOKES. What type of work did Panitz do? Mr. McWILLIE. He was a casino worker. Chairman STOKES. And for which casino? Mr. MCWILLIE. I think he worked at the Capri. Chairman STOKES. Now, did I understand you to say earlier that you took Ruby back to the airport? Mr. McWILLIE. I am sure I did, yes, sir; I would do that, yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. And where was he going when he left? Mr. McWILLIE. He was going back home, he said, to Dallas. Chairman STOKES. And do you know whether or not he did go back home to Dallas? Mr. MCWILLIE. I would have to say he did. There was no way I would know but I would have to say he did go back to Dallas. Chairman STOKES. Now, you have told us that Panitz was in Havana at the same time you and Ruby were there? Mr. McWILLIE. I would have to say so, yes. Chairman STOKES. Is it possible that Panitz was not there and that he was in Miami and that you called him? Mr. McWILLIE. No, I don't think so. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask that an exhibit marked JFK F-587, which is an interview with Meyer Panitz, be entered into and made a part of the record at this point. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit F-587 is ordered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-587 follows:] 223 JFK EXHIBIT F-587 224 Chairman STOKES. Would counsel hand me that exhibit? Mr. McWILLIE. This exhibit is an FBI interview of Meyer Panitz in which Panitz says that he had known McWillie from Dallas, Tex. Panitz says he contacted Ruby at Wolfie's Restaurant at Twentyfirst Street and Collins, Miami Beach, Fla. Panitz believes Ruby was in Miami Beach 2 or 3 days and visited with Ruby on two occasions. Panitz recalls Ruby said he had been in Cuba on a pleasure trip and was returning to Dallas, Tex. Panitz does not recall the hotel room Ruby stayed in while in Miami Beach. Panitz does not recall the month he saw Ruby but is somewhat certain it was in the summer of 1959. Panitz had no knowledge of possible Cuban connections on the part of Ruby but that, he says Panitz received a phone call from McWillie and McWillie was then working in Cuba. McWillie advised Panitz that Jack Ruby had visited him in Cuba and was then in Miami Beach. Having heard what Mr. Panitz told the FBI about your calling him, would you now change your statement that Panitz was then--- Mr. MCWILLIE. I thought he was in Cuba. I didn't know he was in Miami. I thought that Panitz was in Cuba because I know he worked there. Chairman STOKES. What then would have been your reason for calling Panitz and letting him know that Jack Ruby was going to be there? Mr. MCWILLIE. If I called Panitz, I don't recall it. I don't recall a conversation with Panitz in Miami. Chairman STOKES. You don't recall having called Panitz? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir; I do not. Chairman STOKES. This doesn't refresh your recollection either? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir. I thought Panitz was in Havana when Ruby was over there, and I still think he was. Chairman STOKES. Did Ruby carry anything to Panitz for you? Mr. MCWILLIE. Did he carry anything to Panitz? Chairman STOKES. To Panitz for you? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Now, you have told us that, to the best of your recollection, you cannot recall Jack Ruby leaving the country and coming back in again? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, sir. No, I never saw him again after he left Cuba. Chairman STOKES. Now, I ask again, Mr. Chairman, that we direct the witness' attention to JFK exhibits F-583 and F-584 which have. been referred to earlier. Mr. McWillie, I would direct your attention to the left-hand card of JFK exhibit F-584, which indicates that Jack Ruby left Havana on September 11, 1959. I also direct your attention to the card on the right which is the back side of the card showing at the bottom of the photographic blowup of JFK exhibit F-583, which indicates that Jack Ruby entered Cuba on September 12, 1959, left again on September 13, 1959. The front side of that card shows that on that trip that Jack Ruby had come from Miami, therefore, the two cards taken together show that Jack Ruby left Cuba on September 11, 1959, that he 225 went to Miami, returned to Cuba on September 12, and then going on to New Orleans on September 13. In addition to that, the committee has a letter here from Immigration Service which was sent to this committee, which confirms the fact that Jack Ruby left Cuba on September 11, 1959, went to Miami, returning on September 12 and going on to New Orleans on September 13. Mr. Chairman, I would like this letter from INS entered into the record at this time as JFK exhibit F-589. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit F-589 is entered into the record at this time. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-589 follows:] 226 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 227 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. (COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1442) 228 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. (COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 1443) 229 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. 230 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. 231 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. 232 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. 233 JFK EXHIBIT F-589 cont. 234 Chairman STOKES. Now, Mr. McWillie, let me ask you, in light of this additional documentation with reference to Mr. Ruby's trips, does this in any way refresh your recollection? Mr. MCWILLIE. I think you said, sir, that, didn't you say that he came in on the 5th of August and left on the 11th? Did you say that? Chairman STOKES. On the 8th was the original trip, the document shows. Mr. McWILLIE. From the 5th to the 11th? That was 6 days. That is the only time that I have seen Jack Ruby in Cuba. I thought when he left there he went right straight home to Dallas. I had no idea why he went to New Orleans. Chairman STOKES. You have no knowledge of such trip? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir; none whatever. Mr. SAWYER. Would you yield? Chairman STOKES. Yes. Mr. SAWYER. I think there is confusion. He said arrived on the 8th and left on the 11th. It was the 8th of August and he left on the 11th of September, so it was not 6 days as the witness---- Mr. MCWILLIE. I thought the first time you said it, he got there the 6th of August and left on the 11th of August. You didn't say that? Chairman STOKES. Sir, we will try and clear it up. Mr. Shapiro, would you again approach the easel? Mr. MCWILLIE. Because I know for a fact he wasn't there over 6 days when he visited me. Chairman STOKES. We will have the--- Mr. McWILLIE. I couldn't have stood it that long. Chairman STOKES. We will have the gentleman try to clear it up. [Laughter.] Mr. Shapiro. Mr. SHAPIRO. These cards here indicate a trip on Jack Ruby entering Cuba on August 8, 1959, and leaving on September 11. Therefore, the card indicates that Jack Ruby was there for a period of 1 month and 3 days. Mr. McWILLIE. No way, he wasn't there not over 6 days. I took him to the airport. Chairman STOKES. Mr. McWillie, does that clear it up? Mr. MCWILLIE. That is clear all right but that is not right, because when he came to visit me he stayed 6 days at the most, he stayed 6 days and there is some foulup with that ticket or something, If he had stayed there a month, I would say a month, I wouldn't be ashamed to say it. Jack Ruby was the kind of fellow that 6 days would be long enough to be around him. I am sure he wasn't there a month. [Laughter.] Chairman STOKES. You are pretty sure then? Mr. MCWILLIE. I am not trying to be smart, sir. Chairman STOKES. I understand. Mr. McWILLIE. I am telling it like it is. Chairman STOKES. Did you ever ask Mr. Ruby to get you four guns from Ray Brentley's gun store and send them to you in Cuba? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir; I have been asked that a dozen times and I didn't do that. In the first place, Jack Ruby couldn't have sent 235 any guns to Cuba and I couldn't have gotten them in Cuba. If I had, I hate to think what would have happened to me. Chairman STOKES. You have been asked about this a dozen times, you say. You are aware then that Jack Ruby gave this testimony to the Warren Commission? Mr. McWILLIE. No, I am not aware he gave the testimony. But I have been asked by reporters and magazine writers and different people. Chairman STOKES. Now---- Mr. McWILLIE. I'm trying to think--now, who else asked me that? Chairman STOKES. Here is Jack Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commission, volume 5, page 201, says that you had called Jack Ruby from Cuba, asking him to pick up four Cobra pistols at Ray Brentley's hardware store and send to you. According to Jack Ruby, you were concerned about the new regime coming in, you wanted some protection. Your testimony is that this never happened? Mr. McWILLIE. This never happened, sir, and there is no way I could call Jack Ruby and ask him to send guns over there because every call was monitored in Havana, every call, and I would hate to get caught with a gun in Cuba when I was there. Chairman STOKES. How about Las Vegas? Mr. McWILLIE. He sent me a gun there, yes, and I didn't take it out. Chairman STOKES. Sir? Pardon me. Mr. McWILLIE. I called him. They were having a lot of holdups there. I was working on the late shift. I would get up at 2 o'clock in the morning and get off at 10 and the holdup men had beaten several fellows up because they didn't have enough money for them, and so I called Jack and asked Jack to send me a gun out there, and in the meantime my kids were small and my wife wouldn't let me take the gun out and so it went back. Chairman STOKES. So you never picked up the gun that he sent you? Mr. MCWILLIE. No, I never did. Chairman STOKES. Did he get that gun from Ray Brentley's? Mr. McWILLIE. Sir? Chairman STOKES. Did he get that gun from Ray Brentley's? Mr. McWILLIE. I think he did, yes. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. PREYER. Thank you. Are there any further questions from the members of the panel? Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. PREYER. Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. If I may have just 1 minute with the chief counsel before proceeding. [A brief recess was taken.] Mr. PREYER. Mr. Fithian is recognized. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After you left Cuba what was your relationship with Jack Ruby, Mr. McWillie? 236 Mr. McWILLIE. After I left Cuba, I stayed in Miami at my mother's home until about the 1st of June, and I drove from Miami to Las Vegas. I had a job at the Cal-Neva Lodge in Lake Tahoe, Nev. When I got to Dallas, I stayed overnight with Jack Ruby. Got up, oh, I got in there about nine and got up at five in the morning and left. I drove on up to Cal-Neva Lodge and went to work there on the 15th and then I went to, after that was over in September, I went down to Reno and was assistant manager at the Riverside Hotel. During the period I was there, I think I got a couple letters from Jack Ruby telling me about a new place he had and how nice it was and this and that. He sent me some razor blades that just came out. He seemed to be very proud of these blades, and he was going to get a distributorship for them. I may have gotten two letters from him, I don't know. Mr. FITHIAN. So now, what you are saying is after you got back to the United States, you stayed overnight with Jack Ruby, you received a couple letters from him while you were in Reno and that he, upon your request, sent you a gun in Las Vegas, which you did not pick up. Mr. McWILLIE. This was later on, sir, this was later on after I left Reno. I left Reno in--let me see, right before Christmas in 1962, I took my family and we drove to Miami and visited with my mother, and then I came back to Vegas and went to work at the-are you ready, sir? Mr. FITHIAN. Yes. Mr. MCWILLIE. I came back to Vegas and went to work at the Thunderbird Hotel, I believe, in February, the early part of February 1963. Mr. FITHIAN. Did you have any other personal contact with Jack Ruby-- Mr. MCWILLIE. I'm getting to that now, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. OK. Mr. McWILLIE. Then after I was there a while, I got a call from Jack Ruby that he was having trouble with a union named the AGVA. He wanted to know if I knew anybody who knew the president of the union. It just so happened that I knew, a friend of mine named Bill Miller was entertainment director for the Hilton Hotel, I think it was. I called Bill. I managed a casino for him in Reno. In the meantime, he left and went to Vegas, and I called Bill and I said, Bill, I have a friend of mine in Dallas who has some trouble with the AGVA, it is some kind of an entertainment union. I said he wants to know if you know if I know anyone who knows the president, and I am calling you on account of that and if you could help him, I would appreciate it. I didn't hear any more from Bill Miller, but a couple days later, the next day maybe, I got a call from Ruby. He was just thanking me overwhelmingly. Well, he must have called me five or six times during that period thanking me for getting this straightened out for him. It must have been a minor thing; I don't know. Mr. FITHIAN. Let me see if I understand you correctly. He called once to ask if you could help out with the American Guild of variety Actors problem, and you made a call to Bill Culler, did you say? Mr. McWILLIE. Bill Miller. 237 Mr. FITHIAN. Miller. Mr. MCWILLIE. He called me from Dallas. Mr. FITHIAN. And you made one call and then dismissed it from your mind and then for five or six or seven additional calls, Ruby called you to---- Mr. McWILLIE. He called me every day for 4 or 5 days after that thanking me every time. I finally told him, I said, Jack, forget it. I said, I just did you a favor. I'd do it for anybody, and then that was it. Mr. FITHIAN. Did he know in advance that you had this connection that could do him some good? I am curious as to why he called you on a labor matter. Mr. McWILLIE. I don't really know, sir. He just probably thought I could help him with it. I don't know why he thought that, but he called me anyway. Mr. FITHIAN. Did anyone else ever tell you or did you ever learn that Jack Ruby had contacted other people in regard to the AGVA dispute, the labor dispute? Mr. McWILLIE. No. sir. He had contacted other people? If he did, he didn't tell me. Mr. FITHIAN. Did anyone else that Jack contacted contact you and let you know that Jack was having this problem? Mr. McWILLIE. No, no. The only time I ever heard of it was when he called me. Mr. FITHIAN. The only input you had or the only indication you had of the labor problem was a single phone call from Jack Ruby? Mr. McWILLIE. That's right, and I told him that I didn't know who the president was, but I thought I knew a man that would know. Incidentally, this man was a very good friend of mine and he got very upset about it, about me having Ruby call him and what happened. I told him, I said, well, I didn't know he was that kind of a fellow which I didn't. Mr. FITHIAN. What was your reaction when you learned that Jack Ruby had shot Oswald? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, I tell you, like I said I was working late at night and I was in my bedroom asleep and my wife had a radio or a TV in the kitchen. She came running in the room waking me up. She said, "My gosh, come in the kitchen, she said, someone just shot Oswald," and jokingly I said, "I hope its no one I know." We went in the kitchen and the announcer said a man named Segal had shot him. I said, "Well, I don't know him," laughing. All of a sudden, they said, "We made a mistake, it was a man named Jack Ruby." I said, "Oh my God, I know this man, my goodness." I told my wife, well, now, the FBI will be out here. Sure enough, in about 3 hours, the FBI came out. Mr. FITHIAN. Besides your wife and the three FBI agents, who were the other people you talked to, after Ruby shot Oswald, about this, about the fact. you knew Ruby and he had shot Oswald? Mr. McWILLIE. Well, several people brought it up that I knew him. I don't know who they were. I said isn't this an awful thing to know someone like this and have to go through all this problem over nothing? That's about the only thing I ever said. It has been an ordeal for 15 years. 238 Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McWillie, in your deposition to the committee, you indicate that you participated in the Fair Play for Cuba Com- mittee, is that correct? Mr. McWILLIE. Sir? Mr. FITHIAN. You indicated in your deposition to the committee, I believe, that you participated in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, is that correct? Mr. McWILLIE. Before I left here, I was going to get that straightened out. It is on page 221, I think, of paragraph 11 or 12; is that right? Do you have it in front of you? Mr. FITHIAN. I believe you are correct in your citation. Mr. McWILLIE. Sir? Mr. FITHIAN. I believe you are correct in your citation. Mr. McWILLIE. Do you want me to read it to you? Mr. FITHIAN. I will be happy to have you straighten it out, if you can. Mr. McWILLIE. I think it is page 121. It says "Subsequent to your returning to the United States----" Mr. FITHIAN. Could you just get the microphone a little closer? Thank you. Mr. McWILLIE. It says, "Subsequent to your returning to the United States, you were involved in an incident at Miami Airport, is that correct?" Subsequent, that means after I left Cuba; right? Mr. FITHIAN. Right. Mr. McWILLIE. And I answered, "That's right." "Is it fair to characterize you as anti-Castro?" And the answer here is, which is untrue, "I was in an outfit called Fair Play for Cuba. I am not proud of it. But, I was just mad." I think they got that mixed up. The fellow I had the altercation with was with the Fair Play, an organization named the Fair Play for Cuba. Could that be taken out of this record because I didn't say that I was with the Fair Play-- Mr. FITHIAN. I believe I have been informed by the staff that the "he" in the transcript when it got transcribed was attributed to you and actually it was the person with whom you had some differences--we will correct the record. Mr. MCWILLIE. Will this be changed? Mr. PREYER. Your explanation will be made a part of the record and the record will be corrected. Mr. McWILLIE. It will be changed. Thank you, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. I just have one other quick area to explore and then I will be done. Mr. McWillie, do you know Earl Ruby? Mr. McWILLIE. Earl Ruby. I don't know him intimately. I have seen him a couple times. Mr. FITHIAN. When did you meet him? Mr. McWILLIE. I met him about 7 or 8 months ago. He came by the place where I worked and I looked around and there was a little fellow walking in the pit, we call it the pit. He walked up to me and he says, are you McWillie? I said yes, I am. And he said, well, I'm Earl Ruby. Well, I like to fell out when he told me he was Earl Ruby, but I had never seen him before in my life and that was the last person in the world I wanted to see. I said--he said, I am 239 here, I'm making a documentary for one of the networks--NBC or one of them--and how have you been and this and that. I finally told him, I said, Earl, if you don't mind, would you just get out of here and let me alone. I have had enough problems knowing your brother, and I don't want any more problems. Mr. FITHIAN. And is that the only time you met Earl Ruby then? Mr. McWILLIE. That's the only time I ever met him, yes. Mr. FITHIAN. Did Jack ever mention his brother, Earl, to you to 1959? Mr. McWILLIE. Did he ever mention him to me? Mr. FITHIAN. Yes. Mr. McWILLIE. The best I remember it, he had a brother named Sam, I believe. I'm not positive. But, I am sure he had two brothers. He was a little skinny fellow and was ill in some way. He had a sister and he told me that she was ill. He never explained it, I don't know what illness she had or they both had. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. Mr. PREYER. Are there any further questions from the panel? If not, Mr. McWillie, under the rules of the committee, when the questioning of a witness is completed, the witness has the right to take 5 minutes to explain anything about his testimony that he wishes to explain or to clarify or to just tell the committee anything he wants to. Is there anything further that you would like to say to the committee? If so, you will be recognized at this time. Mr. McWILLIE. Here is a question on page 121. "Subsequent to your return to the United States, were you ever approached by individuals regarding assassinating Castro?" And it took me by surprise and I said, Oh, my God, no, because I never was there. This was the last question that was asked me as I was getting ready to leave the room, if Mr. Purdy will recall, as I was putting my coat on, I got up and was going out to leave, I am sure that he asked me this question and it was so absurd that I--it astounded me because I wouldn't assassinate a flea. Mr. PREYER. Do you wish to make any further comment on your answer to that question? Mr. McWILLIE. What, sir? Mr. PREYER. Do you wish to say anything further about that question at this time? Mr. McWILLIE. Sir, I can't hear you. I'm sorry. Mr. PREYER. Do you wish to add to your answer at this time anything further you want to say about that? Mr. McWILLIE. No, sir. Mr. PREYER. Do you have any other comments that you wish to make, Mr. McWillie, on anything? Mr. McWILLIE. On anything pertaining to this thing? Mr. PREYER. Yes. Mr. McWILLIE. Not that I know of, sir. Mr. PREYER. All right. Thank you. If there are no further questions, Mr. McWillie, you will be excused at this time. Thank you for being with us. [Witness excused.] 240 Mr. PREYER. The Chair will recognize Mr. Blakey. You are excused at this time, Mr. McWillie. Mr. McWILLIE. Congressman, am I free to go back home? Mr. PREYER. You are free to go, Mr. McWillie. Thank you. Mr. MCWILLIE. I'm sorry I could not hear you any better than did. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously there is not much to be learned from Mr. McWillie's testimony, but we do know certain things. First, McWillie was an associate of Jack Ruby. Second, McWillie may have been associated with Santos Trafficante, that is, at least if Trafficante had an entrance in gambling casinos in Havana, though the extent and nature of that relationship is as yet unclear and, third, there may be a possibility, just a possibility of an association or at least one meeting between Jack Ruby and Santos Trafficante himself. So who is Santos Trafficante? What is his background? Who are or were his associates? This was obviously some thing that the committee could not avoid getting into and, of course, it did, as these hearings are designed to illustrate. But before deciding whether or not to hear from Mr. Trafficante himself, it may be useful to hear the testimony of two other men who may have been associated with Santos Trafficante. The first must be summarized for the record, since he was an American intelligence agent assigned to operations in Florida in the early 1960's and he cannot publicly appear, otherwise his identity would be revealed. On September 25, 1978, a sworn statement was given to the committee by a retired official of the CIA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that it be entered into the record at this point as JFK exhibit F-600. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, it is ordered into the record at this point as JFK exhibit F-600. [JFK exhibit F-600 was received into the record and follows:] 241 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 KENNEDY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS Name Date 9-25-78 Time Address Place Interview: McDonald: The date is September 25 and I'm present in a room at the Central intelligence Agency at Langley, Virginia- present in the room with me is a former official of the CIA and Committee staff member patricia Orr. The former official of the CIA has just been administered an oath for the information that he is about to relate to the Committee. The following will be a sworn state- ment by this former CIA official. We are not using the course of this sworn statement because of the sensitivity of the subject matter and agency policy that his name not be revealed at this time. Sir, what is your present occupation? "X": I'm a retired government employee. I am doing some part-time real estate work and I'm also a security consultant for a private firm. McDonald: Have you ever been employed by the FBI? Interviewer Signature______________________________ Typed Signature James McDonald Date transcribed 9-26-78 By: br Form #4-A 242 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 2. "X": Yes. McDonald: In what capacity and during what years? "X": I was a Special Agent, employed during the period of 1947 to 1951. McDonald: Have you been employed by the CIA? "X": Yes. McDonald: During what years? "X": 1951 through 1973. McDonald: And you retired from the CIA in 1973? "X": Yes. McDonald: What was the nature of your duties while employed at the CIA and if you would, please explain to the Committee by starting with the position you held and if you would give us your title and the years of service in that position and briefly de- scribe what your duties entailed? "X": Well, that's going to be rather difficult for me to do it unless I have something that I can refer to. McDonald: All right. "X": I was originally employed by the CIA as an in- vestigator. I subsequently held various positions in the Office of Security, starting with the posi- tion as Desk Chief of Operational Support, even- tually I became, that became a branch and I became 243 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 3. the Branch Chief. I served as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge of one of the field of- fices, domestic field offices, and then became Chief of the Operational Support Division at headquarters. In 1962 I was transferred to the Far East, where I became the Chief Regional Security Officer for the entire Far East, and upon returning to headquarters I assumed the title of Deputy Director for Physical, Technical and Overseas Security. I had retired in June of 1973. McDonald: Directing your attention to the years 1960 through '62, you were Chief of the Operational Support Division, Office of Security at that time? "X": Yes. McDonald: Where were you stationed during those years? "X": At headquarters. McDonald: And who was your superior during those years? "X": My superior was "Y". McDonald: And what was his position? "X": He was the Deputy Director for Investigations and Operational Support. McDonald: During that time, did you report to or work for Colonel Sheffield Edwards? "X": Colonel Edwards was the Director of Security and 244 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 4. through--let me put it this way--my ordinary chain of command was through "Y." McDonald: And did he report to Colonel Edwards? "X": Yes. McDonald: Directing your attention to 1960, did there come a time when you in your official capacity at the CIA became involved in an operation to assassinate Premier Fidel Castro? "X": Yes. McDonald: Did this operation involve the cooperation and participation of individuals not connected with the CIA? "X": Yes. McDonald: Who were these individuals? "X": Well, Robert Maheu, who was a private investigator, was approached by the Agency to recruit somebody to handle the assignment. He in turn talked with one John Roselli, who he knew to be a person who had connections with people that probably could handle such an assignment. McDonald: Did you personally know Robert Maheu? "X": Yes, I knew him. McDonald: How did you know him? "X": He was originally recruited in 1954 by the Office of Security to perform certain operational support 245 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 5. activities. McDonald: And what official at the agency brought Maheu and Roselli into the project? "X": Colonel Sheffield Edwards. McDonald: Were there any other CIA personnel at the the time involved in this operation? "X": Richard Bissel. McDonald: And what was his position? "X": At that time, he was Deputy Director of Plans. McDonald: And who else? "X": And there was a Colonel J.C. King, who was Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division, who I under- stood was involved. McDonald: Okay. When Edwards first advised you of this project, how did he put it to you? How did he explain what the Agency was about to get itself into? "X": Well, he suggested that he felt it was in the national interest, at least he was advised by some higher official, that it was in the national interest that Mr. Castro be liquidated. McDonald: And when you say "liquidated," what do you mean? "X":- Well, I assume that was to be put out of the picture. McDonald: Which means killing him, assassinating him? 246 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 6. "X": I, I gathered that. McDonald: Okay. And did Colonel Edwards speak to you re- garding Maheu bringing in individuals with contacts in the gambling world? "X": No, he didn't specify the gambling world. He just knew that Mr. Maheu was actively engaged in some businesses in Las Vegas and assumed that he knew people who might be of the type that could handle this assignment. McDonald: Okay. Who did Maheu bring into this project, what individuals? "X": Only one, at that time. It was a John Roselli. McDonald: Did you know who John Roselli was at that time? "X": Mr. Maheu identified him as a individual who had the ice concessions in Las Vegas and who was a rather knowledgeable person in the groups that were in gambling interests, international I sup- pose. McDonald: Did you personally meet with Roselli? "X": Yes, I met Roselli through Mr. Maheu. McDonald: Where did you meet him the first time? "X": As best I can recall, it was at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in about September of 1960. McDonald: Were any specifics discussed as how the plan was to be carried out? 247 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 7. "X": Yes. McDonald: And what was said? "X": Well, Mr. Maheu indicated to Roselli that he represented an international group of clients who had heavy vested interests in Cuba and they were quite upset about the confiscation of their interests by Castro and they were very much in- terested in doing something that they felt would be of interest to the United States as well as themselves in terms of liquidating Mr. Castro. McDonald: And who was present during this conversation, you're talking about the one in the Plaza Hotel in New York? "X": Maheu, Roselli and myself. McDonald: All right. Did there come a time when other in- dividuals were brought into this project? "X": At this point in time--no. McDonald: When in fact did other individuals become involved in the operation? "X": Well, uh--after Mr. Roselli rather reluctantly agreed to participate in this type of operation, he brought in other individuals who I knew only by pseudonym--Sam Gold and a "Joe," one "Joe." McDonald: When these individuals were identified using those names, had you met them personally? 248 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 8. "X": No. McDonald: When did you first learn their true identities, the identities of "Sam Gold" and "Joe"? "X".' It was, and this I have to just play by ear, because the time frame was a little vague, but it probably was several months after the operation got underway, and I was staying at one hotel in Miami Beach and Mr. Maheu was staying in another hotel. And one Sunday morning he called me and asked if I had read the paper. Now, I think there were two newspapers in Miami at the time--I can't tell you which one it was. But in any event, he said there was something of interest and if I hadn't gotten the paper would I go down and purchase one and come back and call him, which I did. And in the Sunday Supplemental, which as I recall was something like the Parade that we have in the local paper here, there was an article identifying the leaders of the Mafia, and in that article there were pictures of Sam Gold, who was identified as Momo Hiancana and Joe who was identified as Santo Trafficante. And Mr. Maheu claimed that this was the first time that he was aware who we were actually dealing with. 249 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 9. McDonald: And in what year was this? What year are we referring to? "X": Uh, this--it's very difficult for me to say whether it spilled into 1961 or whether it was 1960. But I have a faint recollection and I'm not sure of this that it was, the article was some- thing about Bobby Kennedy's ten most wanted individuals. And now on that point I can't say for sure whether he would have been the At- torney General or, it seems to me before he became the Attorney General he had some dealings with a committee on looking into organized crime. Now, the time I'm very vague on--I don't really know. McDonald: When did this operation begin? In other words, when did you first meet with Roselli? "X": Well, that would have been September of 1960. McDonald: Okay. And how much after that meeting with Roselli in New York did you learn the true identities of Sam Gold and Joe? "X": Well, that's the thing that I can't pin-point. I'm sorry, I just don't know. It could have been two months after the operation or it could have been several months. And I've thought about it but I just can't pin-point it. 250 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 10. McDonald: Is it possible that it could have been as much as six months later? "X": It could have been. I don't know. McDonald: All right. What did you do upon learning that the individuals involved in this operation were in fact organized crime leaders? "X": I contacted Colonel Edwards and told him what we had discovered or at least as far as I was con- cerned it was the first indication I had who we were dealing with, and apprised him of the iden- tities. McDonald: And what did he say to you? What instructions did he give you, if any? "X": Well, he just said, well, this is probably what we could have expected, I suppose. And I don't want to be quoting because I don't recall really what he said but he apparently did not feel that we should alter our approach to the assignment McDonald: Did he give any further instructions? Did he give you any additional instructions upon learning of the individuals' identity who were involved in this operation? "X": No. As I recall, we just proceeded. McDonald:Now, Mr.--Sir, we've been speaking of the effort 251 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 11. to assassinate Premier Castro. Did this project involve two phases? "X": If you call it two phases--there was a uh--after the Bay of Pigs, I think the decision was to forget about the whole thing, and there was a lull. And then it was reactivated later on when they decided to turn Mr. Roselli over to another indi- vidual. McDonald: Were you involved in what we can term Phase II, after the Bay of Pigs? "X": Very generally, as I recall it, and again I'm calling upon my memory here. And I'm not sure-- I remember we--meeting one of the members of the Cuban Junta, an individual by the name of "D:" Now whether that was before the Bay of Pigs or after the Bay of Pigs, I'm at a total loss to tell you. That I think was part of the second phase. McDonald: Directing your attention then to what we will call Phase I, you were most actively involved in that phase. Is that correct? "x": Yes, yes. McDonald: What was your role? "X": Basically I was sort of, if you want to call it 252 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 12. for lack of anything else, a babysitter for Johnny Roselli, because at that time Mr. Maheu was actively engaged in an almost fulltime activity with the Howard Hughes organization, and it was taking more and more of his time. And because of the lull between any activity on the project he was not able to spend any excessive time in Miami. Most of his time had to be spent out on the West Coast or in Vegas. So, I was enlisted by Colonel Edwards to stay with Roselli when he was--while there were lulls in between, while he was in Miami. Just a babysitter so to speak. Mc Donald: Could you also describe your role as that of being a liaison between the agency, the CIA and the individuals involved in the operation? "X": Only with Roselli. McDonald: In your capacity as liaison, would all reports or information given to the CIA come through you? "X": Yes. McDonald: Would you please tell us what method of assassina- tion was decided upon during the phase of the project, Phase I as we've described, when you were actively involved? 253 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 13. "X": Well, I think several things were considered. But it ended up with a thought perhaps, the best method would be the use of some sort of a lethal pill. McDonald: And how was this assassination going to be carried out? "X": Well, the plan was that the courier was to-- well, first of all, I think, in backing up, they were to recruit somebody who would be in a position to administer. the pill to the princi- pal. And initially they were thinking in terms of a cook or somebody who had access to Castro's meals. And I guess the plan was to have him place The pills in his food. McDonald: All right. Did you ever meet Santo Trafficante during the period of this operation? "X": Uh, I am told I did. McDonald: Would you please elaborate? "X": Yes. One time, one afternoon Roselli and I were just wiling away the time. We were staying at a motel in Miami Beach and he suggested we go down- town to--not downtown Miami Beach--to just look around at the sights. And we went down to a shop- ping mall and he suggested that we stop by a haber- 254 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 14. dashery store and for some reason or other he took a dislike to my shirt that I was wearing and he suggested that he'd buy me a real fancy shirt which I wasn't particularly keen on--his choice of it--but to humor him I went along. We went in and he bought a very fancy silk shirt for me. And while we were in there it became obvious that he knew quite a few of the employees and it ended up by our going to the back of the store where, instead of it being a stockroom as I envisioned it would be--it was rather a rather lavish lay-out which looked like a club of some sort. And there were several individuals there and he introduced me to those people. They were just a sea of faces as far as I was concerned. The names were thrown out, first names which I didn't get or meant nothing to me. And then after we left the store, when we were walking away, he said remember the fellow that was sitting at such-and-such a location in the back room, he says that's "Joe," he's our courier. I wasn't really focusing on this individual because they were just a lot of faces as far as I was concerned. But there I guess I did meet Trafficante, because I found out later that he was "Joe," and that's 255 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 15. my extent of my ever meeting "Joe." McDonald: When you met him in the store, was this prior to your reading the article in the Sunday Supple- ment? "X": Yes. McDonald: What was Trafficante's role in the operation? "X": Well, as I understood it, he was a courier that was running back and forth from Miami to Havana and he was representing the casino interests in Cuba. McDonald: And what do you mean by "courier"? "X": Well, he apparently--they, Castro had closed down the casinos and they were--I guess the people that owned them were back here in the States and he was running back and forth trying to determine what their status was and whether they were going to be reopened and whether they were going to be taken over by the Government? "X": But he did have access to several people in the Cuban Government, at least that was the understanding I got. McDonald: And was it to be his role to transmit the poison pill to Cuba? "X": Yes. 256 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview Page 16. McDonald: Sir, in 1967 the Inspector General's Office of the CIA Prepared a report dealing with the CIA/ Mafia plots to assassinate Castro. In this re- port, the Agency states that Trafficante was the Person who contacted and procured "Q", a Cuban official and "K", a Cuban exile leader as two Persons who could serve as potential assassins or accomplices to the assassination plot. Is this consistent with your conception of Trafficante's role? "X": I recall both of these individuals and I met one. I met "K" but it was my understanding that they were Possible--they were people that could probably take care of the assignment, but I don't know whether that was Trafficante, s recom- mendation or it was a recommendation made by Sam. That was not clear to me at all. McDonald: All right. Well, if the Inspector General's Report--and as I say, I'm quoting from it or reading, Paraphras- ing from It--you would have been the person in a position to transmit information to the Agency at that time, such information that is now contained in that report. Is that not correct? 257 JFK EXHIBIT F-600 cont. CIA Interview page 17. "X": I was the only conduit actually from Roselli through Maheu to the Agency. McDonald: Okay, so if the report--the '67 Inspector Gen- eral's Report states that it was Trafficante who was the person who was supposed to contact "Q"and "K" then, would that fact be true? "X": If I understand the way it was running that would be true because Trafficante was the indi- vidual who was in touch with the Cubans in Havana. McDonald: Sir, the '67 Inspector General's Report also states that Trafficante, after receiving the poison pills to be used in the assassination, passed these on the Cuban contacts in an attempt to kill Castro. Is this also consistent with your conception of Trafficante's role in the assassination plots? "X": Yes. McDonald: Thank you very much. Mr. BLAKEY. With your permission, I would like to summarize it. Mr. PREYER. Mr. Blakey is recognized. Mr. BLAKEY. The former official stated that in September 1960, when he was Chief of Operational Support Division, Office of Security, he was approached by his superior, Colonel Sheffield Edwards and was told of an operation to assassinate Cuban Premier Fidel Castro. He was told by Edwards that Robert Maheu, then a private investigator, had been approached by the CIA to assist in the operation. Maheu, in turn, recruited one John Roselli. Subsequently, Roselli brought two other individuals into the operation. These individuals were known to the officials as Sam Gold and Joe. According to this official, he subsequently learned the true identities of these men. Sam Gold was alleged Mafia leader Sam Giancana and Joe was another alleged Mafia chief man, Santos Trafficante. The official stated that he was the CIA liaison with these two men. It was to be Trafficante's role to serve as a courier. Trafficante was to arrange to get poisoned pills into Cuba which were to be put in Castro's food. Trafficante's participation also included the procuring of a Cuban Government official and a Cuban exiled leader as two persons who could serve as the actual assassins. The official stated that Trafficante did, in fact, pass the poison pills on to his Cuban contacts in an effort to carry out the plot. 258 This official also stated that when he learned the true identities of Giancana and Trafficante, he reported this fact to Colonel Edwards who, nevertheless, allowed the project to proceed. Mr. Chairman, the evidence you have just heard, in particular that part that identifies Santos Trafficante, is corroborated in a 1967 report of the Inspector General of the CIA. Part of that report, which the committee has secured for public distribution, indicates A man Maheu [deletion] knew as Sam Gold appeared as Salvatore (Sam) Giancana. a Chicago-based gangster. Joe Pecora, who was never identified either to Maheu or [deletion] in any other way, turned out to be Trafficante, the Cosa Nova chid man in Cuba. As to Santos Trafficante's role, as well as that of the late Giancana, it is described in a section designated as "Comment." It reads: Giancana was flatly opposed to the use of firearms. He said that no one could be recruited to do the job because the chance of survival and escape would be negligible. Giancana stated a preference for a lethal pill that could be put in Castro's food or drink. Trafficante, Joe Pecora, was in touch with a disaffected Cuban official with access to Castro and presumably of a sort that would enable him to surreptitiously poison Castro. Mr. Chairman, the evidence we have just heard indicates that Santos Trafficante apparently participated in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. He was, in short, willing to kill the head of state. In this connection, it may be well to note one possible reason for Santos Trafficante's participation in these plots. The reason was offered to the committee by the Cuban Government. In its trip to Havana, the Cuban Government made available to the committee a report dealing on Mafia activities in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that report be entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-653 and the translation as JFK exhibit F-654. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, they will be entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-653 was entered in the record and with a notation follows: [Pages 11-18 of JFK exhibit F-653 were photostatic copies of documents originally generated in response to requests to the Cuban Government from the Warren Commission in 1964. Due to their extremely poor reproductive quality, legible copies could not be reproduced here. Page 19, a copy of Jack Ruby's tourist card, is reproduced elsewhere in these hearings as JFK exhibit F-583 and F-584. [Page 11 is a copy of Oswald s Cuban visa application, and is reproduced elsewhere in these hearings as JFK exhibit F-408. [Page 12 is a copy of a letter from Juan Nilo Otero and can be found in the Warren Commission Report as C.E. 2564. [Page 13 is a copy of a certificate signed by the then Secretary of State, Dean Rusk. [Page 14 is a letter to the Secretary of state from the Warren Commission requesting information regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico in September and early October 1963. It also requests cooperation by the Cuban Government in furnishing copies of documents relating to Lee Harvey Oswald's visit. [Pages 15-18 are letters from the Swiss Embassy in response to State Department correspondence regarding Oswald.] 259 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 260 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 261 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 262 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 263 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 264 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 265 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 266 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 267 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 268 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 269 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 270 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 271 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 272 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 273 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 274 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 275 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 276 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 277 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 278 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 279 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 280 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 281 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 282 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 283 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 284 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 285 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 286 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 287 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 288 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 289 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 290 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 291 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 292 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 293 JFK EXHIBIT F-653 cont. 294 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 295 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 cont. 296 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 cont. 297 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 cont. 298 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 cont. 299 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 cont. 300 JFK EXHIBIT F-654 cont. 301 Mr. BLAKEY. With your permission, I would like to read part of pages 2 and 3. The Mafia began its activities in Cuba in the 1920s taking advantage of the existing corruption among successive leaders of Cuba. During the 1940's, they extended their mechanisms of control, though covert, to the workers unions in different sections of Cuba which would allow them in future to control everything related to their entrants. These were strengthened with the blow of March 10. Mr. Chairman, the reference to March 10 is a reference to the date that then Senator Batista overthrew the lawful government of Cuba at that time. Continuing the quote: A time when the Mafia began to build its capital through legitimate businesses in structuring luxury hotels, casinos, and tourist attractions to exploit tourism. With reference to the administration and operation of the Mafia in 1958, the same possessed the control of gambling casinos which existed in the luxury hotels and cabarets. The don of the Mafia was Santos Trafficante who was in charge of all gambling while the administrators of these casinos were primarily Cubans or foreigners linked to the Mafia. The gambling halls were under the direction of chiefs assigned by the Mafia who made sure all of it functioned properly at the gaming tables. The Mafia obtained great profits through these gambling casinos. We can cite as an example the casino of the Hotel Riviera which in 1 year obtained a net profit of $1,400,000. The business of the Mafia not only consisted of gambling but also extended to control of the drug traffic, jewelry, foreign currency, matters of prostitution and pornographic movies. Upon the triumph of the revolution in 1959, all gambling halls were closed. We see, Mr. Chairman, that through McWillie, if not others, Trafficante may have had an association, at this point an association only with Jack Ruby. How close or to what effect is as yet undetermined. Now it can be fairly asked, could Santos Trafficante also have been involved in plots against President Kennedy? The committee's next witness is Jose Aleman. Mr. Aleman is the son of a former minister of education in the Cuban Government in the late 1950's. He was actively opposed to the Batista regime. In the early 1960's, he was supporting efforts to overthrow Castro. In a context of mutual business entrants, Mr. Aleman and Mr. Trafficante met at least once, perhaps on several occasions, prior to November 1963. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. Aleman. TESTIMONY OF JOSE ALEMAN Mr. PREYER. Mr. Blakey, do I understand that Mr. Aleman also wishes to invoke rule 6? Mr. BLAKEY. No, Mr. Chairman, he has changed his mind and he will permit both cameras and other recording devices to be operated. Mr. PREYER. At this time the committee calls Mr. Aleman. Mr. Aleman, do you solemnly swear the evidence you are about to give this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. ALEMAN. I do. Mr. PREYER. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cornwell for the question- ing. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ALEMAN. Where were you born? Mr. ALEMAN. In Havana. 302 Mr. CORNWELL. Havana, Cuba? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. PREYER. I don't believe Mr. Aleman's microphone is on, or put it in front of you a little closer to you. Mr. ALEMAN. Thank you. Mr. CORNWELL. What was the occupation of your father in Cuba? Mr. ALEMAN. He was Minister of Education. Mr. CORNWELL. Under President Prio? Mr. ALEMAN. Under President Grau. Mr. CORNWELL. And how long did your family remain in Cuba? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, until 1947, they came to Miami, and then my father died in 1950. Mr. CORNWELL. After that, did you remain in Cuba? Mr. ALEMAN. I was a student at Miami University and then I remained in Cuba for some time. Mr. CORNWELL. Apart from education in Miami, then you continued to reside in Cuba until approximately what year? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, 1960. Mr. CORNWELL. And during that period of time, prior to leaving Cuba, you were active in efforts to overthrow Batista; is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. What basically was the nature of your role in those attempts? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, we were fighting against a dictatorship, totalitarian government, and we formed part of a few underground activities in Havana. Mr. CORNWELL. Among other things, I understand that you were one of the leaders of the famous attempt on the Presidential Palace in 1957, is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, yes. Mr. CORNWELL. After leaving Cuba, did you continue to be active in attempts during that period to overthrow Castro? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. And, very briefly, what was the nature of your role in such activities? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, I tried many things, because in Cuba, before I had tried to do something against Communist totalitarian regime of Fidel Castro. Most of the activities, they didn't have any success whatsoever, because I was arrested many times, and there were so many things over there that I had to leave the island, the pressure I had. Mr. CORNWELL. In 1963, where were you living and what was your occupation? Mr. ALEMAN. I was living in the Scott Bryan. I had that property of mine. Mr. CORNWELL. You were living--- Mr. ALEMAN. That is a hotel. Scott Bryan Hotel. Mr. CORNWELL. You were living in Miami and you owned and managed the Scott Bryan Hotel? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. During approximately that period of time did you have occasion to meet Santos Trafficante? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, I did. 303 Mr. CORNWELL. Who introduced you to him or how did that introduction come about? Mr. ALEMAN. Mr. George Nobregas came to me after we had some other conversations with some other individuals and there were American businessmen, and those American businessmen had lost a lot of property in Cuba, then he came to me and he said Santos wants to meet you. I some way refused because I had to testify against Santos' people in 1960. Mr. CORNWELL. All right, who was Mr. George Nobregas? Mr. ALEMAN. Mr. Nobregas was in all the activities against the Batista regime and also against Fidel Castro. Mr. CORNWELL. And do you have any knowledge of how it was that he may have known Santos Trafficante prior to that time? Mr. ALEMAN. The possibility that while we were smuggling arms in the 1950's they had all the connections with other Mafia people and they came about to maybe he was connected with them. Mr. CORNWELL. So you have told us that when the suggestion was first made that you should meet with Trafficante, you were reluctant to do do, the reason being that you had previously testified against associates of his in a trial, is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. Correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Who were those associates? Mr. ALEMAN. Sammy Mannarino and Norman Rothman. Mr. CORNWELL. The trial involved criminal charges and those individuals were convicted; is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. I believe so. I am not very sure about it. I left the Chicago grand jury in a hurry and I later on had some threats from them and that was it. I don't know, I didn't even ask about a trial. Mr. CORNWELL. All right. In spite of your reluctance, however, did you ultimately go to one or more meetings with Trafficante. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, I did. I had various meetings with Santos Trafficante. Mr. CORNWELL. And roughly during what period of time did the meetings take place? Mr. ALEMAN. July, June, 1963, around that time. Mr. CORNWELL. Where were the meetings? Mr. ALEMAN. One of them, the meeting was at Junior's Restaurant. Another was at the Scott Bryan, and I don't know how many there were, three. Mr. CORNWELL. The name of the restaurant was Junior's? Mr. ALEMAN. Junior's Restaurant. Mr. CORNWELL. And the other meetings occurred at the Scott Bryan Hotel? Mr. ALEMAN. Correct. Mr. CORNWELL. What was your objective in attending the meet- ings with Trafficante? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, Mr. George Nobregas came to me and said that J.J. Vila, director of public relations in the city of Miami, wanted to see me because he had a message from President Bosch of the Dominican Republic and President Bosch was a man that was very grateful to my father and that he wanted to talk to me about bringing to the Dominican Republic a lot of businessmen and whoever wanted to invest there. 304 Mr. CORNWELL. So you understood that it was a request from people with business interests? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. That you assist in the introduction? Mr. ALEMAN. Excuse me. At the same time, he said that one of the possible individuals that was interested in going was Santos Trafficante, going to the Dominican Republic. Mr. CORNWELL. All right, well, that then explains what you were told about Santos Trafficante's reason for wanting to talk to you, he wanted, I take it, to see if there was a possiblility of you achieving some introduction with President Juan Bosch? Mr. ALEMAN. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. What was your reason for attending the meeting? Did you have a different motive or objective? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, other than the objectives of trying to overthrow Castro. He talked to me about, in favor of, the contracts in Dominican Republic, that I had a project, condominium project, and he wanted to facilitate the means for a loan with the Teamsters Union. Mr. CORNWELL. So he suggested he could help you by securing a Teamster's loan for a condominium project you were interested in? Mr. ALEMAN. Correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, it has been reported that at one of these meetings, or on one of these occasions on which you met and spoke with Trafficante, you and he engaged in a political discussion or a discussion of the Kennedy administration. Mr. ALEMAN. He did most of the talking. I mean, he was talking about President Kennedy and this is a thing that I want to bring to this committee that--- Mr. CORNWELL. Before you tell us what he said, if you wouldn't mind, tell us where the conversation occurred? Mr. ALEMAN. At the Scott Bryan Hotel. Mr. CORNWELL. And in what type of room? Was it a type of room that a guest would use? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes; a pretty large room. Mr. CORNWELL. On this occasion, how many persons were present? Mr. ALEMAN. There was Mr. Macho Gener, Nobregas, separated from the sofa and a chair, Santos Trafficante was sitting on the chair, and I was sitting on the sofa. Mr. CORNWELL. It would be like a normal hotel room? Mr. ALEMAN. It was a apartment, a large apartment. Mr. CORNWELL. All right, Trafficante was sitting in like a com- fortable leisure chair, that sort of thing? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. What were the other two men doing? Macho-- Mr. ALEMAN. Macho Gener was leaving the room at various times and Nobregas was separating like he didn't want to participate in the conversation. Mr. CORNWELL. And apart from the part of the conversation that I want to have you explain in detail, why did this particular meeting occur, was it part of the general conversations over the business interests you have already described or was it of some other nature? 305 Mr. ALEMAN. He talked various things. One of the things he said Hoffa could not secure the loan so far because he had a lot of troubles with the brothers Kennedy. Mr. CORNWELL. OK. So, in other words, he was providing information on the same subjects that you had previously told us about, the possibility of a loan through Hoffa and the Teamsters for the condominium project? Mr. ALEMAN. Correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Then, the conversation, was it a relatively brief one or did it cover a long period of time on this occasion? Mr. ALEMAN. It covered about 3 or 4 hours. Mr. CORNWELL. Was it primarily related to business or was it a general discussion just between two people who sit down and talk? Mr. ALEMAN. It was a general conversation. Mr. CORNWELL. And during this period of time tell us specifically what was discussed, what was said by Mr. Trafficante, and what, if anything, you said in reply with respect to Hoffa and the political scene? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, he was very much upset. He said that the way the President was getting into Hoffa, a man of the workers, blue collar, and a man that was a very hard-working individual, and that at the same time he was very much upset, I mean, he thought for a long period of time. Mr. CORNWELL. Very much upset what Kennedy had been doing to Hoffa, and he felt sympathetic toward Hoffa describing him as a man---- Mr. ALEMAN. Very much. Mr. CORNWELL [continuing]. Of the workers? Mr. ALEMAN. Very much. Mr. CORNWELL. Go ahead. What did the conversation lead to next? Mr. ALEMAN. At one point he said, "You see this man, he is not going to be reelected, there is no doubt about it, he has been the man that has been giving everybody a lot of troubles and he is not going to be reelected" and I don't know why he said that to me or anything. Then he said--- Mr. CORNWELL. Did you make a reply to that? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes; I said he has a lot of Democrats backing him and so far it looks very well. I don't see anything that he is not going to be reelected or anything. Mr. CORNWELL. And what, if anything, did he reply? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, he said he is not going to be reelected, you don't understand me, he is going to be hit. Mr. CORNWELL. Prior to that, had you heard the expression "he is going to be hit," the term before? Are you familiar with that expression? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, it is going to be hit with a lot of votes from the Republicans or anything. I didn't have any idea at that moment, that is why I want to bring this to the committee. I don't have no possible idea why he said it. Mr. CORNWELL. Have you ever heard anyone use the expression "he is going to be hit" on any other occasion? 306 Mr. ALEMAN. Not whatsoever. I mean, maybe if you are talking about something, I mean--that is all. I never, I never thought at that moment anything whatsoever. Mr. CORNWELL. The question is, Have you ever heard that ex- pression, "he is going to be hit"? Mr. ALEMAN. In what respect? Mr. CORNWELL. On any other occasion? Mr. ALEMAN. No. Mr. CORNWELL. In any of your activities in the attempts on Batista or Castro, any of dealings with Norman Rothman, or your Sam Mannarino, have you heard this expression? Mr. ALEMAN. That was 1957, 1956, when we were trying to smuggle arms. Mr. CORNWELL. OK, you had heard it during that period? Mr. ALEMAN. No, no. Mr. CORNWELL. The question is had you heard that expression on other occasions? Mr. ALEMAN. No, no. Mr. CORNWELL. Well, then, if you hadn't when Santos Trafficante said he is not going to be reelected, he is going to be hit, did you ask him to elaborate on that phrase? Mr. ALEMAN. To the best of my recollection I thought that he was maybe saying at that time that he could provide a loan and that he was making a story or he was upset about that, and then he just made an alibi about the loan or something like that. That was my thought about it. Mr. CORNWELL. The question was, when he used the expression did you ask him to elaborate, to explain the exact meaning of his phrase, "he is going to be hit"? Mr. ALEMAN. He was talking, and I didn't, I wasn't interrupting for about a long time, and he kept on talking and talking and talking, and that is it. Mr. CORNWELL. So the answer is you didn't ask him to explain? Mr. ALEMAN. I didn't ask him anything. I just took it like somebody saying something, and I took it as you know, like he is talking about a lot of foolishness. Mr. CORNWELL. OK, let me see if I can get what is in your mind, then, as to the specific details of the conversation. You first brought up Mr. Hoffa and the pressure that Kennedy was placing on him. He then suggested that Kennedy would not be reelected. You interjected an opposing view that you thought-- Mr. ALEMAN. No way, whatsoever? Mr. CORNWELL. No? Mr. ALEMAN. No way, whatsoever. Mr. CORNWELL. You said -- Mr. ALEMAN. I respect the President of the United States and in no way whatsoever tried to say anything that I could take that the President was going to have some problem or anything like that, he just said maybe he is going to be, the way he said that word, I interpreted with a lot of votes from the Republican Party or something like that. Mr. CORNWELL. After Mr. Trafficante indicated that he wouldn't be elected, you said something in reply to the effect that you thought he would be, is that accurate? 307 Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. And at which point Mr. Trafficante replied no, he is going to be hit. Now, you told us he went on speaking at that point, is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. You see, this happened 15 years ago and to the best of my recollection I think that is the word he put. I am not saying positively that, I mean, the wording he put was something he is not going to make it, something like that, that is it, he is not going to be reelected. In a long conversation like that I didn't pay too much attention on it. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, if we might show the witness JFK exhibit F-602? Mr. FITHIAN [now presiding]. Permission granted. [A document was handed to the witness by the clerk.] Mr. CORNWELL. This is a newspaper article which we have marked for identification. Mr. FITHIAN. Does counsel wish that to be entered into the record? Mr. CORNWELL. We would request that it be entered into the record at this time. Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection, it shall be ordered. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-602 follows:] 308 JFK EXHIBIT F-602 cont. 309 JFK EXHIBIT F-602 cont. 310 JFK EXHIBIT F-602 cont. 311 JFK EXHIBIT F-602 cont. 312 Mr. CORNWELL. It is an article written by Mr. Crile. Mr. ALEMAN. Correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you know Mr. Crile? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to direct your attention to the paragraph on the second page of the article, about halfway or threequarters of the way down the middle column on the page, beginning, "Aleman says that Trafficante spent most of evening philosophizing," and then it goes on. I would ask if you would read that paragraph to yourself, just read it to yourself. Mr. ALEMAN. I can't read it to me because I can't find it very well. Mr. CORNWELL. You can't find that paragraph? Mr. ALEMAN. No, no, I can see it. Mr. CORNWELL. It is the second column from the left, about two- thirds of the way down. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Just read it to yourself. Let me ask you--- Mr. ALEMAN. The letters are too small. Will you please read it to me? Mr. CORNWELL. Have you seen that article before? Mr. ALEMAN. I seen the article but the letters are very small. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask you, you said you know Mr. Crile. Did he interview you on the same subjects that we have asked you about here today? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Over what period of time? Mr. ALEMAN. Many days. Many days. Mr. CORNWELL. Prior to publishing the article, did he call you and advise you that he was going to do so, to print the matters that you had provided to him? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes; he said he was going to publish under Wash- ington Post an article. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, would you have had any reason to make a statement to Mr. Crile which was not accurate? Would you have had any motive or reason for making such a statement? Mr. ALEMAN. One of the things that I couldn't answer was the visit of Santos Trafficante. Mr. CORNWELL. Excuse me, what was the answer to that ques- tion, if you wouldn't mind? Mr. ALEMAN. I couldn't answer why Mr. Santos Trafficante came to me to go to Dominican Republic, while at that time we had a conversation with some American businessmen that had properties in Cuba, and those American businessmen said they were going to try and they wanted me to do something against the Government of Castro, and then later on, these people said that they were going to give me a loan on a condominium project that they wanted to give me the loan and at the same time, this loan was going to be financed by, and that is why, the only reason why I went to talk to Trafficante because later on the thing about the Dominican Repub- lic. Mr. CORNWELL. Yes; those type of things, of course, are set forth in Mr. Crile's article, as you recall? 313 Mr. ALEMAN. Yes; we discussed many things on Crile's article. I can tell you one thing. Trying to remember after 15 years all these things that occur is very difficult. There is no doubt about that. Mr. CORNWELL. I understand. But, let me ask you if I might, to go back to the earlier question, would there have been any reason for you to make any statements to Mr. Crile which were not accurate? Would you have had any reason for doing that? Mr. ALEMAN. Well, the context of a newspaper changes. You are talking to a newspaperman and he is asking questions and he will ask questions in such a way that when I saw the article, many things, you know, I was trying to recall. Mr. CORNWELL. OK. Mr. ALEMAN. I was trying to recall a few things, I was trying to recall one time that he said, how many times have you talked to the FBI about these meetings between Santos Trafficante and the Dominican Republic, and I said, well, I told the FBI the following things. Mr. CORNWELL. So you are suggesting that perhaps the material in the article may not be exactly correct, that it might be somewhat taken out of context, or is that the suggestion? Mr. ALEMAN. It is not a matter of taken out of context, sir, it is a matter that when you are trying to recall. He said, we want to sit down and recall everything that happened, and I was trying to recall the many opportunities that I went to the FBI, to inform, about many things that were happening during those meetings. Mr. CORNWELL. What I really want to find out is what the best memory you have on the subject is. OK, so let's start with the article. Is the article an accurate reflection of what you stated to Mr. Crile? Mr. ALEMAN. Some of the things I say are out of context. Mr. CORNWELL. They are out of context? Mr. ALEMAN. In some way, I mean. Mr. CORNWELL. OK. You know Mr. Crile, correct? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Is it your basic impression that he printed or at least attempted to print the material accurately based on what you said to him? Mr. ALEMAN. He might have, but they didn't come--then when I start thinking, and trying to remember, and trying to remember everything, it wasn't in context. Mr. CORNWELL. OK. Let me then show you what has been marked for identification as JFK exhibit F-601. May we have this exhibit admitted into evidence, Mr. Chairman? Mr. FITHIAN. Without objection, so ordered. [The above-referred to JFK exhibit F-601 follows:] 314 Excerpts of Interview of JOSE ALEMAN, Jr. By HSCA Staff Investigator Gaeton Fonzi March 12, 1977 ...Aleman said in more than one way that Trafficante did specifically tell him that Kennedy is "going to get hit". He also specifically confirmed the quote that Crile printed in the Washington Post and this point: "Aleman says that he argued that Kennedy would get reelected, and Trafficante replied, 'No, Jose, he is going to be hit"'. Aleman said that Trafficante told him this as part of a long conversation that lasted from sometime during the day until late at night in a room at the Scott Bryan Hotel. He was vague as to the actual date of the conversation, but Crile puts it close to his meeting of Trafficante in September, 1962. Aleman says Trafficante was rambling on in a Philosophical way about democracy and socialism and communism. He also said that Trafficante brought up Jimmy Hoffa's name and said that Hoffa would never forgive the Kennedys for what did to him. Aleman said he got the impression that Trafficante was hinting that Hoffa was going to make the hit, not him, and that Kennedy would never make it to the election because of Hoffa. This, says Aleman, was the one aspect of the conversation with Trafficante that Crile did not properly put into perspective in his piece, otherwise the piece was very accurate. Since the conversation with Trafficante took place over such a long part of the day, Aleman says there were many people in and out of the room during the course of However, he believes that at the time that Trafficante was talking of Kennedy, there were two others present besides himself and Trafficante: George Nobregas and "Macho" Gener, the latter being Trafficante's top man in his and the Mafla's relationship with Cubans... JFK EXHIBIT F-601 Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Aleman, that is an excerpt from a report of an investigator of ours, Gaeton Fonzi, dated March 12, 1977, and I would like to specifically direct your attention to the first para- graph which reads as follows: "Aleman said in more than one way that Trafficante did specifically tell him that Kennedy is "going to get hit." He also specifically confirmed the quote that Crile printed in the Washington Post on this point: "Aleman says that he argued that Kennedy would get reelected and Trafficante replied, 'no, Jose he is going to be hit'." Let me ask you, did you meet with Mr. Fonzi on that occasion? Mr. ALEMAN. I met with Mr. Fonzi on that occasion. Now, after the first article, when I talked all those things about trying to 315 remember, I had the doubt that Mr. Trafficante was in some way trying to get Cubela from Cuba, he was trying to get other people, and during that time, when that happened, Mr. Cubela, after I talked to him many times to do something against the regime of Castro, he didn't do anything, and in some way he was trying to bring this man, and that is why I brought to the point that these things were happening and it was very important to pay attention of the possibility of Castro being mixed with Santos Trafficante because in Miami everybody talks that the Bolita is being paid, used to be repaid to the G-2 agents by Santos Trafficante and G-2 agents in Cuba used to be, I mean in Miami used to be paid that way, and I wanted for them to pay attention to this. That is the main reason I brought all these. Mr. CORNWELL. What we would like to attempt to do first is to determine, to the best of your memory, what the words were that Trafficante used in this conversation, and the interview report which we have just placed into evidence indicates that you did specifically confirmed that, to the best of your memory, those were the exact words, when you were interviewed in March 1977. Is that report accurate? Mr. ALEMAN. The report, I, again, will tell you, that I was trying to recollect things from a long period of time and I was talking about Castro maybe being involved with Cubela, with Papina Ronjo, in a lot of things. Mr. CORNWELL. I understand that part. Specifically with respect to the first paragraph where it states that you specifically confirmed that with respect to Kennedy, Trafficante stated, "No, Jose, he is going to be hit," is that an accurate--- Mr. ALEMAN. Because if this man was in Cuba, arrested, Santos Trafficante, then Garcia Banjo, Cubela and all these people tried to get him out of jail and he had connections with the Castro government, there is no doubt that you have to pay attention to all this. That's the main reason why I am bringing this to the committee because no doubt that at that very moment, Santos Trafficante, I believe, has a lot of connections with the regime of Fidel Castro, There's no doubt about that in my mind. Mr. FITHIAN. If the Chair could interrupt---- Mr. ALEMAN. Even after some time I heard the opinion of a Communist talking that he didn't have nothing whatsoever. Mr. FITHIAN. Will the witness suspend for just 1 minute? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. FITHIAN. The Chair is informed, Mr. Aleman, that there is an important vote on the floor and all members wanted to hear what you had to say. So I am going to ask for a 10-minute recess. Prior to that, however, the security service, the marshals, have asked that all members of the audience and the press remain seated and in place at this time until the witness is escorted from the room. We would ask then that the witness and the marshals do that at this time and then we will declare the recess. [Mr. Aleman left the room with the marshals.] Mr. FITHIAN. The committee will recess for 10 minutes. [A brief recess was taken.] Mr. PREYER [presiding]. The committee will come to order. 316 Let me remind everyone in the hearing room that the U.S. marshal service has asked that all of you remain seated when the witness is brought into the hearing room and when he leaves the hearing room. We will ask that the witness be brought in at this time, and we will ask everyone in the hearing room to remain seated. I understand that it may take about a minute for the witness to be brought in. [Mr. Aleman was escorted into the hearing room.] Mr. PREYER. Would you have your seat, Mr. Aleman. Mr. Cornwell is recognized. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Aleman. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Returning to the subject matter that we were discussing with you before the break. Mr. ALEMAN. I beg your pardon? Mr. CORNWELL. I say, returning to the same subject matter. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have any reason to believe that the interview report of Mr. Fonzi is inaccurate? Mr. ALEMAN. When you try to recollect for 15 years something, I am trying to--it is impossible to--the wording is impossible to reconstruct. Mr. CORNWELL. I meant to ask you though, do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Fonzi did not accurately reflect in his report what you said to him? Did he accurately write it down? Mr. ALEMAN. It wasn't Mr. Fonzi, the one that wrote the article; it was Mr. Crile. Mr. CORNWELL. Yes, sir, but the last exhibit was prepared by our investigator Mr. Fonzi. Mr. ALEMAN. OK. Mr. CORNWELL. Did Mr. Fonzi accurately write that--- Mr. ALEMAN. I have to read it again in order to--- Mr. CORNWELL. May we show him the exhibit one more time? This is JFK exhibit F-601. Mr. ALEMAN. This is taken out of the article of the Washington Post. Mr. CORNWELL. Yes, sir, in effect, it asks you if the article accurate, if you did say the things that are reported in the article Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, that's the reason why I asked for protection for coming over here because at the time I was, later on after a things had happened in the United States, very much worried. I bring this to the attention of this committee that I had a puzzle and I couldn't understand what was it. That's the main reason brought this to the committee. Mr. CORNWELL. Simply, for the record, Mr. Chairman, let me that JFK exhibit F-603 be entered into the record. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, JFK exhibit F-603 is admitted into the record at this point. 317 JFK EXHIBIT F-603 MEMORANDUM To: Bob Tanenbaum From: Andy Purdy Date: March 14, 1977 Re: Synopsis of 3/10/77 trip (with Cliff Fenton) to Miami Santos Trafficante Summary: Subpoena personally served on subject by Cliff Fenton in presence of Sgt. Powers (Miami Dept. of Public Safety, Organized Crime Bureau) and myself. After mutual identification S.T. asked us to place the subpoenas on a little bench just outside the front door. He said he was accepting the subpoena. We walked to the street and observed S.T. come out the front door and pick up the materials and return with them to his house. Aleman Summary: Aleman confirms reports that S.T. personally told him that President Kennedy was "...going to be him." Aleman indicates that S.T. made clear to him (implicity) that he was not guessing about the killing; rather he was giving the impression that he knew Kennedy was going to be killed. Aleman did not believe S.T. was personally involved in whatever plan he seemed to know about. Aleman is ready and willing to testify before the Select Committee at any time. He requests that we do not tell S.T. or his associates about his cooperation with our investigation. Santos Trafficante - information in police file 318 JFK EXHIBIT F-603 cont. Aleman- 3/12/77 interview synopsis Gaeton Fonzi took detailed notes of the conversation between Aleman, Cliff Fenton, Gaeton, and myself. This is simply a synopsis of what occurred. Gaeton is preparing a detailed report. Aleman was asked initially about a statement he reportedly heard made by S.T. to the effect that Kennedy was going to be assassinated. Aleman explicitly confirmed the version of the conversation as reported by George Crile in the Washington Post in May of 1976. He said the relevant conversation occurred during one of a number of extended conversations he had with S.T. He is not sure when the reported conversation occurred but he is certain that it did. He said that he believes others were present, including: S.T., himself, Nobregas, and Marco Antony Hirigoyen (the addresses of the latter two he is trying' to obtain for us). His recollection of the conversation was as follows: 319 JFK EXHIBIT F-603 cont. S.T. (trying to make Aleman realize that he was not saying Kennedy would be defeated in the 1964 election, rather that he would not make it to the election): "... you don't understand me. Kennedy's not going to make it to the election. He is going to get hit." Earlier in his first attempt to describe the circumstances leading up to, and the substance of the comment, Aleman said that S.T. talked of the many problem(s )in the country and of Kennedy's role in causing problems generally and in specifically causing problems for certain individuals. S.T. reportedly said that alot of people weren't going to forget the problems Kennedy had caused them including Hoffa. Gaeton, Cliff, and I are in agreement that Aleman made no attempt to even infer that the Hoffa reference was in any way connected to the statement that Kennedy was going to be hit. However, when asked to restate the substance of the conversation and indicate the link if any to Hoffa. Aleman said he was given the distinct impression that Hoffa was to be principally involved in the elimination of Kennedy. Aleman says he never talked to S.T. or Hoffa subsequent to this conversation or subsequent to the assassination on this subject. Aleman says he had a bet with Nobregas: concerning whether or not Kennedy would be assassinated (Nobregas betting "yes") but never collected his winnings or even discussed the bet with Nobregas since then. The relevant conversation came about when Nobregas introduced Aleman to S.T. reportedly because Banco (a distant cousin of Aleman) had helped get someone out of a Cuban jail. S.T. said he wanted to help Aleman get out of his financial difficulties in return. He offered to arrange a loan from the Teamsters. 320 JFK EXHIBIT F-603 cont. S.T. wanted to arrange an introduction with Orlando Bosch. Aleman made this proposed introduction appear unrelated to S.T.'s offer- of help in arranging a Teamsters loan. At first he gave us the impression that he took some action in arranging the introduction which was accomplished by Niles. After persistent questioning Aleman finally said that he did nothing to arrange the introduction. He explained the situation this way: Nobregas was trying to help out Aleman viz a viz S.T. by letting S.T. believe Aleman helped. arrange the introduction. The interesting thing is according to Aleman. (and contradicting the Post account) he never received, a dime from the Teamsters or anyone else. Aleman attempted to explain why Nobregas and S.T. would have contact with him much less offer him assistance, in view of the fact that Aleman had testified for the State in the Rothman trial in Chicago. Aleman said he explicitly told S.T. of the fact of his adverse testimony. He said S.T. laughed out loud and said not to worry about it, that it didn't matter at all. 321 Mr. CORNWELL. And may we show a a copy of it to the witness, please? Mr. Aleman, on the front page of the exhibit there is a para- graph which is titled "Summary" and reads as follows: Aleman confirms reports that Santos Trafficante personally told him that President Kennedy was going to be hit. Aleman indicates that Santos Trafficante made clear to him implicitly that he was not guessing about the killing. Rather, he was giving the impression that he knew Kennedy was going to be killed. Mr. ALEMAN. No way. No way, whatsoever. You can be reassured, that I always in my life fought for democracy. Mr. CORNWELL. I don't think you understood the paragraph Mr. ALEMAN. Yes, but---- Mr. CORNWELL. We understand--- Mr. ALEMAN. Rather than he was giving the impression that he knew Kennedy was going to be killed. Mr. CORNWELL. That's what Santos Trafficante--- Mr. ALEMAN. That he was not guessing about the killing. Mr. CORNWELL. That Trafficante was---- Mr. ALEMAN. Aleman confirms the report that Santos personally told him that President Kennedy was going to be hit. Mr. CORNWELL. Yes, sir In other words that's a recitation of what Trafficante---- Mr. ALEMAN. Aleman indicates that Santos Trafficante made clear to him implicitly that he was not guessing about the killing. Mr. CORNWELL. He, meaning Trafficante, was not guessing, and the second part again is not a reference to you, it is a reference that you stated that he, meaning Trafficante, was giving the impression-- Mr. ALEMAN. Let me tell to this committee the following thing: By no way possible you can think that after all the suffering in Cuba and all the struggle to put a democratic country, and after all the struggle we've been fighting against Castro and after all the problems that I can see that has come to our country, I, if, in any way, I would have thought that the context at that time was that something was going to happen in that respect, I would have immediately advised the proper authorities about it. Mr. CORNWELL. And didn't you do so? Mr. ALEMAN. I talked in some way to members of the FBI about what was going on in the conversation, and I told them that something wrong was in some way, the wording that Hoffa and these--I went to the FBI and I informed something about that type of conversation. Like I previously had been informing the FBI about the meetings with Santos Trafficante. Mr. CORNWELL. And when Trafficante and-- Mr. ALEMAN. Because when all these things were happening, I was informing the FBI about that. Mr. CORNWELL. And I believe you previously told me that, is this accurate, that you did specifically tell the FBI about the comments of Trafficante on this occasion? Mr. ALEMAN. We talked in some way, and whatever is about this thing in the FBI files must be the exact thing because now I am trying to recollect things that happened 15 years ago. You must understand that. Mr. CORNWELL. What we want to do is---- 322 Mr. ALEMAN. So after so many years, trying to recollect what went on, and that I had in some way a worry, I said. what happened here, what transpired here, this is why I was bringing this. Mr. CORNWELL. The comments that were made to you by Trafficante worried you, is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. After all the years that have passed by after seeing all the things, it worried me. Mr. CORNWELL. In fact, immediately after the assassination, the FBI came to you and asked you again about the previous comments you had overheard, didn't they? Mr. ALEMAN. Whatever transpired during that period of time, I informed the FBI about it. Mr. CORNWELL. They came to you after the assassination and asked you again to tell in more detail the nature of the comments; is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. They asked something in that concern. Mr. CORNWELL. In the previous reports of your recollections of this event, as in your testimony today, the phrase has occurred that "Kennedy will be hit." Today you offered, for the first time, an explanation that that might have been a reference to the fact he will be hit'- Mr. ALEMAN. No, no, no, no, because when that happened, I had informed the FBI about it. So later on they told me, Jose, he was a loner, you must not be concerned about anything, no problem whatsoever. Mr. CORNWELL. The FBI said, don't worry about these comments, Lee Harvey Oswald was a loner. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes; after the Warren Committee. Mr. CORNWELL. You offered the explanation, though, earlier in your testimony today that the phrase, "he's going to be hit," might have been understood by you to mean hit with a number of votes? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. That explanation appears in no prior report of your statements that we have been able to find, and I would like to, in that vein, direct your attention to yesterday. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. You arrived at the airport from Miami, is that correct? Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. My staff has reported that when they picked you up, took you to the hotel Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. You expressed alarm or concern that there was no protection provided for you. Mr. ALEMAN. Surely. I mean this article have been for a long period of time. Undoubtedly, Santos Trafficante have seen it. I think he came to the committee some time. Didn't he come to the committee? I am asking you that question. Mr. CORNWELL. They won't let me answer that question. I'm sorry. But at any rate, go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt. Mr. ALEMAN. In reference to this. So all this time, I have been very much worried, I am very much concerned about my safety. After I brought this Washington Post, and that was about 2 years and 3 months ago, and I have been worried. I sold my business, I 323 been in my home because I mean Santos Trafficante can try to do anything at any moment. The DGI in Cuba tried to do something to me and when I was called to come over here, I was subpenaed to come over here, I was very much worried that I didn't have the protection, and I still believe that the DGI and Santos Trafficante could try to do something to me. There's no doubt about that. The article was there. I wanted a reaction. Let's see what the reaction has been. Mr. CORNWELL. I have no further questions. Thank you. Mr. ALEMAN. The reaction, you can see in the letter of Fidel Castro, in the tapes that he brought to this committee, in the days of suffering of Fidel Castro that he has been a few days very much concerned and talking all the time about that he hasn't done anything whatsoever against the President of the United States. And I don't believe it. There is some connection between Santos Trafficante and the Cuban Government. There's no doubt about that. I came very brave here to this committee to talk that I had been concerned about this and you should pay attention, as patiently I have been with you people, and react. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. ALEMAN. Thank you. Mr. PREYER. The Chair recognizes Mr. Edgar for such time as he may consume. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Aleman, I noticed this morning you are accompanied by marshals. Mr. ALEMAN. Yes. Mr. EDGAR. Would you indicate to the committee at whose request the marshal service has been provided? Mr. ALEMAN. My request. Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman, I had a number of questions that I wanted to pose to this particular witness, and I have gone over many of them last evening and have several pages of questions that I would like to pursue with the witness, by in light of the drastic change in his testimony which has been at least somewhat apparent this morning and somewhat related to his feelings of fear, I think that there would be little good served to ask those specific questions at this time. And so I will yield back the balance of my time and ask those questions at a later date. Mr. PREYER. Are there any further questions from members of the panel? Mr. Cornwell, any further questions from you? Mr. CORNWELL. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PREYER. Mr. Aleman, under the committee rules, every witness is entitled to take 5 minutes at the end of his testimony and the questioning to make any statement that he may care to make by way of clarifying his testimony or explaining it further or just making any statement that you care to make. If there is anything further you wish to say about this matter at this time, the Chair will recognize you for 5 minutes. Mr. ALEMAN. Thank you, sir. I don't want to make no statement. That's all. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Aleman. At this time, the committee will excuse Mr. Aleman. Let me again caution everyone in the hearing room to remain seated as Mr. Aleman is excorted from the hearing room. 324 Mr. Aleman, I would like to say to you, from the committee's knowledge of your background and despite anything you may have said here today, the committee has respect for your background and the bravery, the bravery you have shown in the past. We appreciate you being here with us today. Mr. ALEMAN. Thank you. Mr. PREYER. If there is no--the Chair recognizes Mr. Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate at this time to indicate for the record that the Cuban Government made available to the committee a list of American gambling figures that were held for possible deportation by the Cuban Government at about the time that Mr. McWillie indicated that they were. And I would ask that that be incorporated in the record as JFK F-410. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, it is entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-410 was received in the record and follows:] 325 JFK EXHIBIT F-410 STATEMENT OF THE CUBAN GOVERMENT Jake Lansky was in Cuba from May 22, 1956. Dino Vicente Cellini lived in Cuba from 1947. He was detained at Tresconia Camp in 1959. According to data obtained in those years he has or had a sister working as a typist in the White House who solicited the aid of Senator George Smathers of Florida to get Cellini out of Cuba. From public sources we learned that George Smathers informed the Cellini family that he had spoken to Narcotics Commissioner Anslinger who told him that his office had no derogatory information on Cellini. In June 1959, according to our files, the Cuban Government received a letter from the North American Consulate in Havana which expressed that there were arrest warrants for Jake Lansky and Dino Cellini in the U.S. Both were freed. Both left Cuba subsequently but the exact departure date is not known. Santo Trafficante left Tresconia in August 1959. We know he left Cuba a few days after that. Unfortunately, we have found no documents exact date of departure. Lucien Rievard was devoted to drug trafficking. The Cuban government does not know when he entered or departed Cuba. Guiseppe di Georgio -- The Cuban Government knows that he appeared in Havana in June 1958 using a passport with the name Pierre Canavese. We do not-knew what date he left Cuba. Charles Tourine, Jr., was know as Charles del Monico and Charles White. He was closely associated to his father, Charles Tourine, aka Charles White and Charles (the Blade). He entered Cuba on February 20, 1958. The Cuban Government does not know when he left Cuba. He was 326 JFK EXHIBIT 310 cont. involved in gambling and drug trafficking. In the cases of Charles Tourine, Jr., and Lucien Rievard, both were thrown out of Cuba in 1959. The Cuban Governemnt could not determine the exact dates of departure. Joseph Merola.- The Cuban government does-not know when he entered or left Cuba. During Batista's dictatorship he was closely associated to Roberto Fernandez Miranda {who was the brother-in-law of Batista) in a machine installation business throughout Cuba. Henry Saavedra entered Cuba on February 10, 1957. He was freed the same day as Santo Trafficante. The Cuban Government does not know when he left Cuba. Babe Baron -- The Cuban Government has no records on this individual. Further investigation is in progress. Charles del Monico is Charles Tourine, Jr. In our files we have no record that Charles Tourine, Sr., was ever in Cuba. Mr. BLAKEY. I would also note, Mr. Chairman, as you are fully aware of, when the committee was in Havana on August 26, 1978, the Cuban Government made available to the committee, ironically in the Hotel Rivera, an individual who was involved in setting up and operating the Trescornia camp. His testimony was taken at that time by the committee staff and yourself. It would be appropriate to enter that in the record at this time as well. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, his statement will be admitted into the record. Mr. BLAKEY. JFK F-311. Mr. PREYER. JFK F-311. It is ordered admitted into the record. [JFK exhibit F-311 was admitted into the record and follows:] 327 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 KENNEDY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS Name Jose Verdacia Date Aug. 26, 1978 Time 3:15 p.m. Place Hotel Address Hotel Rivera Havana, Cuba Interview: Blakey: Let me indicate for the record that it is August 26th and it is 3:30 p.m. and the place is the Hotel Rivera in Havana, Cuba. The people present from the American delegation are: Congressman Richard Preyer, G. Robert Blakey, and Edwin Lopez. Would you identify for the record those from the Cuban delegation? Corterez: Senen Buergo from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Felipe Villa official from the Minister of Interior, Ricardo (Escartin from Foreign) Service Juanita Vera, Interpreter, Aramis Gutierrez, official on the Minister of Interior. Blakey: We have then your permission to record this conversation? Verdacia: Yes you do. Blakey: Would you state for the record your full name? Verdacia: Jose Verdacia Verdecia Interviewer Signature. Typed Signature G. Robert Blakey, Edwin Lopez date transcribed Sept: 27. 1978 By: cs Form #4-a 328 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia page 2 Blakey: Would you state your date and place of birth Verdacia: I was born in Mancinilla Oriental Province July 20, 1914. Blakey: Are you presently employed? Verdacia: Yes I am. Blakey: Where? Verdacia: In the Customs - Havana. Blakey: Let me direct your attention to 1959. Were you employed then? Verdacia: Yes I did. Blakey: Where? Verdacia- In the Immigration Camp at Trescornia. Blakey: What was you position there? Verdacia: I was a Captain of the Police, the Chief of Camp. Blakey: Would you describe for us what Trescornia looked like? Verdacia: Trescornia Camp is located in Casa Blanca, a neighborhood in Havana facing the bay--Havana Bay. The camp is constituted by pavillions. There the passengers, for one reason or the other stayed here and their boats left, they would be taken to that camp. Those passengers would go to that camp until the Navy companies would demand them or would book them in another boat. Blakey: How large was the camp physically? 329 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 3 Verdacia: About one and one-half square kilometers. Blakey: How many sections did it have in it? Verdacia: The camp was divided into eight large pavillions, each devoted to the crew members. Four smaller pavillions--out of this the first one was devoted to the passengers who for any reason -- any problem with a visa, for instance or maybe because they had come without the due documentation-while the problem was solved they were taken to the camp and stayed there. One or two days, that depending on the solution of the problem that had taken them there. Blakey: How many people would have been in each section? Verdacia: At that time we had approximately 40 crew members because at that time we had twenty-one crew members of the peruvian boat which had some problems in the Cuban waters and it was drawn to the Bay so that--and the crew was there at the camp waiting for the boats problem to be solved. The rest of the crew members were occasional people that remained after their boat had left because they just leave the boat and then the boat leaves without them but they stayed there for a shorter period of time. The passengers were also occasional. Sometimes a month would go by without having even one passenger. This happened mainly with European passengers. 330 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 4 who needed all other requirements in order to be able to enter the country. Because I remember that there was a treaty with France that the French did not need a visa to come into the country. That's why the passengers were very few. Now in the midst of 1959 we had quite an amount of people who were taken to the camp. Those people we did have knowledge that they were leaving Cuba temporarily and that they were people who were in charge of the casinos, gambling casinos. Those people I don't remember exactly the amount of them that we had nor the names of them. It is very likely that I wouldn't recognize their face any longer, it was such a long time ago that you can imagine. I do remember some by their names because they have been quite--their names have' been quite known later. Blakey: How many would there have been, fifteen, twenty? Verdacia: I don't think there was that many. Blakey: If I were to give you some names do you think that you might be able to recall whether this--that individual was in Trescornia? Verdacia: Well, I would be very grateful because that way I could remember. Blakey: Would you recall a man named Jake Lanskey? Verdacia: Yes I do. 331 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 5 Blakey: Was he in the prison? Verdacia: Not in that prison because it was not a prison. Blakey: In that camp, I'm sorry. Verdacia: The camp was under the Minister of State of Cuba. There no prisoners were taken. There the people that were under those circumstances, I said before would be taken. Crew members whose boat would have left or passengers that would not be fitting the requirements in due time so they would spend there some days-til their problems were solved. And these people were taken there I think, that in order to have their problems solved too before they left. There were no prisoners there and we were not the kind of police that takes care of public order, but just we were policemen that took care of the order inside the camp. Blakey: Do you recall a man named Charles Tourine? Verdacia: Yes I do. Blakey: Do you recall a man named Lucien Ricuard? Verdacia: It sounds familiar to me too. Blakey: Do you recall a man named Dina Cellini? Verdacia: No. Blakey: Do you recall a man named Henry Civela? Verdaica: No. 332 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 6 Blakey: Do you recall a man named Loran Hall? Verdacia: No I don't Lopez: Eugene Hall? Verdacia: No. Blakey: Let me show you a book that's called Photo Identification book and direct your attention to a photograph on the first three pages and see if you can recall any of those. Verdacia: I tell you honestly that it was such a long time ago that I wouldn't be able to identify him and like that. Blakey: I understand but I have to ask the questions any way. Let me direct your attention to photograph No. 6. Does that individual look familiar? Verdacia: No it doesn't. I don't remember having anyone there with those -- I don't remember the name. Lopez: Sideburns. Verdacia: Sideburns? Blakey: Let me ask you-- this next individual, I do not have his first name but his last name would be Merola. Lopez: Joe. Blakey: Joe Merola. Verdacia: I don't remember. I don't remember having seen anyone like that there. 333 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 7 Blakey: Do you recall -- and then again I don't have the first name Civello. Verdacia: No. Blakey: Do you recall a Giuseppe di Giorgio? Verdacia: No. Blakey: Do you recall a man named Charles Delmonico? Verdacia: Yes I do, I do remember him. Blakey: Do you recall a man named Wilson Hudson? John Wilson Hudson? Verdacia: No, I don't. Blakey: He would have been an English journalist. Verdacia: I remember an English journalist who stayed there for some days. He had been deported from Argentina. I remember that he used to tell me stories of his staying in Argentina. That he had problems there with Peron because he used to make funny stories about Rita Peron, Peron's wife because there was soap by the name of Rita. And he told me stories also about one of his cronics which was issued in one of his British papers that was around Queen Elizabeth. He said that he had written that Queen Elizabeth could handle 2,000 men. I remember the stories that he used to tell me. I don't have any idea of him . I don't have any recollection of him being linked to these other people. I don't remember whether he stayed there coincided with 334 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 8 the stay of these other people. I don't know his name but I do remember the man. Blakey: Were these other individuals all in the same area or sections? Verdacia: Yes they were. Blakey: Could Mr. Hudson have been in an adjourning section? Verdacia: No. All of them were taken to the same pavillion. The first one facing the office. There was where the passengers were taken and on that occasion these men were there. Blakey: What areas would have adjoined the ones where these other individuals would be that the British journalist could have been in? My problem is that I don't have a mental picture of what the camp looks like so I don't understand how the individuals were housed. Verdacia: Let's assume that this is the camp. The entrance to the camp would be this way. Blakey: Perhaps I could ask you to draw a map. Verdacia: Yes I can. Tape turned off. Interpreter: It's on. Verdicia: This is the entrance to Casa Blanca street. It's the same highway which comes around here. It is a bridge and that was the entrance into the camp. 335 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 9 There we had a policeman at the entrance. Blakey: Was the bridge over water? Verdacia: No. Another highway went under it. Blakey: Would you put an arrow on the map indicating which direction was north? Thank you. Would you explain to us how the various individuals were housed in the various villas? Verdacia: This is the pavillion which was devoted to passengers. This pavillion had individual rooms--where the hall and then into their rooms on both sides. The bathrooms were in this part. All these pavillions had a cellar and then here in the cellar they had a cafeteria. These are the stair case to go up the pavillions and down on the cellars where the cafeteria is. There the passengers were taken and on that occasion these. gentlemen that you mentioned were taken to this place. Blakey: All of the individuals, Cellini and the others were taken to the pavillion for passengers? Verdacia: Yes they were. Blakey: Do you recall the individual from Argentina? Verdacia: Yes. Blakey: Which pavillion was he found in? 336 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 10 Verdacia: In that same pavillion. Blakey: But you cannot remember whether he was there at the same time? or before or after? Verdacia: I don't remember. I don't remember whether he was there before or after them. Blakey: Would you sign you name and date on the lower left hand side of this map? Interpreter: Do you want his name or his signature? Blakey: It doesn't matter. Thank you. There was one additional name I wanted to give you. Do you recall if Santo Trafficante was in this pavillion? Verdacia: Yes he was. Blakey: Let me show you a copy of a photograph provided to us today by your government and ask you if you if this is the individual who you knew as Santo Trafficante. Verdacia: Honestly, I can't tell you that I remember his face. The name I remember perfectly well, but the face I can't place it. Blakey: Let me show you a copy of Life magazine dated Sept. 1, 1967, page 21 and show you the photograph by Life "Trafficante Florida" and ask you if that refreshes your recollection. Verdacia: No I cannot identify the face. I cannot tell you with certainty. I can tell you that the name is perfectly clear. I am absolutely sure that he was 337 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. "Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 11 there, but the face I can't recognize. Blakey: Can you recall the circumstances under which Mr. Trafficante and the other individuals whose names you remember came to be housed in the pavillion for passengers? Verdacia: Yes I do remember that. On that occasion many people were taken there. People that I was told they were the operators of the. gambling casinos. But all things I cannot tell you with certainty because I did not have participation in them. I can just tell you that I was the head of police there responsible for the order within the camp. Those people were taken there in the same conditions as any other were taken there and we had to take care of them- Keeping them there til the immigration law determined that they could leave. I cannot tell you exactly either the dates that they spent there, whether it was a month or over a month, but it was along that time. But I knew that this people were individuals in charge of gambling of gambling house and casinos here. Blakey: Were they free to come and go in the camp? Verdacia: No not to enter and go out. The time they spent there they had to stay in the camp until they were given permission to leave. 338 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 12 Blakey: Could they receive mail? Verdacia: Yes they did receive correspondence, visits. Blakey: Did they have access to a telephone? Verdacia: Yes they did. Yes, the crew members and the passengers, all of them had the access to the telephone. Blakey: How were they fed? Verdacia: Their food was taken from the hotels to the Blakey: Did any of the individuals there have a private chef? Verdacia: No they did not. The food was taken to them from hotels in a car. I knew the food came from the hotels, I cannot tell you from what hotel. Blakey: Was the food brought to them by virtue of your activity or did they order their own food? Verdacia: The camp had a standing room for those who wanted to go and have lunch and dinner there. Yes. This me means that those who wanted to have dinner or lunch of the place of the dining room of the camp they could but those who received the food from the hotels it was either because they had sent for 339 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 13 it before previous arrangement with the hotel or something like that, but not because they can't have arrangements. Blakey: The camp did not supply food to the people being held there, is that correct? Verdacia: Yes. The camp supplied the food for them but in the dining room there. They had a dining room. Blakey: Were the people in the camp permitted to have personal belongings? Verdacia: Yes they were. Blakey: Did they have their watches with them? Verdacia: Yes they had. Blakey: Rings? Verdacia: No these kind of people like them--like the ones you mentioned and the passengers" by the crew people they were searched for a kind of knives or things like that that could be used as weapons. Blakey: During the period that Mr. Trafficante was there, did he ever seek his release in connection with his daughter's marriage? Verdacia: I don't know that because I didn't have any authority upon that. Blakey: Are you familiar with the circumstances that led to Mr. Trafficante's release? Verdacia: No I don't they were not of my competence. 340 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 14 Blakey: Do you recall about when he was released? Verdacia: I cannot tell you with accuracy about the date. It could have been in August but I cannot tell you the date exactly. Blakey: You indicated that the passengers and the gambling detainees were permitted to have visitors? Verdacia: Yes. Blakey: Is the name Lewis McWillie familiar to you? Verdacia: No. Blakey: Is the name Jack Rubinstein familiar? Or Jack Ruby? Verdacia: No. Blakey: Let me direct your attention photograph No. 60 in the Photograph Indent. book. Verdacia: I can't tell you. I cannot take that face back to that time. Blakey: Do you recall whether Santo Trafficante had visitors? Verdacia: If I tell you who received visits there I would be lying. The visitors came. They talked with one, two, three -- any one of them. Sometimes they talked together, sometimes they talked just separately. But as they could receive visits we had no reason to interfer with that. 341 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Page 15 Blakey: Was there a visitors log book kept? Verdacia: No we did not. Only those who came out to the camp like the crew members, for instance, were searched for weapons, nothing else. Blakey: Were all of the gambling detainees released at about the same time? Verdacia: Yes they were. Blakey: Did you learn what lead to their release? Verdacia: No I did not. Blakey: I have no further questions, do you? Preyer: I wasn't clear, how long was the gambling detainees there approximately? Verdacia: Approximately a month. Preyer: Did Trafficante cause any difficulty or make requests that were unusual or do anything that particularly called your attention to him? Verdacia: No he did not. Preyer: One other question-- On the British journalist who visited Argentina, you indicated that you didn't think he had met with the gambling detainees and I wasn't clear whether that was because he was not there at the same time because he was in different section of the building. Verdacia: I meant that I cannot tell you with accuracy he stayed at the same time that the other people were there--that the ones you mentioned. I don't 342 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia page 16 even know what was the reason for this man being taken into the camp. If it was because of this paper or something like that, I don't know. The direction and administration of immigration was in charge of this problem. I had nothing to do with that. Preyer: You told us that this was not a prison, Verdacia: Of course not. Preyer: Was there any kind of security? Verdacia: We had no security personnel but rather policeman. We had three post, one at the entrance at the gate, another one at another place and one behind the pavillion in which the crew members were located because the crew members were the ones that would try mostly to leave the camp unseen, and then there was a sergeant in charge of these post. There was a boulevard there and they could walk along the gardens and the boulevard in the days and talk and do anything. Preyer: Was there a fence around the entire--- Verdacia: Yes there was a fence. Preyer: I have no further questions. Blakey: I have no other questions at this time and for the record let me indicate that it 4:15. Would you object if I took your photograph to perserve it for our records in connection with your testimony? Verdacia: I have no objections. 343 JFK EXHIBIT F-311 cont. Interview: Jose Verdacia Interpreter: He doesn't want his picture taken. Blakey: Let me thank him for coming and speaking with us and sharing with us your memory. I am sure it has been very difficult to go back that far but we appreciate your--the helpful way in which you have clarified what the camp looked like and who was held there and the very circumstances sourrounding these matters. Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PREYER. The committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock this afternoon. [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the Select Committee on Assassina- tions recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. PREYER [now presiding]. The committee will come to order. I regret that the chairman of the committee has been called before the House/Senate Foreign Operations Conference Committee at 2 o'clock today. The chairman was to do the questioning of the next witness. He anticipates that this conference, his appearance there will not take longer than an hour, so that at this time, the committee will stand in recess until 3:30 this afternoon when I hope he will be here and we will be able to resume. The committee stands in recess until 3:30 this afternoon. [A recess was taken until 3:30 p.m.] Mr. PREYER [3:44 p.m.]. We are getting word, which we think we will get momentarily, as to Mr. Stokes availability and we will let you know as soon as we learn something. Mr. PREYER [4:30 p.m.]. The chairman has finished his activities with the conference committee so that as soon as this pending vote on the floor is dealt with, we will resume. I think that will be in about 10 or 15 minutes. We will go into session then. Mr. PREYER [5:10 p.m.]. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Chairman Stokes. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think it appropriate in light of the fact that at the time we adjourned this morning, the chair announced that the committee would again meet at 2 p.m. this afternoon. In addition to duties and responsibilities I have on this committee, I happen to be a member of the Appropriations Committee of the House, and a House/Senate conference started at 2 p.m. this afternoon and at the request of the president, relating to an item he was particularly concerned about in that appropriations bill, I was asked to be 344 there to be present in order to contribute to that House/Senate conference. I was in that House/Senate conference from 2 this afternoon until 5 p.m. this afternoon at which time I immediately came back to this hearing room. We were then ready to recommence the hearings and we have just been advised that the witness, who has a physical condition, has advised the committee that he would prefer not to be called this evening, because he has waited all day to be called as a witness, and because of the physical condition, does not feel that he can at this time come before the committee and has requested that we have the hearing first thing tomorrow morning, and he be called at that time. Accordingly, the committee feels this request should be granted and, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate for you to adjourn this meeting then until the time set for tomorrow morning. Mr. PREYER. The committee will stand adjourned until 8:30 to. m[Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 28, 1978.] ASSASSINATION OF INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1978 HOUSE OF REX, RESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 8:45 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richardson Preyer presiding. Edgar, Devine, McKinney, and Sawyer. Also present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; G. Cornwell, deputy chief counsel; Elizabeth Berning, chief clerk; and I. Charles Matthews, special counsel. Mr. Preyer. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Blakey. Mr. Blakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What the committee witnessed here yesterday is more typical of organized crime investigations than we had thought perhaps the testimony would be. Skillful interrogation has, in fact, elicited only meager amounts of information, and we have seen manifested in a witness that fear that is all too often characteristic of people called to testify in matters touching on organized crime. A fear that, frankly must be recognized as justified. Indeed, I would note that in the organized crime and racketeering section in the U.S. Department of Justice between 1961 and 1965, in which I served, more than 25 informants were lost in organized crime cases, killed by those who would prevent their testimony from being made public. But it is necessary, nevertheless, to continue the exploration and illustration of the committee's work. In that context, it would be appropriate at this time to call Santos Trafficante. Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Trafficante has requested that there be no radio, TV, photographs, or recordings made of him at any time during his testimony. consequently, it would be appropri- ate consistent with the rules of this committee and the House to enter an order to that effect. Mr. PREYER. The witness, having requested that he not be sub- jected to radio, television, or photographic coverage, the committee directs that all lenses be covered and that all microphones used for coverage be turned off at this time. The committee calls Santos Trafficante. Mr. Trafficante, will you stand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give this commit- tee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. (345) 346 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I do. TESTIMONY OF SANTOS TRAFFICANTE Mr. PREYER. Thank you. Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am Henry Gonzales. I don't know if the committee has been advised, we are exercising our rights under rule No. 6 of the House Rules. Mr. PREYER. Yes, Mr. Gonzalez. The Chair will recognize Mr. Stokes for questioning, and I believe the matters you mentioned will be brought out in due course. Chairman STOKES. For the record, will the witness please state his full name. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Santos Trafficante. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, where are you currently living? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. 740 Northeast, 155th Street, North Miami. Chairman STOKES. Will you tell us when and where you were born? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. At this time I want to exercise my privilege and my constitutional right to take the Fifth amendment. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I request that you have the clerk show the witness JFK exhibit No. F-411, an order of Judge Gasch conferring immunity upon the witness and compelling his testimony. Mr. PREYER. Yes; Mr. Trafficante the committee has determined earlier that it desires to immunize your testimony, and the clerk is directed at this time to show the witness a certified copy of the immunity order of Judge Gasch, and it is ordered inserted into the record at this point, JFK F-411. [The Immunity Order, JFK F-411 follows:] 347 JFK EXHIBIT F-411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ----------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of ) ) UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ) Misc. No. 78-287 SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS ) ) ------------------------------------------ ORDER CONFERRING IMMUNITY UPON AND COMPELLING TESTIMONY FROM SANTO TRAFFICANTE The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations having made written application, and pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6005, for an order conferring immunity upon Santo Trafficante and compelling him to testify and provide other information before the Select Committee on Assassinations, and the court finding that all procedures specified by 56005 have been duly followed, it is hereby, this 20th day of September 1978, ORDERED, that Santo Trafficante in accordance with the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6005, shall not be excused from testifying or providing other information before the Select Committee on Assassinations on the grounds that the testimony or other information sought may tend to incriminate him. ORDERED FURTHER, that Santo Trafficante appear when subpoenaed by said Committee and testify and provide such other information that is sought with respect to matters under inquiry by said Committee. 348 JFK EXHIBIT F-411 cont. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no testimony or other information compelled under this order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information may be used against Santo Trafficante in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement or otherwise failing to comply with this ORDER. United States District Judge Dated: Sept. 20 1978 A TRUE COPY JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk by_________________________ Deputy Clerk Mr. PREYER. I believe, Mr. Trafficante, and Mr. Gonzalez, that you have seen a copy of this order at an earlier date. Mr. GONZALEZ. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PREYER. In light of the immunity order, the committee directs you to answer the question, Mr. Trafficante. Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, prior to answering any of the questions propounded, we would like to have the declaration made by counsel for the committee on behalf of the committee whether or not any of the questions that will be propounded to Mr. Trafficante are derived from either legal or illegal monitoring of Mr. Trafficante at any time in the past, and we would exercise that right and make that request under title 18, section 3504. Mr. PREYER. The Chair will state, Mr. Gonzalez, that no question you will be asked in this hearing today is based on any electronic surveillance, as to which you have standing to object. Mr. GONZALEZ. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would like, prior to commencement of questioning, I believe it was either yesterday or the day before I submitted a document from a doctor which I would most respectfully ask that it be incorporated as part of the record and each of the committee members take consideration and do take consideration of the contents therein in the conducting of the hearing at this time. Mr. PREYER. Mr. Gonzalez, each member of the committee has received a copy of this letter and has read it and, without objection, a copy of the letter' will be made a part of the record at this point. [The referred to document furnished for the record follows:] 349 November 23, 1977 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In re: Mr. Santo Trafficante Watson Clinic #179243 The above-mentioned patient has been under my care since 1969. He has had chronic hypertensive vascular disease. His first evidence of organic heart disease was in August, 1974, when he had the onset in another country of pulmonary edema. The electrocardiogram changed and showed evidence of anterior wall ischemia. It was felt that he had had a myocardial infarction at that time. Be has had chronically elevated cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as temporary elevations of uric acid which have been controlled by medication. He has also had a polyp removed from his colon which was benign but required abdominal surgery in 1971. He had a retinal detachment in 1974 and rather severe and disabling osteoarthritis of the lumbosacral spine. Currently, he is suffering from angina pectoris on either exposure to tension or to exertion. He was evaluated in the clinic by Dr. Alan Brenner, Cardiologist, who agreed with his management program which consists of Aldomet 500 mg. b.i.d., Inderal 40 rag. q.i.d., Col-Benemid - one tablet twice daily, potassium supplements, HydroDiuril 50 mg. daily, and Apresoline 10 mg. t.i.d. He recommended the addition of Isordil and he now receives 5 rag. sublingually q.i.d. For his arthritis, he has been given Tolectin, two tablets t.i.d. In essence, Mr. Trafficante is an ill man and has significant cardiovascular disease, making him at great risk for a recurrence of myocardial infarction. His angina is brought on by stressful events, either physical or emotional. It would seem unwise for him to be exposed to prolonged emotional or physical stress. For this reason, it would be better if his current legal difficulties could be handled by deposition rather than having to undergo the more stressful personal appearances. John V. Verner, Jr., M.D. sr(w30)73 JFK EXHIBIT F-412 350 Mr. DEVINE. Reserving the right to object, does the Chair make the reference to the letter from a clinic dated September 1977? Mr. GONZALEZ. No, sir, it is November 23, 1977. Mr. DEVINE. 1977. That is the one. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the subpena that Mr. Trafficante is here responding to of this committee, pursuant to the order of the Federal district judge here in this area and we at this time are prepared to continue the questioning. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Before we continue with the questioning, the Chair would like to read to the witness a statement of the scope of the hearing which appears as the mandate of this committee in H. Res. 222. The select committee or a subcommittee thereof is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of President John F. Kennedy and the assassination and death of Martin Luther King, and of any other persons the select committee shall determine might be related to either death in order to ascertain (1) whether the existing laws of the United States, including but not limited to laws relating to the safety and protection of the President of the United States, assassinations of the President of the United States, deprivation of civil rights and conspiracies related thereto, as well as the investigatory jurisdiction and capability of agencies and departments of the U.S- Government are adequate either in their provisions or in the manner of their enforcement and, (2) whether there was full disclosure and sharing of information and evidence among agencies and departments of the U.S. Government during the course of all prior investigations into those deaths, and whether any evidence or information which was not in the possession of any agency or department of the U.S. Government investigating either death would have been of assistance to that agency or department, and why such information was not provided to or collected by the appropriate agency or department and shall make recommendations to the House, if the select committee deems it appropriate for the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation. The Chair recognizes Mr. Stokes to begin the questioning. Proceed with the questioning at this time. Chairman STOKES. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trafficante, I believe at the point you interjected your motion, I had asked you to tell us when and where you were born. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Tampa, Fla., November 15, 1914. Chairman STOKES. What is your current occupation? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I am retired. Chairman STOKES. During the period 1957 and 1958, where were you living? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. In Havana, Cuba. Chairman STOKES. Could you tell us when you moved to Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Around 1953 or 1954, in the latter part of 1953 or 1954. Chairman STOKES. Now, during 1959, did you travel between the United States and Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't think I did. Maybe. In the latter part of 1959, I might have. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us what business or employment you had while you were in Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I was in the gambling business and nightclub casino business, which was legal at that time in Cuba. Chairman STOKES. Being in the business, did you own several pieces of casinos in Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I had some interests in some casinos. 351 Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us how many? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well maybe three or four. Chairman STOKES. Did you have an interest in the Sans Souci? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. How about the Tropicana? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Capri? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Which were the others you had an interest in? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Deauville, the Commodore. Chairman STOKES. In order to operate your casinos in 1957-58, did you have to pay money to Cuban officials to maintain the operation of your casinos? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. We had to pay a license of $25,000 a year and we had to give 50 percent of the take of the slot machines. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, do you know a Rafael Gener while you were in Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I didn't get the name. Chairman STOKES. Gener, Rafael Gener. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. How do you spell it? Chairman STOKES. I believe is it spelled G-E-N-E-R, but pronounced Gener. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. P-e-, you said. Chairman STOKES. G, as in George. G-e-n-e-r, but is pronounced Gener. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Gener, Macho Gener; yes I knew a Gener by that name. Chairman STOKES. Did you meet him while in Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him after the event of Fidel Castro. He had been in exile before. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, did you know a Mr. Joseph Stassi? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. How did you come to know him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He was connected with me for a while in the Sans Souci. Chairman STOKES. What was his relationship to you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He was a partner in the Sans Souci. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us in late 1958, what was the result of the activities of Castro? How did it affect the tourist and gambling business there in Havana? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. You are talking about 1958 before Castro came in? Chairman STOKES. Before he came in, yes. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. It wasn't too good, Every other day they had bombs and stuff like that. It was nothing. Chairman STOKES. What effect did it have on the gambling business? How did it affect your business? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Because every day there were bombs put in different spots and the first thing you know, even if there were a 352 couple bombs, before the night was over, there were 200, supposedly, rumors, stuff flying around and people would stay home. Chairman STOKES. I suppose that this then caused the casino operators a great deal of concern, did it not? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I suppose so. Chairman STOKES. And was there fear on the part of the operators that if Castro came to power that he would confiscate these businesses? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Was there anticipated at all that he might come to power at that time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Nobody ever dreamt that he would come to power at that time. Chairman STOKES. Did you or any of the other casion operators take any steps to protect your businesses in the event that he would come to power? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. There was no question about him taking to power. They used to--in the papers when you would read about him, you would read like he was some kind of a bandit. Chairman STOKES. Did you meet Fidel or Raoul Castro prior to January 1, 1959? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. When Fidel Castro took over, how soon did he order the casinos to be closed? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, even before he reached Havana, because he didn't come down from the mountain until after Batista had left, and he had a walkathon, you would call it, from the moun- tains to Havana, and they kept interviewing him and he kept saying the casinos would close, statements to that effect, the casi- nos close without even being notified officially to close. Everything was in a turmoil. There was people all over the streets, breaking into homes, there was complete enmity and the only thing at that time was to try and stay alive. Chairman STOKES. What was his attitude toward casino owners and operators? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, he did a lot of talking in those days. I doubt if he knew what the hell he was talking about, but he used to do a lot of talking against the Marines, the United States and this and that. So nobody knew where you stood with him. Chairman STOKES. About that time, did you have any reason to contact Mr. Gener, whom we have referred to earlier, the gentle- man we referred to earlier? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think Mr. Gener contacted me, if my recol- lection is right. In fact, I think it was looking to take over the apartment that I used to live, because he thought it was a matter of time before I would have to leave Cuba. Chairman STOKES. After--- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That's how I got to meet him. I met him in my own apartment, that in case, he said, if you leave, I would like to have this apartment. So, I say, OK. ' Chairman STOKES. After Castro came to power, did you continue to operate your business as usual? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, everything was closed but after 2, maybe 3 months, or 4 months or 5 months, I don't remember when, he 353 ordered all the casions to open up again and when I said order, he ordered it. You either had to open up or lose--or go to jail. Chairman STOKES. And what did you do? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well I stayed away from the San souci, which was a lemon. So I stood around there to see what would happen, mostly to see he closed the door there. What he did was, he made the casinos open and he obligated all the casinos owners to pay the backpay of all these months that these people had not worked, and as soon as they got the backpay, then he will find a reason to close them, some of them, the ones he considered that were in the middle district of the city or the poor district of the city. Chairman STOKES. This would have meant then that anyone who reopened would have to pay those employees about 3 months wages; is that right? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. about 3 or 4 months wages, yeah. Chairman STOKES. Did a time come when you were detained or imprisoned there in Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. And can you tell us when that was? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I cannot tell you the exact date, but the thing was that I was detained, I was being--how would you call it [con- ferred with counsel]--I got news that Cuban officials were looking for to put me in jail because one of the things was that I was a Batista collaborator. They raided my apartment, they were looking for money, they tore up all the furniture, they used to come and get me at nighttime, take me out in the woods, trying to tell where I had my money, this and that, until I finally went into hiding. And they kept on and nobody knew what was going on. I mean, these were a bunch of, most of them were 15,16,17, years old. They had weapons, it was a bad time to be around there. Chairman STOKES. Now, do the dates June 8 to August 18, 1959, sound about the time that you were imprisoned? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, no I was imprisoned on June 21st. I was there because one of my daughters got married on that day, and I had been in jail before. I had been in jail, I would say, at least a month or two. They let me out that day to go to the wedding because the thing was that these people thought-- when they finally arrested me, they thought that I was being, that I was wanted in the United States for all kinds of charges-- narcotics. there were this and that and when they check it out, they found out nobody wanted me in the states. So then they had me in Trescornia which was immigration center, and they didn't know there for a while what to do with me. And I think that the reason they later did not deport me was because the United States wanted for them to depart me. So they figure, well, they said, this guy cannot be because at that time everybody to them was a spy, was this, was that. Chairman STOKES. So it wasn't actually like a prison, was it? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No; it was not. We had it pretty good. Mr. PREYER. You had it pretty good? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. We had it pretty good. We had our own food coming in and everything. It was like a big camp, like a big concentration camp. We had our own room. It wasn't too bad. 354 Chairman STOKES. And can you give us some idea about how many persons were being detained there at that time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, they had two sides to this thing. They had, most of this thing, a lot of these people entered Cuba with no papers, especially sailors and people with no means of support. They would put them on one side and people that they thought had means of support that were not public charges, they would put them on the other side. I think at one time in our compound, you would call it, I think, we got to be about seven or eight. Chairman STOKES. Were those other seven or eight also casino owners and operators? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Most of them were workers or casino owners. Chairman STOKES. Did you know most of them? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us who they were? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, for a time there, I would say for a day or two there was Mr. Dino Cellini, Mr. Jake Lansky, and myself, a fellow by the name of Chuck White, Guiseppe Di George, and that is about it. Chairman STOKES. Now, had you known all of these people before you went to the compound with them? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes sir. I found most of them there. Then in a few days Mr. Lansky and Mr. Cellini, they were taken out and they were freed, in other words, they weren't deported or nothing. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, did you contact anyone to assist you in getting out of the detention center? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I had a lot of people come and see me trying to help me to get out, and the attorney that I had was a fellow by the name of Mr. Bango, and I think Mr. Gener was interested in getting me out and a lot of other people that were in the casino business, native people, like Mr. Fox and Mr. Petere and Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez and Mr. Raoul Gonzalez. We had a good relationship and they all tried their best to get me out. Chairman STOKES. At the time you were released, were any of the other casino operators or owners released with you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Most of them had been released except this fellow Guiseppe Di George, who was deported to Italy. He was held there for deportation to Italy because he was an Italian citizen. Chairman STOKES. In order to effect your release, did you have to pay any money? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No sir. Chairman STOKES. Did Raoul Castro have anything to do with your release? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think he helped in my release. Chairman STOKES. At least you have heard that he did. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, no, I had a friend of mine by the name of Raoul Gonzalez, who used to run the Hilton Hotel, where Raoul Castro used to go very frequently, and he talked to him one day about me, and the fellow says, well, I understand he is in the drug business, and this fellow told him, if he is in the drug business then you get me and shoot me against the wall because I can vouch for him. 355 He says, well, you wait a while, I see what I can do about it. And eventually, after a month or two, I was released. Chairman STOKES. And after you were released, Mr. Trafficante, how long did you remain in Havana? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I remained in Havana until, I am not sure now, I had a case, I had a trial coming up in Jacksonville, Fla., on tax matter so I came in for that trial, I believe it was the latter part of 1959, the month of October or November, I don't remember when. It lasted about 8 weeks. I was acquitted. Then I spent the holidays, I think in Florida, then I went back to Havana. Chairman STOKES. When you returned to Havana what was your feeling about the climate there in terms of the economy and your investment in the casino operations? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Very bad. I knew sooner or later I would have to get out of there. Chairman STOKES. After your release from prison, did you ever meet Raoul or Fidel Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met Raoul Castro one time at the Hilton Hotel. I happened to be there, in fact, and the same Raoul Gonza- lez, he has told me if you want to thank him, he is upstairs, in some kind of a place, some kind of a room there, like a public bar or something, and so I went up there and he was going down the stairs so this fellow called to him and made him stop, and I went there and I thanked him, and he said well, just behave and don't give nothing to nobody, don't let nobody shake you down or noth- ing like that, and just behave and you will be all right here, you don't have to leave, you don't have to go no place. Chairman STOKES. This was Raoul you are talking about? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Raoul. Fidel Castro I used to see him practically every night in front the Hilton where he used to come in about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and the first thing you know there were-- like to talk to the people in the streets. First thing you know there were 400 or 500 people at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning and he would be talking all night long and I used to watch him, too, with the rest of the people. I never did talk to him, though. Chairman STOKES. You never did talk with him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. And the only one that talked to him was, while I was in jail, was my wife, who wanted to get permission for me to go and see my daughter, if he would let me out of jail to give my daughter away. She was supposed to be married. Chairman STOKES. And he granted that request? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. And he did. He granted the request with a lot of protection and a lot of bodyguards, thinking I would run away, or something, I don't know. Chairman STOKES. After you got out of Trescornia, did you reopen your casino business? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I didn't reopen I stayed away from the Sans Souci completely. The only thing that the Commodore was still open and I had an interest in the Commodore and the Deauville, he kept it open until all the workers were paid and then he closed that, so anyhow, the thing was that the dollar started getting stronger and the Cuban peso started getting weaker, and it was cheap to live there and I knew people there and I felt comfort- 356 able there as long as I didn't see nothing out of the way, but the further, the more time passed, I could see that I had to leave there, able there, as long as I didn't see nothing out of the way, but the there was nothing there for me, there was going to be trouble there. Everybody was getting arrested and nobody was safe, so around the middle of 1960 I made out I was coming to the States for just a visit and I never went back. Chairman STOKES. Well, you had quite a bit of money invested in your operations there, didn't you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No; I wouldn't say I had too much money invested. Chairman STOKES. Did you do anything in terms of getting your money out and getting it back to the States? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, because at that time most of the money that I had there was Cuban money and at the time that I left it was worth about 10 to 1. Chairman STOKES. That is 10--- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Ten pesos to $1. Chairman STOKES. To $1. So you were suffering quite a loss then? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I wouldn't say I did. I was young, I had a good time, and that was it. I chucked it off to experience. Chairman STOKES. Are you familiar with what the other casino operators did in terms of trying to get their investments out? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I am not. Chairman STOKES. Now, after you returned to the States the last time you referred to, when you left in the middle of 1960? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, I think around the middle of 1960. Chairman STOKES. Then, of course, you never went back? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No sir. Chairman STOKES. Now, you just said that in terms of your investment you didn't feel that it was too much. Can you give us some idea what you feel your loss was? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I can't give you no idea. Chairman STOKES. Was it a little bit of money or a lot of money? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, it wasn't no little bit and it wasn't too much either. Chairman STOKES. Well, are we talking about thousands of dollars or millions of dollars? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. You are talking about thousands. Chairman STOKES. Well, when you consider all four of the places in which you had an interest, would you say that collectively your investment could have been over a million dollars? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. If I told you, Mr. Trafficante, that Mr. Ricardo Escartene, who is the current Cuban Consul and First Secretary in Washington, told the committee that their records indicate, for example, that the net profit of the Riviera Hotel was $25 million in 1958, would you say that was a true statement? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I couldn't tell you because I didn't have nothing to do with the Riviera Hotel. Chairman STOKES. When you left Cuba, where did you next live? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I lived in Miami. 357 Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, when was the first time you were ever approached by any individual who was affiliated with or working for the CIA? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. It was around either the latter part of 1960, or first part of 1961. Chairman STOKES. And can you tell us who was the person who first contacted you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. John Roselli. Chairman STOKES. And where did he approach you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think we were in the Fontaine bleau Hotel. Chairman STOKES. And can you give us the date? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Can you approximate the time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I told you it was either the latter part of 1960 or first part of 1961. Chairman STOKES. Did you know Mr. Roselli before that date? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, I had met him. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us how you knew him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, at this moment I don't remember how I met him but I knew him. Chairman STOKES. And how long had you known him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I would say about 15 years, 15-16 years. Chairman STOKES. Now, had Mr. Roselli ever had any business interests in Cuba? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Over the period of time that you had known him, how often had you and he come into contact? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Very few. Chairman STOKES. Now, did he tell you how he came to be affiliated with the CIA? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. This first meeting was just between the two of you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, the first time, yes. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us the substance of the conversation you had with him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, he told me that CIA and the United States Government was involved in eliminating Castro. And if I would happen, and if Mr. Gener, if Mr. Macho Gener, if I knew about him, knew what kind of man he was. I told him I think he was a good man, he was against Castro anyhow, and that is about it. Then he introduced me to Mr. Maheu, and then Mr. Giancana came into the picture. Chairman STOKES. Mr. who? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Giancana. Mr. Roselli wanted me to be more or less an interpreter in the situation because he couldn't speak Spanish and I can speak Spanish fluently. Chairman STOKES. How long after the first meeting you had with Roselli did the second meeting occur with Maheu and then Gian- cana? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. They were all staying at the Fountainebleau Hotel. It was a matter of days. 358 Chairman STOKES. What was your reaction to killing President Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well at the time I think that it was a good thing because he had established a communistic base 90 miles from the United States and being that the Government of the United States wanted it done, I go along with it, the same thing as a war, I figure it was like a war. Chairman STOKES. Now, obviously Mr. Roselli, in order to ap- proach you and discuss this with you, trusted you, right? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. All in all, can you give us some idea about how many meetings took place between the group? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Not too many, because just like I tell you, they used me to be an interpreter and then we met Mr. Gener, then I took him to a place where they met some Cubans who were very active, supposedly leaders of the American-backed factions who were in charge of trying to eliminate Castro through revolution or any other way that they could, and I think I assisted a couple of times and that is the only thing I can say about that. Chairman STOKES. Well, since you were going to be the interpreter it would be necessary for you to be present at all of the meetings in order to interpret the conversations, right? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, but after a couple of meetings they found out that they could get along without me, I guess, and they told me they didn't need my services anymore and that was the last that I, they didn't need my services anymore, and that was the last that I, when they told me that I backed off, I wasn't going to. Chairman STOKES. Now, what was the total time span that you were involved in the discussions about killing Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I can, I cannot, I couldn't be truthful with you. I couldn't, I would say it would say it would be a matter of about a month or month and a half or two months. We are going back a long time now. I used to see Maheu, I used to see Mr. Roselli, I used to see Giancana at the Fontaine bleau, but there was no discussion. I might meet him at a bar or the lounge and have a drink or something like that, but there would be no more discussions about the Castro thing. Chairman STOKES. When you would have these meetings other assassinating Castro, would you have discussions about things, too? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Not that I remember. Chairman STOKES. Was Sam Giancana in the Miami area all the time that these meetings were taking place? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, he was, he was there. Chairman STOKES. And what was--- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He might leave, I guess, and come back, or something, but I think he was there most of the time. Chairman STOKES. What was your connection with Sam Gian- cana? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I happened to know Mr. Giancana. There was no connection at all. Chairman STOKES. How long had you known him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Oh, I would say about 10 or 15 years, too. Chairman STOKES. Was he fully aware of the plot to assassinate Castro? 359 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. And exactly how did he become aware of it? Mr TRAFFICANTE. I don't know. I don't know how he became aware, unless--I think it was through Mr. Roselli that brought him in. Chairman STOKES. And do you know what his role was supposed to be in the assassination? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I don't. Chairman STOKES. Do you know if Giancana had directed Roselli contact you in regard to this operation? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't know. Maybe he did. It could be possible. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us why Roselli approached you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I guess he knew I had been in Cuba, he figured I had I knew people there, he thought I could be of help, I spoke the language he didn't, he had to deal with Cuban people. I thought he figured he could trust me. Chairman STOKES. When he came to you and talked about the CIA, what did he say to you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I can't tell the exact words what he said to me but more or less he was working for him and Mr Maheu were working for the CIA and that they were working for the CIA and that the United States Government wanted this thing done. That is what he said to me. Chairman STOKES. Did he say what his role or capacity was with the CIA? MR. TRAFFICANTE. He made me understand he was an agent of the CIA. Chairman STOKES. Now, what was your total involement to be in the assassination plot? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. My total involvement was to be the interpreter and these Cuban people that I between Mr. Roselli, Mr. Maheu, took them to Mr. Gener suggested that we see, and that I remember driving them there maybe a couple of times. Chairman STOKES. Driving them where? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. To the home of this Cuban leader that was supposed to be backed by the American Government in the attempt to get rid of Castro. Chairman STOKES. And what was Mr. Gener's role to be? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, he made the introduction to everybody with this gentleman. Chairman STOKES. Who brought Gener into the operation? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. How was that? Chairman STOKES. Who brought Gener into the operation? MR. TRAFFICANTE. Roselli asked me about him and evidently he had heard about Gener. I couldn't tell you who brought him in but I told him he was all right anyhow. Chairman STOKES. Well, in light of the fact that you knew Gener in Cuba, where you had business operations, and you have told us that Roselli had no business operations in Cuba--- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That is right. Chairman STOKES. How would Roselli come to know Gener? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, the only reason the only way I can figure out is that Gener was very active in the campaign against 360 Castro and Roselli was looking for people that were active in the campaign against Castro, and some kind of way he heard about them or they got together some kind of way. Chairman STOKES. But the person who would have more knowl- edge about Gener and others who were involved would be you, isn't that true? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't see why I should have been the only one. He asked me about him before he talked to him, I think. Chairman STOKES. OK. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. And CIA probably knew about Gener and had some connection with Gener asked me something. I am telling you the truth of what I know about it and how he came about and how it came about, I don't know how, but it came about. Chairman STOKES. At any rate, yo told him Gener was okay? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That is right. Chairman STOKES. Now I want to make reference to a person whom we will refer to in conversation as "y". You know whom I am talking about, don't you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. The reason we are using this is because this person's name has not been declassified. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. You understand that. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. Prior to any questions on this point I want to state this: the Church Committee in their report, page 80, described this particular person as quote "A leading figure in the Cuban exile movement." Now, when did you first meet "Y" Mr. Trafficante? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him through Mr. Gener when I took Maheu and Mr. Roselli. I drove the car. Chairman STOKES. You had not met him previously? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I had not met him previously. Maybe I had seen him in Cuba but I had never met him or talked to him. Chairman STOKES. Who brought Mr."Y" into the plot? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Gener. Chairman STOKES. What was Mr. "Y's role to be? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He was one of the leaders of the American backed faction of the movement against Castro in the United States. He was one of the top leaders. Chairman STOKES. Did Mr. "Y" speak both Spanish and English? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I doubt it, no. He spoke Spanish because I was there, I interpreted for him, especially the first time. Chairman STOKES. He was one of the persons for whom you interpreted? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. He was the only person I interpreted. Chairman STOKES. Now did Mr."Y" ever ask you for assistance in financing anti-Castro activities? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. I haven't seen Mr."Y" since a couple of times, I think it was. I think it was. I don't think it was more than two times, could have been three, but I haven't seen him since then. 361 Chairman STOKES. Did you ever ask Mr. "Y" if he would be interested in participating in this? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. How was that? Chairman STOKES. Did you ever ask Mr. "Y" if he would be willing to participate in this plot? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman SToKEs. Did you ever offer Mr. Y assistance of any type in conjunction with any anti-Castro activities that he was engaged in? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Y who would run the gambling businesses in Cuba in the event that Castro was overturned? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Now, it is your statement that all times your sole function was to interpret for this group? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Is that correct? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, I want to read a portion of a declassified CIA Inspector General's report--1967. I am reading at pages 29 and 31 of that document: * * Roselli told [support chief] that Trafficante knew of a man high up in the Cuban exile movement who might do the job. He identified him as [Mr. "Y"]. The report then goes on to say this: Comment: Reports from the FBI suggest how Trafficante may have known of ["Y"]. On 21 December 1960, Bureau forwarded to the Agency a memorandum reporting that efforts were being made by U.S. racketeers to finance anti-Castro activities in hopes of securing gambling, prostitution, and dope monopolies in Cuba in the event Castro was overthrown. A report of January 18, 1961, also associated "Y" with these schemes. The 1967 Inspector General's report continues: Trafficante approached ["Y"] and told him that he had clients who wanted to dc away with Castro and that they would pay big money for the job. "Y" is reported to have been very receptive since it would mean that he would be able to buy his own ships, arms and communications equipment. Mr. Trafficante, having heard what the Inspector General of the CIA had to say about your involvement, is your answer still the same? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Absolutely the same. Chairman STOKES. When you were asked to interpret for these persons who were plotting, what method was discussed of how they were going to eliminate Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Any way, where they took a cannon, pills, tanks, airplanes, anything. Chairman STOKES. Was there discussion about poison pills? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. There was discussion of pills; yes, sir. I am telling you any kind of way that was possible to get rid of him. There was not only one way, of the pills, any kind of way, pills included. 362 Chairman STOKES. Let me confine my question at this point to the pills. Who proposed the pills? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I know I didn't. Chairman STOKES. My question was who did? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't know if it was Maheu or Roselli. Chairman STOKES. And were the pills ever given to anyone? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think they were but I don't recall me being present when they were. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us when and where the pills were given to someone? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't recall me being present when the pills were given. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us who was to administer the pills to Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. The pills to Castro was supposed to be administrated by Mr. "X". Chairman STOKES. Was any money discussed in conjunction with this? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. There was never no money discussed for none of these activities in no way, shape or form in my presence. Chairman STOKES. You mentioned all the different ways that would be utilized to get rid of Castro. Did anyone ever supply any of the arms or ammunition or the tanks or the airplanes to them for that purpose? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think I heard later, after this Bay of Pigs, they still kept on sending arms and boats and explosives and stuff like that, but I am not sure, I just heard that from Mr. Roselli. Later on, years later. Chairman STOKES. Now, I want to make reference to Mr. "X" for reasons that his name is also not declassified. You know whom I am talking about? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. Now, I want to also make reference to the fact, before I pose any questions, that the Church Committee in their interim report at page 80, described this person as a Cuban "official close to Castro, who may have received kickbacks from the gambling interests." Now, you do know Mr. "X"? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think I have spoke to Mr. "X", met him one time in Havana. Chairman STOKES. And what was your relationship to him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I never did give him any money. Chairman STOKES. Well, what relationship did you have after you met him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I didn't have no relationship with him. The relationship was through Mr. Gener. Chairman STOKES. What was Mr. "X's" involvement in these plots? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I think he was going to take care of the pills. Chairman STOKES. To take care of the pills? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Do you know if Mr. "X" spoke both Spanish and English? 363 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I don't. I know he is a professor so it is possible that he spoke but Mr. "X" in this particular time was still in Cuba though, he wasn't in the United States. Chairman STOKES. OK. You knew Mr. "X" from the time you spent in Cuba, is that right? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him one time. Chairman STOKES. I see. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I didn't give him no money either. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, did you ever handle or carry poison pills to be used in the assassination Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir, absolutely not. Chairman Stokes. Did Roselli every give you the poison pills. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Again, I want to read to you from the CIA Inspector General's report of 1967, pages 24 and 25: (Comment: The gangster may have had some influence on the choice of a means of assassination [Support Chief] says that in his very early discussions with the gangsters or more precisely Maheu's discussions with them, consideration was given to possible ways of accomplishing the mission. Apparently the Agency had first thought in terms of a typical gangland-style killing in which Castro would be gunned down. Giancana was flatly opposed to the use of firearms. He said that no one could be recruited to do the job because the chance of survival and escape would be negligible. Giancana stated a prefernece for a lethal pill that could be put into Castro's food or drink. Trafficante "Joe, the courier," was in touch with a disaffected Cuba official with access to Castro and presumably of a sort that would enable him to surreptitiously poison Castro * * * The gangsters said ["X"] had once been in a position to receive kick backs from the gambling interests, has since lost that source of income and needed the money.) Having heard what the Inspector General has said about this operation, would you in any way change your testimony? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Reading further from the same report, Mr. Trafficante, at page 27, late February-March 1961, "Roselli passed the pills to Trafficante. Roselli reported to [Support Chief] that the pills had been delivered [to "X"] in Cuba. ["X"] is understood to have kept the pills for a couple of weeks before returning them. According to the gangsters, ['X'] got cold feet. Having heard this portion of the inspector General's report, would you at this point change your testimony? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I did not give any pills to "X". I did not give any money to "X", I didn't see "X" any more since after I seen him in Cuba that on time, and I didn't receive no pills from Roselli, and I don't know what else to say about that. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, did you at any time receive any money for your participation in this situation? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. How was that, sir? Chairman STOKES. Did you at any time receive any money from anyone for your participation in the assassination-- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Not a penny, no way, shape or form. Chairman STOKES. Tell us what your reason was for agreeing to act as interpreter in this situation. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I thought I was helping the U.S. Government. That's what my reason was. And as far as the gambling and monopolies of this and that and all that trash about dope and prostitution, that's not true. If things were straightened out in Cuba, I would liked to have gone back there. If I could gamble, I 364 would gamble; if I couldn't gamble, I wouldn't gamble. But the reason was that I thought that it was not right for the Communists to have a base 90 miles from the United States. The same reason when the First and the Second World War, they call you to go to the draft board and sign up, I went and signed up. That's the reason. And we all like to make money. Chairman STOKES. I don't quite understand. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I mean, we all like to make money in case there was a thing I was doing it for money, for this and for that, about going back to Cuba and gamble and have casinos or cabarets, stuff like that. Chairman STOKES. In 1967, 1971, 1976, and 1977, those 4 years, columnist Jack Anderson wrote about the CIA-Mafia plots and the possibility that Castro decided to kill President Kennedy in retaliation. Mr. Anderson even contends in those articles that the same persons involved in the CIA-Mafia attempts on Castro's life were recruited by Castro to kill President Kennedy. The September 7, 1976 issue of the Washington Post contains one of Mr. Anderson's articles entitled, "Behind John F. Kennedy's Murder," which fully explains Mr. Anderson s position. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that at this point this article be marked as JFK exhibit F-409 and that it be entered into the record at this point. Mr. PREYER. Without objection, the exhibit marked F-409 is ordered into the record at this point. [JFK F-409 was marked and entered into the record and follows:] 365 JFK EXHIBIT F-409 Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, I want to read to you just two portions of the article I have just referred to, after which I will ask for your comment. According to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Whitten in this article, it says: Before he died, Roselli hinted to associates that he knew who had arranged President Kennedy's murder. It was the same conspirators, he suggested, whom he had recruited earlier to kill Cuban Premier Fidel Castro. By Roselli's cryptic account, Castro learned the identity of the underworld contacts in Havana who had been trying to knock him off. He believed, not altogether without basis, that President Kennedy was behind the plot. Then over in another section, it says: According to Roselli, Castro enlisted the same underworld elements whom he had caught plotting against him. They supposedly were Cubans from the old Trafficante organization. Working with Cuban intelligence, they allegedly lined up an exMarine sharpshooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, who had been active in the pro-Castro movement. According to Roselli's version, Oswald may have shot Kennedy or may have acted as a decoy while others ambushed him from closer range. When Oswald was picked 366 up, Roselli suggested the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive U.S. crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald making it appear as an act of reprisal against the President's killer. At least this is how Roselli explained the tragedy in Dallas. Mr. Trafficante, do you have any knowledge of that? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No knowledge whatsoever. Chairman STOKES. Do you have any information concerning any retaliatory action by Mr. Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you have any knowledge concerning any retaliatory action by Mr. Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No sir. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us when was the last time you had seen Mr. Roselli prior to his death? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I would say 2, 3 weeks before his death. Chairman STOKES. And where was that? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. In Fort Lauderdale. Chairman STOKES. Was anyone else present? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. His sister and my wife. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us what you discussed? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Nothing. We didn't discuss nothing about Castro, that's for sure. Chairman STOKES. I believe you told us that you had known Sam Giancana for a long period of time. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I would say 10, 15 years. I had never had nothing to do with Sam Giancana; no business relation or either with Mr. Roselli. I never had no business relation with them either. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Giancana, prior to his death, when was the last time you had seen him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I would say 12, 13 years, I didn't see him for 12 or 13 years. I hadn't seen Mr. Roselli, I think, I seen him once from 1961 till the time that he moved to Florida with his sister, which was about 2 years before he got killed. I just seen him one time during that time. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, you have told us here today that your motivation for participating in the assassination of President Castro was your patriotism, your love for this country and your concerns about communism being 90 miles from our shores, is that correct? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. Were you at all motivated by the events which had taken place in Havana which caused you to lose your business interests? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. I have been a gambler all my life, and I'm used to taking chances, and it is a matter of time, it is not a matter of--it was forgotten. I doubt very much if it would have been the same again after Batista was gone. 367 Chairman STOKES. Did you ever inform any other people of the plot against Castro besides those who were involved in the actual plot? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Not that I remember. I don't think I did. Chairman STOKES. What is your knowledge as to whether Castro learned about the plot? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. My knowledge about Castro learned about the plot? Chairman STOKES. Yes, whether he learned about it. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I can't answer you that. I would be guessing. I don't know. Chairman STOKES. Now, at any other times, were you either directly or indirectly involved in assisting any anti-Castro groups in their activities against Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I wasn't. Chairman STOKES. Now, you have told us that you do know Mr. Bango, he was your attorney? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right? Chairman STOKES. And how long a period of time was he your attorney? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, he was for short period of time. While I was in jail, while I was in Trescornia in Havana. His brother, his brother is still--- I don't know if Mr. Bango is still alive, by the way, but his brother is Minister of Sports in Cuba under Castro today and that's a very improtant job under the Communist system. You know, he is in charge of the sports and the youth and the whole bit. Chairman STOKES. Did Mr. Bango ever represent you at any other time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Bango traveling to Madrid, Spain, during the 1960's. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right, I went to visit him in Spain during the 1960's. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us about when in the sixties it was? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. What part? Chairman STOKES. What part of the 1960's. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Around 1966 or 1967. Chairman STOKES. Was this in Madrid? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Madrid, yeah. Chairman STOKES. And what was your purpose of going there? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, he had a purpose of--he had a fighter, some kind of a fighter that he was interested in promoting. And then I felt like going to Madrid, and I just went over there. Chairman STOKES. How long did you stay there? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I stayed there 10 days. When I got there, I got met by the--I left from Miami--when I got there I got met by the Spanish Secret Service or some kind of a service, and they had 12 people day under surveillance. I was constantly under surveillance from the minute I got there until the minute I left. They would park even in front of my door in the hotel. So there was the trip to Spain. Chairman STOKES. I see. 368 Mr. Trafficante, do you know the person AMLASH, a Cuban official involved in the CIA operation also called AMLASH which was designed to kill Castro? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. We refer to this individual also as AMLASH. During what years did you know AMLASH? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I actually met him after the revolution in Cuba because he was, he had killed somebody there, some big official of the Batista government so he went to the mountains. And I met him after the revolution. When he come in, he was made a commandante or general, whatever you want to call it. Chairman STOKES. And after you met him, was a relationship established between the two of you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, just a hello and goodby, and that's it. Chairman STOKES. Did he ever represent your interests or assist you in any manner? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Did you know whether Castro was aware of the AMLASH plot prior to President Kennedy's death? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you know if AMLASH knew Mr. Bango? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I'm sure he did. Chairman STOKES. And do you know the nature of their relationship? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. sir. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us whether or not you know whether AMLASH traveled to Madrid, Spain in either 1964,1965, or 1966? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, what I'm going to tell you now is what I read and you know, its been coming out, so I don't know that he traveled there or nothing. I found out later he had. Chairman STOKES. Do you know for what purpose he went there? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. What's that? Chairman STOKES. Do you know for what purpose he went there to Madrid? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He was some kind of a diplomat. He was of stature enough to be able to travel to Madrid and Paris and all those places. In my opinion, he was not a communist. I never beleived that he was a Communist. I always believed sooner or later he would react against Castro. But as far as me having any knowledge or contact with him or my personal knowledge knowing he used to travel back and forth maybe Bango must have mentioned it to me or something like that, but I never did see him in Paris, in Madrid or anyplace. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, After January 1, 1962, and prior to November 22, 1963 did ou have contacts with any Cuban official concerning any business dealings? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Not that I remember. Cuban officials in Cuba, you mean? Chairman STOKES. Right, with Cuban officials in Cuba. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. 369 Chairman STOKES. The answer is no, sir; right? Mr. Trafficante, Mr. Aleman stated that you paid Castro's G-2 agents in the Miami area. Have you ever given any aid or assistance to individuals you know or suspected were working for Fidel Castro after January 1, 1962, and prior to November 22, 1963? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Absolutely not; never. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Aleman also stated to this committee that he has "no doubt" that there is affiliation between the Castro government and yourself. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. There's no affiliation whatsoever between Castro government and myself. There never has been. Chairman STOKES. Now, let us return for a moment to your detention in Trescornia. I understand you to say your wife has visited you there. Did any other persons visit you there? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, a lot of people visited me there, people that I knew in Cuba. Chairman STOKES. These would be friends of yours in Cuba who visited with you during that time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Were most of them people that had some involvement with you in the gambling operations? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. When people visited with you, can you tell us about that visiting room, would there be other people in that same room, other visitors visiting detainees? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Let me tell you, Mr. Stokes, this was like a camp. There was no--it was a minimum security place. They would let anybody come in. They would let anybody stay with us until 12 o'clock at night. We would cook, we would have food brought in, we would eat, we would drink and there would be, sometimes, the guards would come and sit down with us and eat. Some meals it was like one big happy family. Chairman SToKEs. It sounds like a resort area. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. It was. I really had a rest then, if you want to know the truth. I enjoyed it. It was the highest point in the whole Havana area. You could see the whole city. It was cool, too, in the evening. Chairman STOKES. Do you know a Mr. Meyer Panitz? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Who? Chairman STOKES. Meyer Panitz, P-a-n-i-t-z. Mr. GONzALEz. Is that P-a-n-, Mr. Chairman? Chairman STOKES. Yes, Mr. Gonzalez, P-a-n-i-t-z. First name, Meyer, M-e-y-e-r. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir, it don't ring a bell. Chairman STOKES. You did know Pedro and Martin Fox? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Pedro Fox, yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Do you know whether the Fox brothers or any of the other operators tried to get their money out of Cuba during this period of time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. All I know is that Mr. Martin Fox, who was the owner of the Tropicana and one of the richest men in Cuba, he died in the United States in the 1960's, I think, and he died completely broke. And Pedro Fox was working as a waiter and maitre d' in all the restaurants and hotels around Miami. 370 Chairman STOKES. If, during this period of time, any of these operators were able to get their money out of Cuba, are you aware of how they did it? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. You see--can I explain something? Chairman STOKES. Certainly, go ahead. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. You see, everybody that was in business in Cuba Castro started with the very, very rich and he knocked them out of the box so everybody would say, well, maybe he won't touch me. Then he started with the next in line. Meanwhile they still trying to do business and eventually he did it in a real way, then he would invite all the tourist agents and he was going to make a big tourists campaign to bring the people from all over the world to Cuba. He was going to do this, he was going to do that. The next time--meanwhile, the employees of these places would be taking over that business and they would run the business. And if you had a little money in the cage, you couldn't even go near the cage to get the money because they would report you right away. So everybody got fooled to a certain point. Because if you remember, he didn't declare he was a Communist until about 1962, 1963, some time like that--1961 or 1962. So there wasn't too many people that got the money out, unless they had it out. Chairman STOKES. I see. Thank you. Mr. Trafficante, did you know, while you were in Trescornia, a Britisher named John Wilson Hutson, who was detained along with you? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Let me tell you what used to happen. I vaguely remember some guy there that was kind of a little bit of a screwball. I don't know if it's him or not. Because there used to be all kinds of people they would bring into there; people that would have difficulty with the traveling papers. In. other words, they would get at the airport, then they didn't have a ticket to leave the country. So they would get them and bring them over there until they got the problems straightened out and continuously we would have different people coming in and out and staying for a few days and then leaving; coming, staying. So it could be possible that he was there, but if I was to see him now, I wouldn't remember none of these people. Chairman STOKES. Then if I understand you properly, you don't remember this precise individual, but it is possible--- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right; it's possible that he was there. Chairman STOKES. Do you know a Lewis McWillie? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, sir, I seen him around Havana a lot. Chairman STOKES. Can you recall when you first met him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He was working at the Tropicana for Martin Fox. Chairman STOKES. Did you have any personal business dealings with Lewis McWillie? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Never had no personal business dealings. Chairman STOKES. Have you ever had occasion to talk with him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Ever since Cuba, I think I seen him one time in Vegas at his home. Somebody took me there, say I want to meet somebody from Havana that you know just for a few minutes. Chairman STOKES. During the period that you were detained at Trescornia, do you recall seeing Lewis McWillie visiting out there? 371 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't recall it, but he might have come. He might have. Chairman STOKES. So if he was there visiting someone, you don't recall it? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That's right, I don't recall it. It is possible that he did, but I don't recall it. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, did you ever know a Jack Ruby? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir, I never remember meeting Jack Ruby. Chairman STOKES. Never remember meeting him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Chairman STOKES. Are you aware it has been alleged that Jack Ruby visited with you while you were at Trescornia; have you heard that? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I've heard visiting me either. There was no reason for this man to visit me. I have never seen this man before. I have never been to Dallas; I never had no contact with him. I don't see why he was going to come and visit me. Chairman STOKES. Were you aware of any of the activities of a Jack Ruby? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. When you first met McWillie, can you tell us where that was? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him around Cuba someplace. Chairman STOKES. I am sorry. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him around Cuba in a casino someplace. Chairman STOKES. Did he ever visit you in your home, or did you ever visit him in his home? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir, the only time I think was one time in Vegas, like I told you I was there for a day or two in the 1960's. He was already working over there. And--- Chairman STOKES-In Vegas? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yeah, in Vegas. A fellow said he had already married a Cuban girl, or something like that. I seen him there just for a few minutes. That was the only time that I remember seeing him since the Cuban days. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, I want to ask you a question that is very important to this committee, and that is, did you have any foreknowledge of the assassination of President Kennedy? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Absolutely not; no way. Chairman STOKES. Had you ever known or had you ever heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the day President Kennedy was assassinated? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Never had in my life. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, I want to. move into another area now of questioning. So that we put it in its proper context, I want to refer to an article in Parade magazine dated January 21, 1962, called The untold story: our Government's crackdown on organized crime, written by Jack Anderson and I just want to read two portions of the first page of what is a three-page article. The first paragraph starts out saying, "Organized crime is under attack. For the first time, the full forces of the Federal Government have been thrown into the battle against it."And then it goes on to make 372 further reference to organized crime and at page 2, it has the top 10 and in loth position is Santos Trafficante. Now, Mr. Trafficante, were you acquainted with the Justice Department's program during the 1960's of physical surveillance against particular individuals? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I was so acquainted with it that they lived with me for about 15 years. Chairman STOKES. That they lived with you for about 15 years? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. I suppose when you say that, you mean the term literally; is that right? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Night and day. Chairman STOKES. What type of surveillance were you under, do you know? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. All kinds, from the neighbors, from the hilltop, from the trees, from the cars, everything, any kind you could think of. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, do you know Carlos Marcello? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Tell us how you know him. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I know Carlos Marcello about 30 years. I met him in New Orleans. My father had an operation there, and I met him through my father, at the clinic, used to be the barracks in those days. Chairman STOKES. So over that period of time that you knew him, what was your personal relationship with him? Mr. Trafficante. Just friendship. No business, never had no business dealings with him; no way, shape or form. I see him once in a while when I go to New Orleans. He's come to Miami, I think, once to appear before a grand jury. I seen him there. Chairman STOKES. Did you ever have occasion to discuss with Mr. Marcello the physical surveillance situation? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I probably have. Chairman STOKES. Now, when I use the term "intense physical surveillance," you know what mean by that? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I know exactly what you mean. Chairman STOKES. That's the situation you described where they lived with you day and night? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. Now, can you tell us why they had you under surveillance? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't know, I guess they hoped to find out this empire I am supposed to have, all these businesses that I am supposed to have; all that big thing I am supposed to be. Chairman STOKES. That is your understanding, that's your full understanding? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That's my understanding of it, yeah. Chairman STOKES. Did you ever have any discussion with anyone on how this surveillance could be stopped? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. I don't think I did. I'm sure that it couldn't be stopped, and I doubt it could be stopped. Chairman STOKES. I'm sorry, was that your full answer? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. What was that? Chairman STOKES. Was that your full answer? 373 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yeah, I don't think it can be stopped. Chairman STOKES. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. Marcello regarding president Kennedy or Attorney General Robert Kennedy? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I probably had it with him about Robert Kennedy. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us what that conversation what that conversation was? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. The conversation was that Bobby Kennedy had him deported illegally, put him on a plane with some marshals and dumped him in Guatemala. That was the conversation. Chairman STOKES. And by him, you are referring to Mr. Mar- cello? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Marcello right. Chairman STOKES. Obviously, then from what he said to you, he was pretty upset about that? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I would be too, what happened to him would happen to me. Chairman STOKES. And is this what you said to him when the two of you talked about it? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. And you felt that Robert had mis- treated him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I think so, I still think he mistreated him. Chairman STOKES. Are you aware of any threats that Mr. Marcello made against President Kennedy or Attorney General Kennedy? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. How was that, Mr. Stokes? Chairman STOKES. As a result of these conversations you had with Mr. Marcello, the fact that he was upset. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. You were upset about it. Are you aware of any threats made by Mr. Marcello against either president Kennedy or Attorney General Kennedy? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir; no, no chance, no way. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Trafficante, do you know a man by the name of Jose Aleman? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I met Mr. Aleman I think it was two or three times, perhaps. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us when you first met him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, I met him. I don't remember what year it was. It was in the early sixties. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us where you first met him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him at his-I think he had an apartment house or condominium or hotel or something. Chairman STOKES. And how did you happen to be at his home? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I met him through Macho Gener. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Gener took you there? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes. Chairman STOKES. And can you tell us the purpose of his taking you there? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. This fellow was in a financial bind. Mr. Aleman was having trouble financially. He wanted to raise some money because he was having trouble with his stepmother or some- 374 thing. So Macho liked Mr. Aleman. That's the reason that he took me there. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us how much money Mr. Aleman needed? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, we never got to the point because when I got there, I found out--I don't even think he owned the property. I think the property belonged to his stepmother. It was like a clouded title in a property. Chairman STOKES. Well, was it Mr. Aleman wanted you to arrange a loan for him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He thought maybe I could arrange a loan for him, yeah. Chairman STOKES. From whom were you going to arrange loan? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Well, at that particular time I was, my attoney , Mr. Frank Gargano, was an attorney for Jimmy Hoffa, thought maybe I could talk to him. I thought I could talk to my attorney to see if he could help Mr. Aleman. Chairman STOKES. And this would be a loan then from the Team- sters? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. Chairman STOKES. And had you ever arranged loans for other people through the Teamsters? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. You don't recall--is this your testimony--you don't recall the amount that Aleman asked for? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, I don't. Chairman STOKES. How many meetings took place between you and Mr. Aleman regarding this loan? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I would say the question of the loan was decided the first time I met him, but then I went there, I think I met him another couple of times. I don't remember meeting him in any restaurant like he testified yesterday. Maybe it could be, though, I am not saying. It could be but I don't--- Chairman STOKES. Is it your best recollection then that you probably met with him about three times? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Two or three times. Chairman STOKES. And Mr. Gener was present for the first meeting. Would he have been present for the other two meetings? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Mr. Gener was present at all the times that I spoke with Mr. Aleman. To the best of my recollection he was present. Chairman STOKES. And was anyone else present on those occasions? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. There was another gentleman present, can't--- Chairman STOKES. Do you know his name? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No. Well, I will tell you, his nickname was "Coco." That is how--this was a friend of Mr. Bango, this Coco. No, no, Darci, I read in the paper was supposed to be. Chairman STOKES. How about George Nobregas, was he present? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. George? Chairman STOKES. N-o-b-r-e-g-a-s? Nobregas? 375 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Maybe that is him. Maybe that is the same guy. It was a dark complexioned guy. Chairman STOKES. How about Angelo Bruno, was he ever present? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. He was present one time, yes. Chairman STOKES. So that the record is clear, would you name everybody that you can recall being present? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That is about it. I don't think there was any- body else. Chairman STOKES. OK. Just for the record, you name each of the persons you say were present. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Macho Gener, this fellow Coco, I think, Nobregas, whatever it is, Aleman, and Angelo Bruno, I think, was present one time. Chairman STOKES. And on each occasion was the purpose of the meeting to discuss Aleman's loan? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. Chairman STOKES. What was the purpose? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. The next time, one of the purposes I seen him after the loan, because like I told you, I think the matter of the loan, I think it was decided the first time I met him. Then he mentioned something about having some political influence in the Dominican Republic. So Mr. Bruno had talked to me that he was interested in getting some milk from the Dominican Republic, so I took him over there to meet Mr. Aleman so maybe they could get together. Mr. Aleman could facilitate this thing of the milk, to get an export license to export milk from the Dominican Republic. Chairman STOKES. Wasn't Aleman already in trouble financially? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Yes, but that has nothing to do with it. He could have made maybe some money with Mr. Bruno if he could get him the export license. To the best of my recollection now that is the way I think it was. Chairman STOKES. Was this the export deal that had something to do with milk? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Milk. Chairman STOKES. Was there anything else you discussed at that time? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. As far as the Kennedy situation, I want to tell you something now, Mr. Stokes. I am sure as I am sitting here that all the discussion I had with Mr. Aleman, that I never made the statement that Kennedy was going to get hit, because all the discussion I made with Mr. Aleman, as sure as I am sitting here , I spoke to him in Spanish. No reason for me to talk to him in English because I can speak Spanish fluently and he speaks Spanish, that is his language. There was no reason for me to tell him in l English that Kennedy is going to get hit. I deny that I made that statement. Chairman STOKES. When did you first become aware that he had made the statement? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. When it was first published in some newspaper, the Post or the Times, 2 or 3 years ago. Chairman STOKES. Were you aware of the fact that he had also told the FBI about it much earlier than that? 376 Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I read it in the same article, I think, that he was an FBI informant at that time. Chairman STOKES. Are you aware of the fact that he said that he had had a very involved discussion with you about politics? Did you ever discuss politics? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don t remember having that discussion with him by himself, like he claims, like I read it in the paper. Chairman STOKES. When we take the statement that he attri- butes to you, when he says that you said he is not going to be reelected, and then when he says you said, No Jose, he is going to be hit." How could he in any way misstate a statement like that from anything else you have said to him? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Because, first of all, like I told you, I was speaking to him in Spanish, and in Spanish there was no way I could say Kennedy is going to get hit. I didn't say that. I might have told him he wasn't going to get reelected. Chairman STOKES. What were you basing that on? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I could have told him that he was not going to get reelected, not that Kennedy was going to get hit. I didn't say that. I might have told him he wasn't going to get reelected. Chairman STOKES. What were you basing that on? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I could have told him that he was not going to get reelected, not that Kennedy was going to get hit. Chairman STOKES. How did you know Kennedy was not going to get reelected? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I thought he wouldn't. Chairman STOKES. What had he done at that time that would cause him not to be reelected? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. At this particular time, first of all, there was the Cuban question where they had the trouble with the Bay of Pigs and all that, and they established the Cuban bases, and, if you recall, there was a lot people criticizing it. Chairman STOKES. Well, then-- Mr. TRAFFICANTE. That is the best way that I can say it, if I even told him that. Chairman STOKES. From what you have said here today, then, in all probability you did say to him no, Jose, he is not going to be reelected. Did you say that? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I might have told him that but I didn't tell tell him that Kennedy was going to get hit. See I still tell you that I spoke to Aleman in Spanish. There was no reason for me to speak to him in English because I doubt if 15 years ago he could speak better English than he does today. There was no reason for me--- Chairman STOKES. We can't hear you. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. There was no reason for me to speak to him in English with his broken English, when I can speak fluent Spanish, and he can speak fluent Spanish, and Gener, who was there all the time, couldn't understand English. The other guy, I doubt if he could understand English, too, Nobregas, whatever his name was, at that particular time. Chairman STOKES. Do you recall ever talking to Mr. Aleman about the problem Jimmy Hoffa was having with Attorney General Robert Kennedy? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I don't remember nothing about the discuss- ion. I couldn't swear to nothing that I talked about him, about Jimmy Hoffa. One thing I know for definite is I didn't tell him Kennedy was going to get hit, or that he interpreted it that way. That is not right and that is not the truth. That is all I can say. 377 Chairman STOKES. When you first learned that he had said this about you, did you contact anybody about it? ' Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir. I didn't pay no importance to it at that particular time. I never thought I would be here answering that question today or be here for the assassination of Kennedy, as far as that goes. Chairman STOKES. I am sorry, I didn't hear. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I never thought at that time that I would be here today being questioned about the assassination of Kennedy. Chairman STOKES. Then, so I can summarize your testimony at this point, you did know Mr. Aleman, you did have meetings with Mr. Aleman, you probably discussed President Kennedy and his reelection or his inability to be reelected, but you did not make the statement he will be hit? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Right. I am sure I didn't. I am positive I didn't. There was no reason for me to say that. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. Mr. PREYER. If you will pardon us for a moment, I would like to confer with the members here. There are no further questions from the panel. Under the House rules, Mr. Trafficante, a witness at the conclusion of the questioning is entitled to make a statement for 5 minutes to explain his testimony or to clarify it or to make any sort of statement he may choose to make. At this time, do you care to say anything further to the committee? Mr. TRAFFICANTE. No, sir, your Honor, nothing. Mr. PREYER. Very well, the committee will excuse the witness at this time. Let me caution everyone in the hearing room to remain seated until the witness leaves the hearing room. You are excused, Mr. Trafficante. Mr. TRAFFICANTE. Thank you. Mr. PREYER. Thank you for being here. Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the exhibit. [Document handed to the clerk by Mr. Gonzalez.] Mr. GONZALEZ. This is the certified copy of the order. Mr. PREYER. We will have that immunity order which has previously been inserted in the record. The committee will take a brief 3-minute in-place recess at this time. We will resume very quickly. The committee stands in recess. [A short recess was taken.] Chairman STOKES. [now presiding]. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, the testimony of Santos Trafficante concludes that part of the presentation by the staff to the committee of the basic outlines of the committee's investigation into the possibility of organized. crime connection to the assassination of President Kennedy. As all can see from the testimony introduced, the question remains, was organized crime involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy? Did it have the motive, opportunity, and means to do so? 378 Obviously, the possibility cannot be dismissed, although it can hardly be said to have been established. At this point, it is, in your words, Mr. Chairman, perhaps only a little more than a "suspicion suspected," not a "fact found." The committee decided early in its investigation, as soon as it realized that a Mafia plot to assassinate the President warranted serious consideration, to assemble the most reliable information available on organized crime in the United States. The details of this phase of the committee's investigation will, of course, appear, hopefully in full, in its final report, a report that will consider the background of organized crime in America, the structure of the Mafia in the early 1960's, the effort by the Kennedy administration to suppress the mob, and the evidence that the assassination might have been undertaken in retaliation for those efforts. To scrutinize the possible role of organized crime in the assassination, the committee early brought on one of the country's leading experts on the subject. He is Ralph Salerno, whose career as an organized crime investigator with the New York City Police Department goes back to 1946. Mr. Salerno has since retired from the New York City Police Department and I would note that on the day of his retirement, the New York Times was moved to comment that he perhaps knew more about the Mafia than any nonmember in the United States. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Ralph Salerno. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Mr. Salerno. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? TESTIMONY OF RALPH SALERNO Mr. SALERNO. I do. Chairman STOKES. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel for the committee, Mr. Gary Cornwell. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Salerno, when did you first become a consultant on organized crime to this committee? Mr. SALERNO. I began in late October or early November of last year. Mr. CORNWELL. Prior to that time, what experience or training had you had with respect to organized crime? Mr. SALERNO. I entered the New York City Police Department in mid-September of 1946. A planned 3-month program of training in the police academy was interrupted in November of 1946 when I became one of a small group of men who were interviewed and selected to be used in an undercover operation involving an organized crime assault which resulted in murder in New York City. From that time throughout the remaining 20 years that I spent with the New York City Police Department, my entire career I was engaged in investigations relating to organized crime. Mr. CORNWELL. At the time of your retirement, what was your position? 379 Mr. SALERNO. I retired as a supervisor of detectives in the Central Investigation Bureau, which is the organized crime investigation unit of the New York City Police Department. Mr. CORNWELL. During your tenure with the New York City Police Department, did you ever have an occasion to discuss organized crime with any underworld members? Mr. SALERNO. Yes. That was something that during those years was a common occurrence. We would bring in people so involved into our office for conversations, discussions, interviews, if you will. We would interview them in the hallways of the courthouses, when there was a court appearance that we had caused to occur. We would talk to them in the street. We would talk to them in their neighborhoods, we would talk to them in their homes. So that I can say that literally I have had hundreds of such conversations. Mr. CORNWELL. During that period did you have a chance to review conversations of such persons that may have been obtained by electronic surveillance? Mr. SALERNO. Yes. The State of New York has had legal authority for the issuance of ex parte orders for electronic surveillance since 1939. That was a very useful technique which was widely used in the New York City Police Department during the 20 years that I have served. Mr. CORNWELL. After the 20 years of experience investigating organized crime with the New York City Police Department, you retired in 1966. After that point, did you continue to be in any way involved with the subject matter of organized crime? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; all of my professional work in the intervening 12 years has been with this subject. I worked largely as a consultant to various bodies. I did return to a more active role in 1973 and 1974. In those 2 years I became the chief racket investigator in the district attorney's office of New York County, one of the five in New York City, and I served in that capacity for 2 years. My remaining time has been as a consultant. Part of that time is given largely to the training of other law enforcement officers on all levels of government, through some 35 States of the United States and in four Canadian provinces, and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition to that, I have served as a consultant for government and nongovernment bodies addressing the subject of organized crime. Mr. CORNWELL. Please give us a brief resume of the committees or commissions that you have served as a consultant at any time since 1966? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. I served as consultant to the President's Commission on Violence. My work there was a paper on the use of violence and fear in organized crime activities and matters. I was a consultant to the President's Commission on Campus Unrest. My work there dealt largely with police intelligence procedures and how they were utilized. I worked for the National Council on Crime and Delinquency from 1967 through 1969. In 1970 I spent a year consulting with the Hudson Institute in Westchester County, N.Y., which is a policy research center. My work there was as part of a study on the problem of narcotics in the State of New York. 380 I spent 1976 as a consultant to the Citizens Campaign Against Bootlegged Cigarettes. My work there was in describing the problem caused by the almost total establishment of an illegal distribution system for smuggled or stolen, certainly untaxed, cigarettes and the invasion of the legitimate distribution network in that industry all along the eastern seaboard. Mr. CORNWELL. In addition to your experiences as a consultant, have you ever qualified as an expert on organized crime in the courts? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I have been qualified as an expert for testimony in Federal courts, in the courts of some five States, and these have been in matters of criminal cases and in civil litigation. I have been accepted as an expert for testimony concerning organized crime in two Canadian provinces, the Province of Alberta and I have testified in the Province of Quebec. Mr. CORNWELL. You also served at one time on the President's Crime Commission, is that correct? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I served on the Organized Crime Task Force of the President's Crime Commission while still a member of the New York City Police Department. That was in 1966. Mr. CORNWELL. And in addition to testifying as an expert on organized crime in the various Federal and State courts you mentioned, have you ever testified on that subject before any legislative bodies? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; more than one-half dozen times before legislative committees of the Congress of the United States, in both Houses. I have testified before legislative bodies of some 10 States. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you simply name some of those? Mr. SALERNO. Beg pardon? Mr. CORNWELL. Would you simply identify some of those legislative bodies for us? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. While still with the New York City Police Department, three detectives and myself were assigned with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator John McClellan. Over a period of months we prepared for it a presentation on organized crime. The specific assignment that I had from the New York City Police Department was to look into all matters that would be revealed by Joseph Valachi in his testimony before that Senate committee. We were to independently investigate in an attempt to prove or disprove anything that he might have said that we could gather evidence concerning. I have also appeared before a committee chaired by Senator Smathers, which was looking into the problem of loansharking. I have appeared twice before House committees chaired by Mr. Dante Fascell. I appeared before the Crime Committee that was looking into organized crime, chaired by Mr. Pepper. I have appeared in legislative bodies in the States of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Indiana, and Ohio. Mr. CORNWELL. Have you ever written any books or articles on this subject? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I wrote a book which was entitled, "The Crime Confederation," published by Doubleday in 1969. The subtitle of that 381 book is "La Cosa Nostra and Other Allied Operations in Organized Crime." I have done a number of magazine articles for public press as well as for professional journals. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Salerno, this committee has received evidence from and concerning Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante. Are you familiar with those individuals? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I am familiar with them and I have been for some 21 years. Mr. CORNWELL. The committee, in part, has received testimony of Mr. Trafficante. For example, among his testimony, he stated that he did not know Jack Ruby or Lee Harvey Oswald, and his testimony, although not directly but at least indirectly, perhaps, bore on the question of whether or not he or his associates may have had the motive or opportunity or means to assassinate the President. Would you tell us whether or not you have any information which might shed light upon the questions that we just noted? Mr. SALERNO. Yes. I think I have a considerable amount of evidence for this committee to consider in trying to evaluate both method, means, all three--methods, means or certainly motive on the part of Mr. Trafficante or people known to be associated with him .... Mr. CORNWELL. Tell us what you know about those two individuals which might shed some light upon that subject. Mr. SALERNO. Well, I indicated that I became aware of Mr. Trafficante some 21 years ago. That particular occurrence was one that took place in the State of New York on November 14, 1957, which I note is the eve of Mr. Trafficante's birthday. He gave it as November 15. At that time, the New York State Police discovered a meeting of a large number of people, some 63 were actually identified at that time. The people involved knew that they had not completely identified all of the people present. If I may, I would like to make use of an exhibit at this time to be able to discuss the Apalachin meeting with you. Mr. CORNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-547A displayed? Mr. Chairman, may we have JFK F-547A admitted into the record at this time? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [JFK exhibit F-547A follows:] 382 Apalachin Meeting, November 14, 1957 JFK EXHIBIT F-547A Mr. SALERNO. That is a map of the United States, Mr. Cornwell, which indicates the areas from which people who were known to have artended came from--northern California, southern California, State of Arizona, the Rocky Mountain State of Colorado, Missouri, Dallas, Tex., Tampa, Fla., the Middle West, the New England States, the Middle Atlantic States, so that quite candidly it can be labeled a national meeting. At that time, a great deal of attention was given to it, in an analysis of what was there in an attempt to try to discover why they might have been there. Many of the people who were there fit the phrase "known to the police." They had criminal arrest records, they had criminal conviction records. That record since that time, 21 years ago, has become even more extensive, and I think it is a fair characterization today to say that there is very little doubt that that was a national underworld meeting. One of the people identified at the location in Apalachin, N.Y., had given the name of Louie Santos and he gave an address of a hotel in Havana. In trying to pursue exactly who this person was, two of the officers of the New York State Police made an identification of Mr. Santos Trafficante from photographs of him as being the person who had given the name of Louie Santos. So that we can then see that he has associated with all of the people who were there. People such as Vito Genovese, a man who died in a Federal prison in the 9th year of a 15-year term for dealing in heroin. Mr. Carmine Galante was at that meeting. He was sentenced to 15 years for dealing in heroin. Mr. John Ormento, who was at that meeting, is still serving a 40-year sentence for dealing in heroin. Mr. Trafficante, in his testimony today, indicated that he was a partner of Joseph Stassi in a casino in Havana. Mr. Stassi has been sentenced to Federal prison for dealing in heroin. Mr. Trafficante here, in his testimony, acknowledges a long-time friendship over a period of years, one in which the people involved could have great confidence in them- 383 selves with Sam Giancana. Mr. Sam Giancana has been the victim of a homicide and has been killed. Mr. Trafficante indicated in his testimony here this morning that he knew John Roselli, that he had dinner with that gentleman 3 weeks before he was killed, his body dismembered and stuffed into an oil drum and thrown into the sea only to come up in Biscayne Bay. My unit in the New York City Police Department on September 22, 1966, interrupted a luncheon in a restaurant known as Stella in queens County, N.Y. Mr. Marcello was present at that luncheon. Mr. Trafficante was present at that luncheon. I would like to at this time introduce an exhibit of the seating arrangement of that particular meeting, if I may. Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to use that exhibit. I would like to have you describe that in more detail in a moment. Let me ask you before we go to the exhibit, if we might, you have indicated this was the point in time in which your attention was focused upon Mr. Trafficante. Mr. Chairman, I request JFK exhibit F-619, a photograph of Mr. Trafficante, be entered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, so ordered. [JFK exhibit F-619 follows:] 384 JFK EXHIBIT F-619 Mr. CORNWELL. What subsequently; did you determine to be the nature of Mr. Trafficante's relationships with these kinds of people that you have just named? Mr. SALERNO. Certainly his presence with them classifies him as an associate of such persons. He goes into business with them in a gambling casino. He will be in New York quite some distance from his home with an interesting assemblage of people that we know a great deal about. He is at an underworld meeting, a national underworld meeting in New York so that we came, in the New York City Police Department, to certainly agree with diverse other law enforcement agencies that Mr. Trafficante was an organized crime leader, the leader of a criminal organization in the State of Florida. Mr. CORNWELL. You state that he is the leader of an organized crime organization in Florida. Before we go further, would you tell us what that term means in the context that you have used it? What is organized crime? 385 Mr. SALERNO. Organized crime sometimes has many different meanings to different people. There have been some successful attempts in some legal definitions of the phrase "organized crime." The Congress of the United States, in the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, very clearly defined what would be considered Federal violations of law in terms of organized crime gambling. In that instance, the Congress set forth the standard of five or more people being involved, the volume of the gambling reaching or exceeding $2,000 per day and requiring that evidence show that the particular gambling operation was in existence for 30 days or more. That is organized crime gambling in its legal definition. In one professional conference that I have attended, organized crime was described as a self-perpetuating, continuing criminal conspiracy for profit and for power using fear and corruption and seeking immunity from law. I think one of the best ways to describe organized crime or to have it understood is in a way that was described by scholars at Cornell Law School, in an institute where prosecutors from around the United States are trained. In that instance, they set forth three ways in which organized crime can manifest itself and be recognized. The descriptions given are: Organized crime as a venture; organized crime as an enterprise; organized crime as a syndicate. And the different ways in which. the manifestation comes are these: An organized crime enterprise is a day-to-day, ongoing business that is illegal in its nature because it is supplying some illegal service or some illegal product. Two examples of that would be a sizable gambling operation that would meet the Federal definition as legally defined on a day-today basis. Offering the illegal service of accepting wagers, a group of criminals who would conspire to do so on an ongoing basis, supply narcotics to procure it, to cut it down to a street level quantity and then enter it into a distribution system. That would be an organized crime enterprise. Organized crime can also involve itself as a syndicate, a criminal syndicate. As a syndicate, organized crime will exercise various forms of control which are not unlike those of Government. They will set standards. The payoff price on the numbers shall be this and it shall not be higher and it shall not be lower and they impose that standard on their own group and on others in an area where they exercise a sphere of influence. They will collect taxes, if you will, although the legal definition of that collection of taxes would be extortion, but they are playing a quasi-government role. You can also have an organized crime venture, a single occurrence which, per se, is not organized crime. Bank robbery. Not every bank robbery can be described as organized crime; but where the members of an organized crime syndicate will either inspire, will set the plans for and then participate in the profits from that bank robbery, that particular bank robbery would be an organized crime venture. I think, Mr. Cornwell, I have an even better example for you of an organized crime venture. When Mr. Trafficante joined with Mr. Giancana and joined with Mr. Roselli and joined with representatives in the CIA in a plot to kill Premier Castro, that was an organized crime venture, a single occurrence. 386 Mr. CORNWELL. Which of the types of organized crime that you just described is it that Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello are associated with? Mr. SALERNO. They are leaders of an organized crime syndicate, each of them, in their home areas. I have some evidence that I would like to offer you now. This is a conversation that was overheard in which Mr. Santos Trafficante was involved and upon which no questions to him have been based. This was found in the FBI file which now is labeled, La Cosa Nostra file. The conversation took place in a restaurant in Florida in 1963 and the quote of Mr. Trafficante reads thus: Let me tell you this. This is what happens to me. Now, I don't give a (obscene) about the S. & G. I know when I'm beat, you understand? I got a numbers office in Orlando. They grab everybody, forty or fifty people. Forty or Fifty thousand in bond. They have no evidence, but when they get through, it costs thousands. I got another office in St. Cloud, Fla. You can't even find St. Cloud on the (obscene) map, but the (obscene)"G" found it. Kennedy's right-hand man, he goes through the (obscene) nigger town. Must have been 2,000 niggers, and makes a (obscene) big raid over there. Just a start, any (obscene) place that they found a phone connection in there from Tampa. * * * Mr. Trafficante in that conversation is describing his interest in an organized crime enterprise. Mr. CORNWELL. What, if any, real evidence is there that the syndicate that you say Marcello and Trafficante run in their respective areas, exists much less that they are members of it. Mr. SALERNO. I think at this date the evidence is overwhelming. It is certainly more than sufficient to convince the prudent man that we speak of in legal and court terminology. I think in order to give you an understanding of that, I just have to dip back for a moment, briefly, into history. The particular criminal syndicates that Mr. Marcello and Mr. Trafficante belong to are syndicates which have set a requirement that membership shall be limited to people who are of Italian extraction on both sides of their lineage. In sociological studies that have been made, we do note that the overwhelming majority of population, immigrants who have come to the United States from Italy, came from the southern part of that nation. That's the agricultural part of the nation, the more economically deprived. So that's where we got most of our Italian population. I think there is a very long and a very clear record that many of those people made great contributions to their new country, the United States. Unfortunately, in mass migration of that type, some people will come in who have a criminal background. We know historically from scholarly studies, that in the southern part of Italy, three secret criminal societies exist in the area around Naples, it had the name of Camora, in what is the heel and the toe of the Italian boot, if you look at a map of Italy. That is the region of Calabria. They had a similar criminal organization very closely akin to the Camora. It had the name of the Honored Society, although the Italian police today will refer to that organization back there in Italy as the Calabrian Mafia today. The word Mafia itself was the name given to criminal societies on the island of Sicily. Some of these people connected with those societies came into the United 387 States. They began to continue their criminal career. It is almost natural that their first victims were their own fellow Italian immi- grants. There's an apocryphal story of the son of one such being accused of that fact, that his father had victimized his own fellow Italian immigrants. His response is said to have been, "Well, of course it had to have been that way. My father didn't know how to say stick um up in English. Who else could he rob? One of the things that played a role, one of the things that played an important role, I believe was the national prohibition era. It called for the expansion in the number of people who would be required to either help import, to manufacture, to distribute and sell so that those Italian immigrants were widely accepted by like criminals who had come from other backgrounds, whether they were Jewish gangs or the Irish gangs that we have established existed back in that time period. In his testimony in 1963, Joseph Valachi told us that at the end of the prohibition era, in the years 1930 and 1931, among the diverse Italian groups, there were differences that resulted in gang wars, but certainly by 1932, they had all joined together in a single Italian segment for organized crime. Therefore, it's technically, perhaps, incorrect to use the word Mafia. Some people hold that that can only be applied to Sicilians. The group has others than Sicilians in it and that is the organization that the FBI has docu- mented is now called La Cosa Nostra. I would like to point out, I have a copy of an affidavit that was sworn to by an FBI man in the courts of Ohio just last year in December of 1977. This affidavit by special agent Michael Kehoe was one of a number that were filed in court proceedings which resulted in convictions for homicide. The sworn document indicates very clearly that that particular organized crime syndicate as still being extant in the area sur- rounding Cleveland, I am sorry to say, Mr. Stokes. There are a series of killings there in a gang war, and he indicates terminology and facts, indicating that what I have been describing to you is still something that is current. I suggest perhaps, Mr. Cornwell, I can make that part of the record. Mr. CORNWELL We have a copy of that marked for identification as JFK exhibit F-553, Mr. Chairman. May we have that entered into the record at this time? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this time. [JFK exhibit F-553 was marked for identification and entered into the record.] 388 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 389 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 390 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 391 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 392 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 393 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 394 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 395 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 396 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 397 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 398 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 399 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 400 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 401 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 402 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 403 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 404 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 405 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 406 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 407 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 408 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 409 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 410 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 411 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 412 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 413 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 414 JFK EXHIBIT F-553 cont. 415 Mr. CORNWELL. Much of what you told us, Mr. Salerno, relates to the prohibition era, which, of course, we may be familiar with from television, Al Capone, Elliot Ness, that sort of thing. You also mentioned the FBI just last year filed an affidavit indicating the existence then of the same phenomenon. However, we are most interested in the 1960's, the early 1960's. What evidence is there during that period that the La Cosa Nostra was a viable entity? Mr. SALERNO. Well, the Apalachin meeting that I mentioned certainly raised some 1,000 questions in the minds of the public, the press, in the minds of the police and in the minds of other Government officials. I think in the 20 years since that occurrence we have answered many of those questions. One of the reactions that took place in Government as a result of the Apalachin meet ing was a reaction within the FBI. At the suggestion of Mr. Clyde Tolson, Director Hoover commissioned their research unit to prepare two monographs, one on the Mafia in Sicily; the second on the Mafia within the United States. Mr. Hoover also caused to be created within the FBI something that came to be known as the top hoodlum program. The first targets were the people at the Apalachin meeting, but it was not restricted to them; it was expanded to include many of their criminal associates. That was an ongoing program in which the various field offices of the FBI throughout the United States were required to assign personnel to keep abreast of these criminals, their activities, of course, with a point of view of possible prosecution, but certainly with an intelligence gathering operation to find out more about them, what they were doing and what could be done about it. Mr. CORNWELL. By 1963, had the FBI reached any conclusions as to the scope of La Cosa Nostra on a national level? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; very definitely. The top hoodlum program in 1961 with the advent of the Kennedy administration under the leadership of Robert Kennedy as the Attorney General, somewhat escalated programs throughout the Department of Justice and in other Federal agencies. In the files of the FBI, you will note that it is at that time period where the top hoodlum program becomes something else, it is then labeled the criminal intelligence program. There is in the file under the date of June 21, 1961, a directive from Mr. Hoover to 10 field offices of the FBI to create special squads where the total assignments of the agents will be to the development of informants, people who can tell them about this particular criminal organization. The FBI had, under its top hoodlum program in 1959, begun the installation of some electronic surveillances. The files of the FBI reflect that on such an electronic surveillance where the target was Sam Giancana in Chicago that he is making some reference back to this Apalachin meeting. He indicates that there is in existence a small control group that establishes policy and makes decisions. The electronic surveillance indicates that he, himself, is a member of that group. He uses the term "the commission," to describe that group. He names a number of other people who have membership in the commission. That caused the opening of a file in the FBI which was initially labeled "The Commission, et al." That is the same file that I have made reference to under its current title La 416 Cosa Nostra file. That file was begun in 1959. So we have some 20 years of evidence gathering, a great deal of escalation, more elec- tronic surveillances in 1961 than there may have been prior to that. Certainly the application of greater resources of manpower are manifest in the files of the FBI. Confidential sources of information in FBI files are labeled by numbers, CH-T-1. CH designates the field office of Chicago. T-1 would be an important and principal source of information in that file in the Chicago area. You can see a great expansion of the T numbers, the number of sources that the FBI is getting informa- tion from in that file expands greatly in 1961. So that by 1963, the FBI has a very complete and a very accurate picture of who is doing what and where. they are doing it. I would suggest to you, and for the consideration of this committee, that the picture that the FBI had and could have in 1963 is greater than that which we probably have today. Mr. CORNWELL. You have caused an exhibit to be made so that you can illustrate the conclusions that the FBI had reached by 1963; is that correct? Mr. SALERNO Yes; I do. Mr. CORNWELL. We have marked that as JFK exhibit F-547B for identification-May we have that displayed and admitted into the record at this time, Mr. Chairman? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [JFK exhibit F-547B was marked for identification and entered into the record.] JFK EXHIBIT F-547B 417 Mr. SALERNO. Mr. Cornwell, could we have the other one the La Stella meeting? Mr. CORNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-550 also admitted into the record at this time? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it will be entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-550 was admitted into the record.] 418 JFK EXHIBIT F-550 Mr. CORNWELL. Perhaps, Mr. Salerno, if you could, would you explain what conclusions the FBI came to by 1963 based upon the 419 extensive program of surveillance, physical, and electronic that you just described? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; this is the map of the United States. The various locations show where the FBI established that organized crime families, which is the term used for the particular subdivisions within this criminal syndicate and representing in themselves criminal. syndicates. The people whose names and photographs appear across the top are the people serving on the control body known as the commission in 1963. Thomas Lucchese in New York City; Joseph Zerilli in Detroit, Raymond Patriarca in Providence; Joseph Bonnano of New York City; Stefano Maggadino of Buffalo; Carlo Gambino of New York City; Sam Giancana of Chicago; Vito Genovese of New York City; and Mr. Trafficante's associate, Angelo Bruno of Philadelphia. The other photos are those of family leaders. You will note Mr. Carlos Marcello here in New Orleans. Mr. Santos Trafficante given as the leader of La Cosa Nostra family in Tampa. I call to your attention the fact. that every one of the areas represented at the Apalachin meeting is an area from whence they came. Mr. Cerrito of San Jose is known to have been at the Apalachin meeting. Mr. Licata's predecessor in Los Angeles, De Simone, was at that meeting. Mr. Colletti of Colorado was at that meeting. Mr. Civella of Kansas City was at that meeting. Mr. Civello of Dallas was at that meeting. Mr. Giardano of St. Louis was at that meeting. Mr. Marcello was not identified as being at that meeting. Later FBI intelligence indicates that he was represented in that instance by his brother whose photograph is on the next exhibit. Mr. Trafficante, using the name of Louis Santos was at that meeting. Mr. Scalish was at that meeting. Mr. La Rocca was at that meeting. Mr. Bufalino was at that meeting. Mr. Colombo's predecessor, dead by 1963, was at that meeting. Mr. Bruno's predecessor, Joseph Ida of Philadelphia was at that meeting, but shortly thereafter he couldn't take the heat and he decided to get out of the kitchen and moved to Italy for permanent residence, therefore, making a seat open and Mr. Bruno succeeded him in that position. Mr. Genovese was at that meeting. Mr. Giancana described his attendance at that meeting; Mr. Gambino was at that meeting; Mr. Maggadino of Buffalo, although that is some distance from Apalachin, N.Y., his sphere of influence reaches there and he was considered to be the host of that particular meeting. Mr. Bonnano was at that meeting. Mr. Patriarca was at that meeting. Mr. Zerilli never got to the meeting. He got as far as Binghamton, N.Y., where the FBI established that he rented an automobile. It was his drivers license that was used, it was his signature that rented the automobile. He probably heard of the aborting of the meeting while en route and did not return to Binghamton but returned the car to a Hertz office in Brooklyn and then went back home. So there is no question that it is this organization that was having a meeting back in 1957, by 1963, that's an established fact that I don't consider debatable. They established that there were families, that this was the ruling body of the commission, that those families that do not have a leader who is on the commission can have their interests represented for them before the commission. 420 The Milwaukee family, Madison Rockford are really considered to be satellites to the Chicago organization. So it is the leader from Chicago who would represent their interests. On the far west coast we know that the southern California family would be represented on the commission through Mr. Lucchese; San Francisco and San Jose represented on the commission by Mr. Bonnano. The FBI's knowledge was very very, very complete. Their establishment of the group, hierarchical structure and methodology was complete. I mentioned the La Stella restaurant. I would like to point out for the committee that the seating arrangement here-there were, of course. no seating cards on that luncheon table--yet, the seating arrangement is formal as it could be if the Chief of Protocol for the State Department had, in fact, put place cards there. Mr. Mike Miranda is at the top--- Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Salem before you tell us about the particular seating arrangement. the committee may not be familiar with the background of that meeting and how it was discovered and the extent it was discovered. Would you just give them a brief background? Mr. SALERNO. I think that meeting was discovered and how it was discovered is a very fine example of good police intelligence work. Mr. Lucchese one of the leaders of one of the five families located in the city of New York had been stricken and taken ill. We were able to learn that the prognosis was very bad for him, that he had an inoperable brain cancer and could not be expected to live more than 3 to 6 months, which turned out to be the case in fact. The assignment given within my unit was "OK, if what we believe is true and he is in fact, the leader of a Cosa Nostra family, what should happen next?"( We felt that we could determine that some people would have to do different things, the people who ordinarily, the very limited number of people who would meet with and report to the family) (leader would now have to report to someone else. So one intelligence target was who will that next person be. And we were able to come up with a very well educated guess which, over a period of years was a sound one. We established that Mr. Carmine Tramunti would be the leader of that family. I might add Mr. Tramunti is now in Federal prison doing a 15-year term for dealing in heroin. The second prognosis that was made, the projection from analysis was that if, as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies had determined, that the methodology is that when one family leader passes on or is no longer the family leader, that the person who will be nominated from within his family group must have the advice and consent of this board before that nomination is, in fact, confirmed, that there would have to be a meeting of top leadership people in La Cosa Nostra. What we did in the New York City Police Department was target several people who would most likely attend such a meeting. One of them was the host here, Mike Miranda. He was at that time one of the troika who was minding the store for Vito Genovese doing time for heroin. We decided to watch Mike. It was while we were in the process of doing that, that we saw him go to this restaurant. We saw Mr. Carlo Gambino arrive with an associate, Joseph Gallo. Fortunately, one of the young officers assigned to 421 that had seen Mr. Trafficante on one occasion and knew him by sight. When he saw an out of town leader he immediately did what all good cops do, you call the boss and find out what you should do. We contacted the prosecutor who indicated that he had a current matter before a grand jury where these people could very well offer some evidence or advice to the deliberations of that grand jury. He instructed us to bring them all in so that they could be made material witnesses, and that was done. I recall that the court fixed the sum of $100,000 bail for each of the 13, and a bail bondsman came in in very short order and posted $1.3 million bail. He was asked to inform the court for the record what collateral, if any, he had obtained and he said that he was out on the limb for $1.3 million on the basis of their promise to pay. Mr. CORNWELL. So after feeling there must have been a meeting coming, you went to the restaurant and you found the individuals inside seated in a pattern that is demonstrated by the exhibit? Mr. SALERNO. Exactly as it is shown here, he is an acting family leader and was the host, so he sits at the top of the table. Those people on his immediate right and left, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Tommy Eboli, Joseph Columbo, Carlo Gambino are family leaders. It would appear those on the next level of hierarchy sit at the other end of the table. This is Anthony Carolla. In all likelihood he is the person who would pick up the check. The bosses never pay when these people get together. It is always the henchmen. This man is the underboss to Carlo Gambino. This man is the counselor to Carlo Gambino. Those peers are sitting together here. This is Anthony Carolla and a complaint that he might have had with Mr. Marcello is one of the best educated guesses as to the reason for the meeting. This gentleman is from New Orleans and this is Mr. Marcello's brother. Dominick Alongi usually drives Tommy Eboli. He is probably here because he is Frank Gagliano's cousin and this is an opportunity for him to reunite. Mr. CORNWELL. You told us what the conclusions were of the FBI by 1963 as to the national configuration of the Cosa Nostra, and you told us that the conclusions appear to you to be very reliable, having been based on physical and electronic surveillance. Would you tell us in more detail what the nature of that electronic surveillance was? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. In the staff work that was done for the committee we know that the electronic surveillance was national in scope. We know that there were electronic surveillances in the State of California. We know that there were electronic surveillances in the Middle West. We know that there were electronic surveillances in New England and a great many in the New York and New Jersey areas, as well as the one that I read to you, which shows coverage of some kind in the State of Florida. The electronic surveillance was national in scope. There is a development of live informants, that program became known as the TE informants--top echelon informants. I have been able to determine from my analysis of the records in which it is indicated that a top echelon informant would be considered to be a person who was in fact himself a member of the organization. So 422 that the FBI was able in a relatively short period of time to "turn around" people, was the professional expression used, and their information was coming from directly within the organization by people who were themselves members. In addition to that, I think we would add that. the FBI maintained liaison with other Federal agencies that had interests in these individuals and the many local police departments, so that there was an accumulation of a great deal of data upon which they could establish their findings. Mr. CORNWELL. With respect to the electronic surveillances, are you aware of any official statement that the Department of Justice or the FBI had made concerning the scope and use of an electronic surveillance during that period? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. I have an excerpt from a submission that was made by the Department of Justice in a legal matter. The case was Black v. The United States, which was being heard by the Supreme Court. At that time, it was indicated in a memorandum filed by the Department of Justice, I am quoting now: Under departmental practice in effect for a period of years prior to 1963, and continuing into 1965, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was given authority. to approve the installation of devices such as that in the question for intelligence and not evidentiary purposes, when required in the interests of internal security, including organized crime kidnappings and matters wherein human life might be at stake. Mr. CORNWELL. You told us about the extent of the surveillance and the conclusions of the FBI, but more specifically, is there direct evidence which was obtained from the surveillance which would specifically confirm the existence of La Cosa Nostra during the time period? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I think what was then a unique occurrence that took place in 1963, enabled us in our research work to see that very clearly. In April of 1963, there was a member of the Carlo Gambino La Cosa Nostra family named Carmine Lombardozzi. His father had passed away, and as was not unusual in those days, law enforcement people were going to cover the wake and the funeral to see what kind of intelligence they might gather from who came, who opened the car door for whom, who jumped up and gave his seat to the other guy, and that type of thing. As the funeral cortege was entering the church for appropriate services, one FBI man, who was present on the scene, with an attache case, that was in fact a camera, was assaulted by two young men, or three young men, who broke from the funeral cortege. The FBI man was assaulted while he lay on the ground with both fists and feet. His weapon was taken from him and the youths joined the group of people walking into the church. There were some negotiations with the pastor of that church and he asked for 10 minutes to look into the matter and he came out with the FBI man's pistol, which was returned to proper authority. That occurrence was rather unique. It seems to be a break in well-established, understood, though never spoken or written rules. The rule seemed to be between law enforcement and people in organized crime that we were all total Professionals and that no 423 feelings were to be personalized. Therefore, law enforcement involved in that field would consider it an abrogation of the rules if some personal animosity were directed at themselves, members of their family, and organized crime expected the same thing. They expected their wives and their children not to be bothered in any way by law enforcement unless they were engaged in criminal activity. That was a detente. It was an understanding which seemed to have been broken. That was a matter of some concern to people in the FBI and other law enforcement people, that were aware of the thing. What followed I think we can get right from the lips of people involved in organized crime. I have three electronic surveillances which will indicate what resulted therefrom, and more important, it will show you a communications network around the United States. That single occurrence and what followed is going to be described to you now from three electronic surveillances, one in Brooklyn, one in the city of Philadelphia, and one as far away as Buffalo. I think this is a good time to put into the record the caveat that in looking at electronic surveillances one must deal with them professionally. You just have to understand that it is human beings talking. Some human beings brag, some human beings will escalate a story in the retelling. You will see that happening here in one instance. So I think there has to be a great deal of care, caution, and responsibility exhibited in reviewing electronic surveillances of this type. The first was from an electronic surveillance pursuant to a court order which was executed by the members of the New York City Police Department in May 1963. The occurrence had taken place in the third week of April. This is within a matter of weeks. The people involved, Peter Ferara, who was a Capo, and the Carlo Gambino LCN family, and Michael Scandifia, who at that time is an acting Capo. MIKE. He was told specifically * * * PETE. To come and see me? MIKE. You're a captain. No, they don't want to come to you. They don't want to come to you to embarrass you with your daughter. PETE. Who did they tell that to? MIKE. They told that to Freddy. PETE. Yeah. MIKE. They don't want to embarrass you. Three of them called. To him. They said, "We don't want to go to Petey Pumps, we don't want to embarrass him with his daughter." PETE. They already did. MIKE. They already went to you * * * er * * * this week * * * this is the bullshit. PETE. Yeah. MIKE. They don't want to give you no * * * in other words, they are telling you they don't want to embarrass you. In other words, they won't go to the convent. Well, I would say, right now, they are giving you the zing. You want us to go to the convent? You want us to embarrass you? Well, then, see that the right thing is done. PETE. Yeah. MIKE. Actually, what it boils down to, they're looking to use a stick. "But now we'll go on midnight raids. We'll do this, we'll do that, we'll do the other thing. You're a Captain. You belong to Carl's Family". PETE. Well, previous to that he hands me Carlo's picture. "You know him?" I said, "Sure I know him". "How long you know him?" "I know him twenty, thirty years". MIKE. They didn't expect you to say nothing. 424 PETE. "Can you tell us anything about him?" "The only thing I could tell you about him is that he is a business man, been in business all his life. Brought up four kids. They had a good education. They're all in business. They all went to college and married a profession. I said, what else could you ask for? He's got a nice family". See what they do * * * they want to get a message through. I mean get a message through someplace. There's no question about it. MIKE. They want to put the heat on you, me. PETE. Yeah. MIKE. Because here's the proof of it. They've gone to every Captain. PETE. Yeah. MIKE. And they call them "Captains". One guy said "Foreman" And the other guy said "Capo Regina". I mean they're going right to each head. To the head of everybody they're going to. But for them to say this, when he told me this, I said "Jimmy, I think he already saw them". PETE. Yeah. MIKE. "I think he already saw them" I said. Now to put the heat on him to go to his daughter, I said, this don't make sense to me. I said, "Where the (obscene) does this come into the picture?" Now they don't want to embarrass you. PETE. What are they going to embarrass me for? What can they do? Go up there? MIKE. Well, God forbid! They can't * * * they can't throw her out. PETE. No. MIKE. They couldn't throw Albert's brother out. How are they going to throw her out? PETE. Nah. They can't throw her out. MIKE. Embarrassment, that your daughter is a nun. I mean, Jesus Christ! it's supposed to be an honor. PETE. They can't do nothing. They won't do nothing. MIKE. Dirty (obscene)! Now that they bring out everything Pete, the Cosa Nostra is a wide open thing. PETE. Yeah. MIKE. It's an open book. PETE. It's an open book. MIKE. Pete, you know as well as I do, familiarity with anything whatsoever breeds contempt. We've had nothing but familiarity with our Cosa Nostra * * * if it brings up sides what the hell are we supposed to do? I only know one thing Pete. The Cosa Nostra is the Cosa Nostra. You just do what the (obscene) bosses tell you! May 20, 1963, and the target of the electronic surveillance by FBI is Angelo Bruno in Philadelphia. He is attending a meeting with Joseph Magliocco, who is at that time trying to take over a family after the death of his brother-in-law, as well as with Sal Profaci, Peter Maggio, and Salvatore Maggio. The two Maggios are related to Angelo Bruno. Bruno describes FBI tactics used on Carlo Gambino, indicates that they named all of his, Gambino's, Capos for him. They named Joe Biondo as the underboss, Joseph Riccobono as family counselor, and they said: These are your amici nostri, you are the Representante, you are the boss. The F.B.I. asked, "Did you change the laws in your Family, that you could hit F.B.I. men, punch and kick them? Well, this is the test, that if you change the laws, and now you are going to hit F.B.I. men, every time we pick up one of your people we are going to break their heads for them". And really they picked up one guy, they almost killed him, the F.B.I. They don't do that, you know. But they picked up one of his fellows and they crippled him. They said, "This is an example. Now, the next time anybody lays a hand on an F.B.I. man, that's just a warning. There is nothing else we have got to tell you. And they went away. On June 3, 1963, in Buffalo, N.Y., Stefano Maggadino is speaking on an FBI electronic surveillance. Present are Stefano Maggadino and several top ranking members of his La Cosa Nostra family. Mr. Maggadino is speaking: 425 They know everybody's name. They know who's Boss. They know who is on the Commission. They know Amici Nostro [the Password, Our Friend]. The FBI said, "What was your caporegime doing here?" "What did he come to tell you?" 11, 12, 13, were massaged [beaten up]. To Carlo Gambino they said "This is your underboss, this is your caporegime, this is your consiglieri. And one of the other persons present says: "They talk as if they belonged." There is an escalation from one person--a Carlo Gambino adherent beaten to 11, 12, and 13. I don't think that is explainable by the passage of time. It was only one I have on somewhat reliable authority. We also have other types of conversations. Frank Nicholetti speaking to Angelo Bruno, December 22, 1962: "It is a wonderful thing, La Cosa Nostra." To give you an inside view of organized crime and its totality and its size. Meyer Lansky and his wife, on May 27, 1962, were watching a TV show in which one of the panelists referred to organized crime as second only in size to the U.S. Government, and Meyer Lansky turns to his wife and says, "It is bigger than United States Steel." I think the best evaluation of the FBI's electronic surveillance program is in a memorandum which was written by Mr. Courtney Evans. At that time Mr. Courtney Evans was in charge of the Special Investigation Division of the FBI which concerned itself directly with organized crime, and Mr. Evans on August 21, 1964, wrote a memorandum to Al Belmont, who was the Associate Director of the FBI, his superior in rank, and who covered in his authority the entire General Investigative Division of the FBI. It reads thus: Milwaukee, Madison, Springfield, Rockford, Kansas City, and St. Louis, are strictly answerable to the leadership of the Chicago family in any major policy decisions or significant problems. Frank Balistrieri of Milwaukee did a favor for Joe Bonnano and this angered Sam Giancana when he learns of it because of the commission's disfavor with Bonnano. We are probably in the unique position of better understanding Giancana's reaction than was Balistrieri. That is actually a fact. Mr. Bonnano at this time was in some difficulty with his peers on the commission. Mr. Balistrieri, though a family leader in Milwaukee, was not aware of everything being discussed and considered by the commission at that time, but the FBI was. So they were actually in a position to literally be able to say they knew more about what was happening within La Cosa Nostra than a family leader in Milwaukee. Mr. Evans goes on to say, "Our recent expansion in the development of intelligence on the existence and activity of La Cosa Nostra in Wisconsin tends to confirm that there is no adequate substitute for," and then the description of an electronic surveillance is deleted--"for the development of accurate information on this underworld phenomenon." We have further descriptions of how La Cosa Nostra works and how the authority within a family discipline is demonstrated in this conversation. Anthony Zerilli, a Capo in Detroit, is speaking to Nick Ditta on December 4, 1963: 426 You are a friend of ours and you belong to my Regime. If I tell you to jump off a 20-story building, you jump off and you jump off any time I tell you to. We have a conversation which describes the hierarchical struc- ture. Again, Anthony Zerilli speaking in Detroit on December 4, 1963. He states that it is the obligation of a friend of ours to go to the caporegime and tell him the reason for this is. The Capo Regima is the confessor and he must be told whether he wants to know or not, because he is the one who decided whether a person should tell or should not tell. According to Zerilli, one of the main requirements of a friend of ours is that he cannot tell a lie to another friend of ours. The informant stated Zerilli had indicated that one of the first things you are taught is that you cannot lie to a friend of ours. September 3, 1964, Stephano Maggadino, family leader in Buffalo, states: But these are secondary things. The commission has nothing to do with it. When the commission takes up a matter the whole of America is involved because we enjoy their full confidence, they have faith in us that we will do things honestly and justly. Mr. CORNWELL. It appears quite evident from what you have just recited that by 1963 the FBI knew, as you put it, perhaps more about the scope and nature of organized crime in this country, through their surveillance program, than many of its members did. They knew the terminology, the positions, who held the positions. When you were retained as a consultant for this committee you were specifically asked to review various portions of that surveillance, and I would like for you to describe how you went about that task. Mr. SALERNO. When I began to work for the committee I sat down with the chief counsel and we designed an approach to the problem. We thought that the time period which should be of concern to us should be from January 1, 1963, through the entire year of 1963 and ending at June 30, 1964. That was an 18-month period. It would be a period for approximately 11 months before the death of the President and for some 8 months following his death. We did expand that briefly in looking at the La Cosa Nostra file for a similar period surrounding the assassination of Dr. King just to see if that was a matter of any interest, concern, or commentary by anyone in organized crime. From the examination of the La Cosa Nostra files and the study of the organization as a whole there were natural leads that took us to the next steps in progression. We obtained for the committee and its staff individual files on principals who came within the scope of the investigation. We looked not only at individual files but for these people that were important to us. We asked the FBI if they had electronic surveillances and they made those available to us. There came a time when in order to meet deadlines and complete the assigned tasks, two persons, Miss Leslie Wizelman, and Mr. Mark Flanagan, were brought into a conference with Professor Blakey and I and we directed and instructed and trained them in what our approach was, what we were looking for and how we were looking for it, and they participated in this with me. 427 In all, we covered more than 300 volumes of electronic surveillances that the FBI made available to us, more than 36 volumes of La Cosa Nostra for the period 1962 to 1964, and another figure which brought it beyond 50 for the period surrounding the death of Dr. King. Mr. CORNWELL. I think it would be helpful, in order for the committee again to get the greatest insight into the possibility of whether men like Trafficante and Marcello would have had the motive or means to assassinate the President, for you to tell us, from the surveillance what the nature of the Cosa Nostra was during the early 1960's, what its objectives were and how it ran its business affairs. Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I put together methodologies employed by organized crime, goals, purposes, methods of achieving them, and this is entirely based upon the material that we obtained from the FBI in its intelligence program. There is a national conspiratorial criminal organization within the United States whose members refer to-as La Cosa Nostra. The organization is made up of groups known to the members as families. The families are headed by a leader who is referred to as a boss or the Italian word capo is used. The families have a second in command, executive officer to the leader, who is referred to as the underboss, and they use the Italian word sottocapo. The families have a position known as counselor, or they use the Italian word consigliere, who is considered to be an adviser and who is available to all of the members of the family. The family has within it subunits, known originally as Decina. That was the name used when the numbers of the subunit was limited to 10 in number. When that no longer became a fixed limit the title was changed to regime. The subunits are headed by a person with a title of caporegime, or the head of the regime. This position is often referred to in the anglicized word captain. The individual members of the family are referred to as members, soldiers, or as a made man or as a button man. The families are governed in matters of import of policy and in matters arising between families by the national commission whose numbers can vary, which is made up of the leaders of the major families. Those families whose leaders do not serve on the commission may have their interests represented by a commission member. Other terms for the organization or its individual families, often used by outsiders, are the Mafia, the organization, the clique, the boys, the office, the arm. There are rules which are known to members, though not written anywhere. They use relatives and friends as couriers. They use relatives and friends as mail drops. They use friends and relatives as message centers. They have elaborate systems of prearranged times and telephone numbers in order to communicate with each other and to thus avoid electronic surveillance. They engage in political activity to an inordinate degree. They make direct political contributions. They engage in fundraising in obtaining contributions from others for political purposes. 428 They will support controlled or friendly candidates. They will help control appointment of positions in government. They will hold elective and appointive positions at all levels of government. They will help relatives achieve elected and/or appointed positions at all levels of government. They will try to influence the outcome of government decisions. They will lobby in favor of legislation they consider in their best interests. They will lobby against legislation they consider not in their best interests. They will engage in dispensing political patronage. They will campaign against candidates considered to be inimical to their best interests. They will assassinate other family leaders in order to replace them. They will employ public relations efforts, such as protesting Italian defamation, when the term Mafia or La Cosa Nostra are ever used. They will make illegal deals with high and lower level labor leaders. They will get finders fees for arranging union loans. They will get percentages for helping someone obtain Government loans. They will operate an intelligence-gathering capability. They will operate a counterintelligence capability. They will analyze the extent of law enforcement knowledge concerning themselves and their activities. They will intimidate or kill informants and witnesses. They will fake illnesses, and once even a kidnapping, in order to avoid legal process. They will utilize bribery as a tactic. They will utilize other forms of corruption. They will engage in blackmail. They will try to influence media stories. They will avoid taking a position within the family if the demands of such will compromise their usefulness to the family and the organization in the underworld. Two examples, John Montana gave up the family leadership in Buffalo to Stephano Maggadino in order to run for political office and he was in fact elected to the city council in that city. Joe Caminici, the Milwaukee underboss, will not run the family if leader Frank Balistrieri goes to jail, so as to not jeopardize his position with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Mr. CORNWELL. Part of the information that you have just described as being derived from the surveillance indicates a hierarchical type of organization, discipline, rules, and regulations. The committee has received evidence that Jack Ruby may have had some contact with people who have been associated with organized crime. Of course, the committee explored one such example in the form of taking testimony from Lewis McWillie. We also, as we noted earlier, heard Santos Trafficante testify that he did not know Jack Ruby or Lee Harvey Oswald. In order to allow the committee to assess with greater precision the relevancy or impact of that kind of evidence, I wonder if you could explain to us in more detail, the nature of the hierarchical design of organized crime. I understand you do have a chart which you can use for that purpose; is that correct? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I do, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. May we have JFK exhibit F-548 admitted into evidence at this time, Mr. Chairman? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-548 was admitted into evidence.] 429 An Organized Crime Family BOSS (Capo) COUNSELOR (Consiglere) UNDERBOSS (Sottocappo) LIEUTENANT LIEUTENANT LIEUTENANT (Caporegime) (Caporegime) (Caporegime) LIEUTENANT LIEUTENANT (Caporegime) (Caporegime) SOLDIERS SOLDIERS SOLDIERS SOLDIERS SOLDIERS (Soldati) (Soldati) (Soldati) (Soldati) (Soldati) NON-MEMBER ASSOCIATES AND FRONTS VIOLENCE AND THREATS CORRUPTION: POLICE LABOR AND GOVERNMENT RACKETEERING OFFICIALS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES LEGITIMATE INDUSTRY (Gambling, Narcotics, (Real Estate, Loansharking) Restaurants) JFK EXHIBIT F-548 Mr. SALERNO. This is an example representative of an organized crime family. The positions that I have named for you are shown. The boss at the very top. The second in command is the underboss or sottocappo. The counselor is not in the direct chain of command. He is an adviser. He is usually an older member. To a large extent, he is an historian. He will base his advice on things that happened in the past, whether they worked out well or not. While he is supposed to advise and be available to any member of the family, the fact of the matter de facto comes out that he is usually a very close friend of the boss and most of the advice he gives is to the boss's advantage rather than anyone else. The next level of command are the lieutenants, captains, and the anglicized word taken from caporegime. Then you have the individual units of soldiers who are governed by a capo. The interesting thing here is that all of the soldiers are not of equal importance, 430 all of the soldiers do not have the same kind of income. It is entirely dependent upon their own abilities to create and to get involved in illegal activity. One soldier may simply have as his income a sinecure. He has a job with a construction company and he couldn't find the offices of the construction company or any building sites, but he gets a check which keeps him. The next soldier in an alphabetical listing might very well be a multimillionaire who would have 20, 40, or 50 people working for him in different operations. So that beyond soldier, it goes out of the family or parallel to the family and they can have associates who are not necessarily of Italian origin. They can be of any race or color or religious affiliation. They will participate in violence and threats in many types of activities, in labor racketeering, to intimidate legitimate industry, they may invest in legitimate industry, they have illegal activities, gambling, narcotics, loan sharking, are always on such a laundry list and there will also be a constant methodology of attempting to corrupt police, prosecutors, any person in government who might be harmful to them or helpful to them if his efforts can be negated. Mr. CORNWELL. What, if any, is the purpose for the layering or number of positions between the boss and the ultimate activities that are affected by organized crime at the bottom of the chart? Mr. SALERNO. Well, this was stated in his testimony by Joseph Valachi and is confirmed by everything that law enforcement people have been able to find. The real main purpose for this hierarchical structure is to protect the boss. All of the responsibility, all of the risk in the activities flows down from the boss and the farther away he can get from the illegal activities that are committed down here, the less likely anyone is to get evidence which can be used in a court of law and convict him of a violation of law. So the responsibility and the risk is all down here at this end of the chart and most of the money flows upward toward that end of the chart. It is a form of protection, and insulation of the people on the higher level. Mr. CORNWELL. With that being the case, what would you assess as the significance of the testimony then from Santos Trafficante that he did not know Jack Ruby if the committee wishes to explore the issue of whether there could be any connection between Ruby's activities and Trafficante? Mr. SALERNO. That could be a truthful statement without it having any particular significance. It is quite possible for a leader of a family, such as Mr. Trafficante is, to have people engaging way down here in some illegal activity, the two never having met, the two not even being aware of the other's existence or names. Mr. CORNWELL. Similarly, let me ask you what, if any, significance might be derived from the evidence, if it is to be believed, that the contact between a person such as McWillie and Trafficante was not close or intimate? Mr. SALERNO. I think I would give the same answer that it is not necessary for someone up at this end of the chart to be personally acquainted with a nonmember associate in order to have that person discharging the wishes of the man at the top of the chart. That can be handled through intermediaries. 431 Mr. CORNWELL. What, if any, fact would you expect with respect to the knowledge of a person, such as McWillie, or anyone else that might be similarly situated, with respect to Trafficante? How much knowledge would you expect that type of individual to have? Mr. SALERNO. I would say in view of the testimony that I have heard, that Mr. McWillie was engaged in the casino gambling industry in Havana as a manager and that Mr. Trafficante was an entrepreneur in three or four such establishments, they are in the same field, I am certain that they would know each other. Mr. CORNWELL. With La Cosa Nostra, would you expect that all of the positions in that chart would be occupied by Italians? Mr. SALERNO. The positions within the family; yes. But in an enterprise or in a venture, they would not be restricted to working with other Italians who are members of that family. They might be working with anyone from any kind of national background or religious affiliation. Mr. CORNWELL. The bottom portion of the chart reflects that the organization crime family you have been describing will use violence and threats. Will you tell us in more detail what in your experience, the nature of such violence and threats consist of? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; there is such a thing as a typical or representative gangland homicide. I would like to point out that killing someone is an ultimate weapon that is used by organized crime. If it is possible to achieve that which they seek to achieve with a warning, with a threat, with a slap in the face, with some lesser violence, they will utilize that. Violence is restricted. Peter Ferraro, that was mentioned earlier in my testimony, one time on electronic surveillance, felt that America should take note of the fact that if it wasn't for us, these are his words, "If it weren't for us, there could have been 20 Chicagos." He is talking about, apparently, the St. Valentine's Day homicide--seven people killed all at one time. The fact of the matter is, and I put this in my paper for the President's Commission on Violence, that as crime got better organized, gang wars certainly diminished. I would think that homicides in toto probably were less following the prohibition era than the were during the prohibition era. However, the definition of the President's Commission on Violence also included fear, and I think that the fear of organized crime has been on a constant increase in the United States for the last. 50 years, and you can see that fear, as against the actual violence of homicide, working against each other. If the fear is sufficient to achieve their goals, you don't find that many homicides. It is when the fear will not work that the homicide will be engaged in. Now, with regard to organized crime murders, I am sure, one logical question is, how do you know so much about organized crime murders? How does the FBI know so much about organized crime murders? Well, we know a great deal about them in many, many ways. For example, one way in which we have learned about organized crime killings are from the killers themselves, people who have confessed their participation and are even going beyond that and willing to testify against others who were involved. Abe Relis, in "Murder, Inc.," described a number of murders committed in and around the 432 city of New York and at least one in the city of Los Angeles. Joseph Valachi, in his long recitation before a congressional committee, included the details of a number of murders. Joseph Luferelli in New York City confessed the details of his own participation in the murder of Joey Gallo. We have the court testimony of Joseph Barboza regarding homicides that he committed and the evidence was given against Raymond Patriarca and others in New England. The FBI affidavit that I mentioned in a Cleveland case was substantiated in great part by the confession of one Raymond Ferito of Erie, Pa., who was brought into Cleveland to participate in a bombing, and he implicated others, including James Fratiano who himself is now in the care, custody, and control of the Federal Government while he is divulging a great deal of his knowledge about organized crime, including a number of homicides. We had a man named Harold Koenigsberg who told the FBI about a great number of murders that he had been involved in and even drove with them to a chicken farm in New Jersey where he buried the bodies. And several bodies were disinterred and identifled. We have a case in Kansas City where four young men were hired to do a contract hit and they confessed their guilt and implicated the others who were involved. So we have a great deal of knowledge about killings and right from the lips of the killer. We also, through electronic surveillance, have been able to hear the confessions, if you will. It seems that people who might be planning at this moment to do a homicide, while they are waiting for their opportunity, will engage in reminiscences of the past in which they discuss other homicides. The FBI got one exactly like that in the city of Miami from an electronic surveillance put in on Jackie Cerone, David Yaris, and other Chicago hit men who were planning a murder down there but began to discuss a homicide that they had committed back in the city of Chicago. Exactly the same type of thing has happened on an electronic surveillance in New Jersey on Angelo "Gyp" DeCarlo which was put into a court record and is now in the public domain. Peter Ferraro, once again, was planning one homicide and while discussing that went into a recital of past jobs they had done. There are many examples of that. Mr. CORNWELL. From such sources of information, would you simply tell us the basic characteristics of organized crime's use of violence and very briefly illustrate that with a few examples. Mr. SALERNO. Well, an organized crime hit is used for a number of reasons. It may be used to maintain internal discipline and loyalty to the leadership within the group. It may be use to limit evidence gathering possibilities through the intimidation of informers, witnesses, and victims of their crimes. It may be used to influence the outcome of a criminal justice matter, if they can induce fear in a witness, in the jurors, in court officers, in the police, or prosecutors. Homicides will be used in guaranteeing the success of some illegal operations. Gambling; gambling is an illegal business engaged in by organized crime where a great deal of credit is extended. That business could not exist unless debtors knew that they were expected to pay. Loan sharking is based entirely upon "your body is the collateral," 433 as one loan shark put it. Extortion, labor racketeering are also conditioned upon fear. These are the characteristics that will be found in a representative gangland homicide. No. 1, it must have approval and authorization of people of some rank. Now, such a person is faced with something of a dilemma. I think he enjoys the power that is thus vested in him, the power of life and death, if you will, but he does appreciate that in legal terms he will be just as guilty as the actual killers, and thus, when he approves of the issuance of what is known as a contract to kill, he will very probably be seeking to limit the vulnerability that he might feel and, therefore, he will most likely limit his role to giving that authorization to one close trusted person. We have come to call that person the expediter. He is responsible for seeing to it that the murder is accomplished, and he is given the widest latitudes in how this is done. No. 1, he could do it himself if he elected to. He could recruit others and he could join with the others in accomplishing the desired act. Although the expediter has the option of doing it himself, and that would limit the conspiracy to just two persons, the authorizer and the expediter, this is the least likely possibility that he would follow. He is not entirely impervious to the fact that layers of insulation can be used as a valid form of protection against direct evidence. The most likely thing is that he will pass the contract on to others. He cannot divest himself of the responsibility for the ultimate success or failure. He may subcontract the matter out to a subexpediter to carry it still further or he may directly recruit the "hit" team himself. Now, you have the hit men, these are the actual killers. They will be recruited, if possible, from felons who have demonstrated some successful ability in the past. Within the archives of organized crime, doing a successful hit was always considered to be a way of "earning your bones." And that's an expression that means you will be welcomed into membership in the criminal organization or, if you are already involved, you earn a position of trust from a grateful leadership. Persons who will be doing their first hit will more than likely be part of the team where there are some more experienced members. The method that is employed may vary although the most popular is murder by gunshot fire from handguns. In recent years. it has been noted by people who professionally deal with organized crime, that a new type of handgun seems to have come into popular and frequent use and that is a .22-caliber pistol with a silencer. There has been some speculation that maybe a single hit team that likes .22-caliber pistols was being widely employed throughout the country. My own opinion is that gangland killers have simply learned what other assassins have known for a long time. And that is, that if you get close enough, a .22-caliber pistol will kill just as effectively as a shotgun and a magnum and it is much quieter about doing it. In addition to handguns, there are sometimes variances you will find dependent upon individual tastes, local customs are perhaps dictated by special circumstances. Killers in Chicago have traditionally favored the use of a shotgun. Youngstown, Ohio, in the past, and Cleveland in the mid-1970's, utilized dynamite and other 434 explosives. Rifles have been employed when conditions made it difficult to get close to the victim. This is often the case during a gang war. Knives, ice picks, strangulation by garroting have also been employed. Then in addition to the weaponry that is used, you will find that there is usually more that one executioner; most likely two. If they are using handguns, they will decide whether they are going to act simultaneously in their gunshot fire or one may be the covering backup man for the other, and after reviewing hundreds of these cases, the record shows very clearly that the imported, out-of-town killers is overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think that we might want to break for lunch and come back and continue at a later point. Chairman STOKES. The committee at this time will stand in recess until 1:30 this afternoon. [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.] AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. Counsel, Mr. Cornwell, may proceed. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Salerno, prior to the lunch break you had described for us what the FBI had learned through their program of physical and electronic surveillance in the early sixties, and the broad outlines of La Cosa Nostra in this country as it existed during that period of time, together with a description of the way it operated, its discipline, its hierarchical structure, and its use of violence, and the means that it used to carry out such violence. Let me direct your attention at this time to the question of motive. If the organization was such that it could have carried out an assassination, did it, nevertheless, have the motive to do so in 1963? Mr. SALERNO. Yes sir. We have obtained some data in which we can actually quantify that and I can show it to you with the help of an exhibit I made. Mr. CORNWELL. At this time, Mr. Chairman, may we have admitted into the record two exhibits which have been marked for identification as JFK F-551 and F-552. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-551 and F-552 follow:] 435 Organized Crime Indictments and Convictions JFK EXHIBIT F-551 Organized Crime Program JFK EXHIBIT F-552 Mr. SALERNO-In addition, sir, what is shown on these charts, the intelligence gathering confirms their reactions to what is demonstrated here. You see the chart is just about self explanatory. The first one indicates organized crime indictments and conviction, and with the advent of the Kennedy administration there is an almost, constant rise up through 1963. 436 The charts here are the Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice. This relates to the number of attorneys in the Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice, the number of days they spent in field work, the number of days before grand juries in the presentation of evidence, and the number of days in court and legal litigation. Mr. CORNWELL. You have told us that the electronic surveillance confirms this. Very briefly, would you summarize for us, if you can, what was learned from that surveillance about just how bad the Kennedy administration's organized crime program was hurting La Cosa Nostra during these years? Mr. SALERNO. It manifests itself in the strongest language against President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. I would describe it as being antagonistic and very unhappy with the President of the United States. With regard to the Attorney General, it is bare hatred. Mr. CORNWELL. The prosecution, the pressure, was disrupting their operations, was it? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, to a considerable degree. I will give you just a few examples. Electronic I surveillance in casinos in Nevada. Four casinos had been skimming. One casino $700,000 per year. The others were averaging well beyond $1 million per year skimmed out, not declared for tax purposes, either to the Federal government or to the State of Nevada. That was realized to be in jeopardy when they discovered some electronic surveillance in the accounting offices of those casinos. To give it very briefly, Mr. Cornwell, the end of an era had come and they recognized it. If you were an organized crime leader of an organization that many people did not believe existed, very few priorities were being directed toward you, if your activities criminally stayed close to what people call victimless crimes, you had almost the perfect crime accomplished. You are the leader of a group that no one believes exists and you are making millions of dollars from operations that not too many people complain about. That was coming to an end. So a tremendous financial empire was being very seriously threatened. Mr. CORNWELL. You mentioned that you had a number of specific instances where this phenomenon was discussed over the electronic surveillances. Mr. Chairman, we have marked those, or some of those examples for JFK exhibits F-604 to F-618, F-620 to F-622, and F-625 to F-643. May we have those admitted into the record? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-604 to F-618, F-620 to F-622, and F-625 to F-643 follow:] 437 JFK EXHIBIT F-604 F.B.I. electronic surveillance of Sam Giancana, in discussion with Gus Alex and Edward D. Vogel, two associates. January 31, 1962. Conversation indicates that the Chicago syndicate, insofar as is gambling activities are concerned, for all practical purposes has come to an end. primarily from the intense pressure placed upon the organization by the "G", meaning the Federal government. This fact, coupled with the fact that the state and local police have been forced to move against the syndicate, has brought Giancana et al. to the realization that for the time being "everyone is on his own", meaning that they will no longer receive support from the organization nor can anyone expect influence to be brought to bear on their behalf. JFK EXHIBIT F-605 La Cosa Nostra File January, 1962 Sam Giancana and John D'Arco, (Sam's political henchman), discuss the fact that Mayor Daley wants to put a former F.B.I. man named Spencer in as a candidate for Sheriff of Cook County on the Democratic ticket against Ogilvie, the Republican candidate. Giancana: (of Spencer) He's like Kennedy, he'll get what he wants out of you, but you won't get anything out of him. Tells D'Arco that it may have been a tactical error for him to have let his antipathy toward spencer made known. D'Arco: I had to Moe, I was desperate. You told me to get the guy out. You gave me a (obscene) order. Giancana: Well, the Mayor ..... D'Arco: Well, this guy (Daley) is the Almighty. As powerful as you are with us, he's as powerful with them. You say, 'Do this'! What the (obscene), we don't even ask 'Why?' we just do it, right? It's the same thing with him (Daley). When you gave me that order to get him off, I got desperate. Giancana: Well, it's happened, so there's nothing you can do about it. Well, as far as the city is concerned we're out, and as far as the county is concerned, we're out, so it looks like we'll just have to go into Indiana and run this thing from Hammond. We'll put up whorehouses and everything else. 438 JFK EXHIBIT F-606 Feb. 27, 1962 Frank Ferraro and Hy Godfrey, two members of the Chicago criminal organization, discuss Special Agent August Kempff and another F.B.I. man who are giving them a hard time in the Top Hood Program and the Criminal Intelligence Program. Ralph Pierce (a high-ranking member of the Chicago criminal organization) "is closed down and he is going to be closed down from now on". JFK EXHIBIT F-607 Jan. 15, 1963. Airtel from SAC Chicago to The Director. Chuck English bemoans the fact that the Federal government is closing in on the organization and apparently nothing can be done about it. Makes various and sundry inflammatory remarks about the Kennedy administration. JFK EXHIBIT F-608 F.B.I. La Cosa Nostra Summary, January 31, 1963. Permission is being sought for retaliation against Federal investigators, newspersons and politicians who expose La Cosa Nostra. 439 JFK EXHIBIT F-609 N.Y.C. Police Department Intelligence Bulletin #10 June 7, 1963 An analysis of police intelligence work. A conversation between 2 Brooklyn hoodlums. They curse the police. "They know a lot...they know everything. They put everything together, lots of things. Where we take it for granted it don't mean nothing. "These people (the police) have been gathering and gathering. They go here! They go there: See, before it was a different story. If you had the locals, they knew the information, but they kept it for themselves. Today, they are all working together. We got a big problem. "These people are united. Everything they collect, they concentrate. And now everything goes into one office. Before, every squad kept the information for themselves. You take this cop on the corner, you've been paying him for 20 years, maybe. They get the information. Someone comes in from New York and asks if he knows so and so. 'Oh, he's a bookmaker'. And you've been paying him for 20 years!!! That's the condition you got today". JFK EXHIBIT F-610 Buffalo Div. Elsur on Stefano Magaddino June 11, 1963. He is talking to an underling from Syracuse, Anthony deStefano. "You see, the Cosa Nostra. The other day they made me become frightened. They know our business better than us. They know the heads of the families, the Capodecina, the F.B.I. does. "Therefore, that's why, the other day, I say, 'Be careful before you open your mouth'. "Because sometime somebody could be a spy (law officer) and you might think he is an amici nostro (a friend of ours and a member)." 440 JFK EXHIBIT F-611 Airtel August 7, 1963 Gus Alex, a Giancana henchman in Chicago, states that the F.B.I. has been following Giancana everywhere he went, even on a golf course. Alex stated that no one can contact Giancana because of the F.B.I. surveillance. JFK EXHIBIT F-612 La Cosa Nostra File August 8, 1963 Joe "Beck" DiPalermo asked Vito Genovese for permission to retaliate against Federal narcotic agents that he claimed were framing members. Vito said something would be done about it. JFK EXHIBIT F-613 La Cosa Nostra File October 15, 1963 Buddy Jacobson and Pat Marcy, political front men for Sam Giancana. Jacobson stated that he had never seen conditions so bad as they are in Chicago at this time. Jacobson states that Paul Ricca (former leader of the Chicago criminal organization) advised him that the organization must be patient and wait for the pressure to lift. Jacobson tells Marcy he has never seen a time when they had so little going for them. 441 JFK EXHIBIT F-614 F.B.I. electronic surveillance in the residence of Charles Costello in Florida. Costello is a relative and associate of Angelo Bruno, L.C.N. leader in Philadelphia, Penna. Bruno is a frequent winter visitor to this residence. Oct. 24, 1963 Madeline (Mrs. Charles) Costello in conversation with Unidentified .Male. Madeline: "I won't talk in this house, that's the way things are, alright? I want to talk, I'll take a walk outside. You know there's got to be something in this house". Continues, saying the house is vacant so much there is ample time and opportunity for installation of a "mike". She has expressed similar thoughts in the past. Madeline: "I'll tell you the things they are doing to that man (Angelo Bruno) are awful, just terrible .... " U.M. "They are crucifying him." JFK EXHIBIT F-615 1963 Elsur on Santo Trafficante in a Miami restaurant. Trafficante: "Let me tell you this. This is what happens to me. Now, I don't give a (obscene) about the S. & G. I know when I'm beat, you understand? "I got a numbers office in Orlando. They grab everybody, forty or fifty people. Forty or fifty thousand in bond. They have no evidence, but when they get through it costs thousands. "I got another office in St. Cloud, Florida. You can't even find St. Cloud on the (obscene) map, but the (obscene) 'G' found it. "Kennedy's right-hand man, he goes through the (obscene) nigger town. Must have been 2,000 niggers, and makes a (obscene) big raid over there. "Just a start, any (obscene) place that they found a phone connection in there from Tampa......." 442 JFK EXHIBIT F-616 Miami, Fla. 1963 F.B.I. electronic surveillance on Johnny "Dee" Palmisano in Florida. He is in conversation with an associate, Ralph Petillo, discussing the F.B.I. and Attorney General's fight against organized crime. Johnny Dee says that Hoover is not heard of anymore because of the Kennedys. JFK EXHIBIT F-617 F.B.I. La Cosa Nostra File 1963. Angelo Bruno expected an I.R.S. indictment and was prepared to leave the country to live in Italy. He also recommended to Gerry Catena (of New Jersey) that he prepare to depart. Gerry said it would be very difficult for him to do so because of his family. 443 JFK EXHIBIT F-618 2. On February 8, 1962, Angelo Bruno and Willie Weisburg discussed the Kennedys. Angelo Bruno at that time was the leader of organized crime in the city of Philadelphia. Bruno was also a member of the Commission. Weisburg is a business associate of Bruno's. Weisburg is complaining about the FBI and the Kennedys. Weisburg: See what Kennedy done. With Kennedy, a guy should take a knife, like one of them other guys, and stab and kill the (obscenity), where he is now. Somebody should kill the (obscenity). I mean it. This is true. Honest to God. It's about time to go. But I tell you something. I hope I get a week's notice. I'll kill. Right in the (obscenity) in the White House. Somebody's got to get rid of this (obscenity). Bruno responds to Weisburg's statements with the following story: "Look, Willie, do you see there was a King, do you understand- And he found out that everybody was saying that he was a bad king. This is an old Italian story. So, there was an old wise woman about 140 years old. So, he figured. Let me go talk to the old wise woman. She knows everything. So he went to the old wise woman. So he says to her. I came here because I want your opinion. He says, do you think I'm a bad king. She says, no, I think you are a good king. He says, well how come everybody says I'm a bad king? She says because they are stupid. They don't know. He says, well how come, why do you say I'm a good king. Well, she said, I knew your great grandfather. He was a bad king. I knew your grandfather- He was worse. I knew your father. He was worse than them. You, you are worse than all of them, but your son, if you die, your son is going to be worse than you. So it's better to be with you. (All laugh) So Brownell (former Attorney General) was bad. He was no (obscenity) good. He was this and that. Weisburg: Do you know what this man is going to do? He ain't going to leave nobody alone. Bruno: I know he ain't. But you see, everybody in there was bad. The other guy was good because the other guy was worse. Do you understand? Brownell came. He was no good. He was worse than the guy before. Weisburg: Not like this one. --continued-- 444 JFK EXHIBIT F-618 cont. Page 2 Bruno: Not like this one. This one is worse. Right? If something happens to this guy. (Laughs) Weisburg: Let me tell you something. The FBI always hated the IR. Always. The IR never checked with the Treasury men. They went separate ways. They wouldn't give each other information. They wanted the credit themselves. He made it with local authorities. He made it ring-around- the rosy, pal. Bruno: Oh, yeah. This guy is an accountant, see. So, now, he had to do something worse. So what? He started to think, what can I do more than the other guy. The other guy made the anti-racketeering law, gambling laws, he did this and he did that. What can I do. He says, I know what I can do. Anybody that has a record that is police property, when he gets pinched, no bail. (Bruno then compares the Italian process of not allowing bail and incarcerating individuals until proven innocent.) Weisburg: It's still America, though. Bruno: So, it's still America. They are trying to pass a Federal law that you can't take the Fifth (amendment). When they grant you immunity you can't take the Fifth. Weisburg: They are not going to pass that law. Bruno: But they might. 445 JFK EXHIBIT F-620 4. On February 17, 1962, the following conversation was held between Angelo Bruno, previously identified as a. Commission member and leader of the Philadelphia family, and Mario -Maggio, and Peter Maggio. The latter two individuals are in-laws and associates of Bruno's. Maggio: ...Kennedy is going to leave, they are going to make him a special assistant (to the President) out of him. They want him out of the way, he is too much, he is starting to hurt too many people, like unions. He is not only hurting the racket guys, but others, anti-trust...I think that he is going to leave. But the only reason he won't leave, which I heard before, you see he wants Edgar Hoover out of that. Bruno: Edgar Hoover. Maggio: He wants Edgar Hoover out of the FBI-because he is a fairy, you know he is a fairy, I heard this before... Bruno: Who? Maggio: Edgar Hoover is a fairy... Bruno: Who would ever listen to that bullshit... Maggio: Listen to this. Edgar Hoover is not married and neither is his assistant, read back in his history... Bruno: His assistant? Maggio: I heard a story about Kennedy being a fairy... Maggio then relates a story about a Boston newspaper talking about Kennedy going to a party dressed as a girl and concludes, "I can't see Kennedy getting out of this job, I told Paul. They are going to make this a family affair and he wants to be President." JFK EXHIBIT F-621 5. On April 22, 1962 a memorandum from the Director of the FBI to the Attorney General states that Mr. Celano and Ralph Pierce referred to Robert Kennedy as "vicious" for ordering the Illinois Bell Telephone Company to cut off telephone service to Illinois Sport News. Both of these individuals are top echelon associates of Sam Giancana. 446 JFK EXHIBIT F-622 6. On May 2, 1962 two New York LCN members, Sal Profaci and Michelino Clements, and a third unidentified individual named Bob, had the following conversation: Clemente: "Bob Kennedy won't stop today until he puts us all in Jail all over the country. Until the Commission meets and puts its foot down, things will be at a standstill. When we meet, we all got to shake hands, and sit down and talk, and, if there is any trouble with a particular regime, it's got to be kept secret, and only the heads are to know about it, otherwise some broad finds out, and finally the newspapers." Later in the conversation, Clemente states that things are not like they were years ago, when the Commission would meet once a month, and there were no cops around to spy on them. Clemente stated that today, in order to have a meeting, you have to tell each one individually about the meeting, without letting them know who else will be present, or what the meeting is going to be about, so that there will be no chance of any information leaking out. JFK EXHIBIT F-625 October 23, 1962 Pat Marcy, John D'Arco and Congressman Roland Libonati Libonati gave them a Cuba-China-India war briefing. Indicates he doesn't even know who is running against him because any opposition is laughable. "Last time, you guys built me up to 98,000 votes and the other guy got 23,000. Who ran against me last time?" His Republican opponent in the current election will be Joseph D. Day. Libonati on Robert F. Kennedy: "I killed six of his bills. That wiretapping bill, the intimidating informers bill .... " Libonati thinks that John Kennedy is a sweetheart, but Robert F. Kennedy is cruel. Libonati describes how he opposed a Robert Kennedy bill and then got a call from Mayor Daley. Libonati told John F. Kennedy to stop Robert Kennedy from calling Daley on such matters. Bobby said on TV that his brother wants him to stay out of politics because he is the Attorney General. Libonati takes credit for this, saying, "That was me." 447 JFK EXHIBIT F-626 13. On January 17, 1963, Raymond Patriarca, Gennaro Angiulo and Peter Liraone had a conversation regarding Robert Kennedy. Patriarca is the Boston LCN leader and a Commission member. The following is a summary of his statement. Raymond states that things are not too good as long as Attorney General Kennedy is in Washington, D.C. Relates an argument he had with Robert Kennedy when called before a Congressional committee three or four years ago. JFK EXHIBIT F-627 14. On February 28, 1963 Sam Giancana stated, referring to the outcome of a recent local election: "That will teach that little (obscenity) Kennedy, who runs Chicago." JFK EXHIBIT F-628 Chicago Div. FBI Elsur October 14, 1963 Sam Giancana, Charles "Chuck" English, Tony Accardo and Butch Blasi are present. They discuss Robert Kennedy not being available for a Columbus Day Parade, but coming to Chicago on October 13th for a B'nai B'rith affair. The Jews downtown were beaming. Discuss the Bobby Baker scandal. He just resigned his job; they didn't do anything to him. He must have come out with a ton of money. Discuss Police Superintendent O.W. Wilson's chart (presented before the McClellan Committee at the Valachi Hearings) "On top he had an Italian organization."' Joe Glimco (an associate) appeared on CITY DESK a Sunday media talk show and said that if they checked out Police Superintendent O.W. Wilson as thoroughly as they have checked Glimco, Wilson would be in jail, and Bobby Kennedy too!! Chuck English speaks of the possibility of the Teamsters Union going back into the AFL. It would hurt Kennedy if they were to take Hoffa back. They discuss golf. Someone asks if Bobby Kennedy plays golf, they know that John Kennedy does. Suggest putting a bomb in his golf bag. (They all laugh.) 448 JFK EXHIBIT F-629 F.B.I. electronic surveillance of Stefano Magaddino May 23, 1963. Magaddino: "We are in a bad situation in Cosa Nostra. When Profaci died, the Borgata broke up" "They know everything under the sun. They know who's back of it, they know Amici, they know Capodecina, they know there is a Commission. We got to watch right now, this thing, where it goes and stay as quiet as possible". Magaddino expresses a bitter hate for Attorney General Robert Kennedy. JFK EXHIBIT F-630 F.B.I. Buffalo Division Elsur on Stefano Magaddino. October 31, 1963. Peter A. Magaddino during a discussion of President Kennedy states, "He should drop dead." Stefano Maggadino adds, "They should kill the whole family, the mother and father too"'.' "When he talks he talks like a mad dog, he says, 'My brother the Attorney General' Why he never won a case. He never tried a case". This comment is followed by many obscenities by Stefano Magaddino. JFK EXHIBIT F-631 May 22, 1963 F.B.I. interoffice memo from Courtney Evans to Al Belmont discussing the Saturday Evening Post article on Joseph Valachi that is being written by Peter Maas. "The foregoing clearly indicates that the Department is motivated strictly by political considerations. While they have apparently yielded to our view that Valachi should not be interviewed by the magazine writer, they are, nevertheless, exploiting this whole situation for their own benefit. "Under the circumstances, we should not get involved, but you will be advised of any further information we can develop as to Departmental action." Handwritten: "I concur. I never saw so much skulduggery, the sanctity of Department files, including Bureau reports is a thing of the past." "H" (for Hoover) 449 JFK EXHIBIT F-632 F.B.I. Elsur on James Lanza, leader of the L.C.N. Family in San Francisco. August 12, 1963. Lanza is in discussion with an associate Vito Bruno. V.B.:- Talks about reading of Cosa Nostra in the paper. Lanza: Yeah, this guy Joe Valachi is the guy who is telling about it. V.B.:--- Cosa Nostra. Cosa Nostra. Lanza: This guy is in jail. Vito Genovese is in jail too. This guy gave information to the federals. He attacked a man with a rock and killed him, and the prison officials didn't know why he killed him. Anyway, this guy thought the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra had sent the guy in to kill him. This thing has come out now in the papers but he has been telling about it for the past year. V.B. They know everything. Lanza: Yeah. JFK EXHIBIT F-633 Buffalo Div. Elsur on Stefano Magaddino Sept. 17, 1963 After a lengthy discussion about Joseph Valachi, Magaddino states, "we passed laws that this guy has got to die". JFK EXHIBIT F-634 F.B.I. Elsur in the Pittsburg area. Sept. 27, 1963 Advised that John Sebastian LaRocca's remaining in the Pittsburg area during the months of October and November, 1963 will be contingent on the testimony of Joseph Valachi. If his testimony should "hit closer to home", La Rocca would take a short vacation at his Bel Aire, Florida residence. La Rocca is extremely annoyed about Valachi's testimony and will not allow it to be discussed in his presence. He claims, "Valachi hasn't done a decent thing since he was born, and never did a good thing in his life." La Rocca departs for Florida on Oct. 10, 1963. 450 JFK EXHIBIT F-635 N.Y.C. Police Dept. Elsur on John Masiello (Masiello has since been convicted of defrauding the U.S. government when he was a contractor to deliver the U.S. mail. He later testified against Congressman Frank Brasco when that worthy was convicted of accepting bribes from Masiello). Sept. 27, 1963. John Masiello and his close associate Anthony "Hickey" DiLorenzo are talking about Joseph Valachi's testimony. Masiello is upset because Valachi mentioned the secret code. DiLorenzo believes Valachi is going to scramble up a lot of people because he is speaking so freely. Says that Steve Buffalo, one of the names mentioned, is a friend of theirs. Masiello: He is going to make it hot for everybody. DiLorenzo: They (Law enforcement) are going to harass people and are definitely going to try to pass that wire tapping law. If they ever get that law passed, forget about it. They probably have miles of tape that they put together. They'll say well, this is what we got, then they'll start indicting guys. Masiello: It isn't a free country anymore. Oct. 4, 1963 Al Chieco asks John Masiello if he is going to be sucked into this Valachi testimony, and if he knew Valachi. Masiello states he knew Valachi but will not be sucked into anything. Chieco suggests Valachi should have been killed years ago, for having an affair with his sister-in-law Masiello says it is bad enough he mentions all those names but he should not have mentioned how a guy is made, how a guy is proposed, because those are things you die with. They both hope that Valachi cracks up because then everything can be charged off to his insanity. 451 JFK EXHIBIT F-636 Buffalo Elsur on Stefano Maggadino Sept. 28, 1963 Stefano Magaddino, Peter A. Magaddino and Sam Rangatore. They are discussing newspaper coverage of Joseph Valachi's testimony. Magaddino is concerned over the fact that some time in the past he had told Valachi about a murder that he, Magaddino, had committed. The Participants in the conversation characterize Valachi's testimony as "fairy tales". Magaddino says that Vito Genovese should have killed Valachi. JFK EXHIBIT F-637 Oct. 1, 1963. Listening to Joseph Valachi's testimony on T.V. F.B.I. Florida Elsur in restaurant operated by Vincent James Palmisano, alias Jimmy Dee. Palmisano states facetiously that they should go to the Army-Navy store and buy up all the Italian and American flags they can find and put them around the restaurant to counteract slurs on Italians. Discuss the present administration, saying it is setting up a Nazi type government, seizing control of television and radio stations. Discuss Sam Giancana's association with Frank Sinatra. Palmisano: "Robert F. Kennedy will never get ALL the bookmakers. Valachi is living like a king, he has his own army. They are probably furnishing him his own woman". Oct. 7, 1963 Jimmy Dee says, "There's going to be a lot of killings as a result of this-hearing". 452 JFK EXHIBIT F-638 F.B.I. La Cosa Nostra File. October 9, 1963 Sam Giancana (LCN leader in Chicago) is extremely apprehensive of being subpoenaed before the McClellan Committee hearings on organized crime. October 16, 1963 Sam Giancana has issued instructions to all political associates to discontinue their practice of attending weddings and funerals of hoodlum families. JFK EXHIBIT F-639 Teletype from Chicago Div. F.B.I. to The Director Oct. 10, 1963. Giancana and Charles "Chuck" English discuss Joseph Valachi's testimony. They agree that he is unable to hurt the Chicago organization, but feel that he is doing a great deal of harm to New York mobsters. English's biggest fear is that the government will be able to capitalize on this type of situation in the future by obtaining other informants, by showing that they went along with Valachi and did not hold him accountable for his own crimes. JFK EXHIBIT F-640 La Cosa Nostra File, F.B.I. October 25, 1963. Joseph Zerilli has ordered all Detroit Italian Syndicate numbers operations closed and as of December 13, they are still closed. This order came as a result of the Valachi Hearings testimony and an I.R.S. raid in Toledo, Ohio. 453 JFK EXHIBIT F-641 Autumn, 1963. S.F. T-1 (who is a "live" informant of the San Francisco Division of the F.B.I. indicates: There will be a change in the initiation ceremony of La Cosa Nostra as a result of Valachi"s testimony and the publicity concerning it. JFK EXHIBIT F-642 March 2, 1964 Director John Edgar Hoover speaks on the telephone to Senator John McClellan. Tells him that the Valachi Hearings, "shook them all up". Senator McCellan suggests that Mr. Hoover write him a letter to that effect. March 6, 1964. Letter from Director Hoover to Senator McClellan states in part:- "In pursuing this purpose your committee has placed on the record information concerning conditions most citizens did not realize existed. There is no doubt that attention across the Nation was focused on Joseph Valachi's testimony regarding La Cosa Nostra as well as on the testimony of other witnesses who appeared at these hearings. Public opinion was moved against the forces of evil." JFK EXHIBIT F-643 F.B.I. Intelligence Bulletin, March 11, 1964 Charles Locicero (Counseler of a Brooklyn L.C.N. family) tells an F.B.I. informant that money was being gathered to fight Valachi's testimony and the Senate hearings. They are getting in touch with people in the news media and political figures to hold up any legislation which may result. 454 Mr. CORNWELL. Apart from, I take it, the fear that the organized crime element in this country had that the Kennedy administration was destroying them, as demonstrated by this surveillance, was there any realistic expectation if they had done something so drastic as to kill the President, and there I take it, by doing so remove his brother from the position of Attorney General, and take the two of them out together, would that have in any way helped them? What realistic expectation was there that the pressure to prosecute the Cosa Nostra would have diminished by such an act? Mr. SALERNO. Two things which we learned toward the answer. No. 1, was their expectation; they from time to time advised that, but I think more to the point is the actual record of what transpired in this effort following the assassinations. We will add some data to the existing charts and you will be able to see exactly what did happen following the assassination of President Kennedy. All of the lines which you saw in a growing and radical increase up to 1963 go into decline, some of them a radical decline, the assassination of the President. Mr. CORNWELL. If then there were facts which could have created a motive, if there were means in the control of organized crime, can you tell us was the electronic surveillance of the FBI, which you received, adequate to give some answers to the question of whether or not La Cosa Nostra as an institution, in other words. La Cosa Nostra at the commission level, at the governing body level, could have considered or sanctioned the assassination of the President or of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. SALERNO. My professional opinion, based on the electronic surveillances and other evidence available, is that it is more than sufficient to give a reasonable answer to that question. The ques- tion is that all of that evidence gives no indication at all that the national commission of La Cosa Nostra directed, approved or in any way was concerned with the assassination of President Kennedy. Mr. CORNWELL. Would it be possible that some member, some leader, may have undertaken such a thing without the Commission's approval? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; it is very possible and as a matter of fact, at that particular moment, in November of 1963, there was an example of it. At that time the national commission was having a great deal of difficulty with one of its peers, Mr. Joseph Bonnano. He was violating, probably for the first time, the authority of that commission. He had been ordered to appear before it three times to explain his actions. He was refusing to do so. He had taken action which would have required commission approval without having that commission approval. They were asking him to account for this and he was totally ignoring their authority. So there was an actual example of one such family leader violating what has been the rule up to that time, and unilaterally taking some serious actions which were of concern to them. Mr. CORNWELL. Very briefly, if you are able to, will you tell us how it is that in the early 1960's an organization which, according to your testimony, is characterized by discipline, strict control, rules, and regulations, and has at its disposal violence, could have 455 been in such a condition that one of its members could be uncontrollable or could do things which were not sanctioned by the commission? Mr. SALERNO. I believe that the conditions that existed in 1963 were reflective of the effectiveness of the Federal drive during 1961, 1962 and for most of 1963. The normal smooth operation, which had existed for more than 30 years, were interrupted. The cracks were beginning to show in many, many ways. There was a gang war for the first time in many years in New York--the Gallo Profaci war. You-had the actions of Joseph Bonnano, which I have mentioned. You had a plan on the part of one leader, Joseph Magliocco, to assassinate two. of his fellows, Carlo Gambino and Thomas Lucchese. So that the smooth functioning machinery of a well-oiled ma- chine that had been in high gear for more than 30 years was beginning to show cracks, sluggishness, interruption of its normal activities. Mr. CORNWELL. What was the predominant reason that the events occurred in the early 1960's, that there was this sort of crack in the discipline in organization? Mr. SALERNO. You had the total penetration of the organization, informants from within the ranks that they had become aware of. I indicated that in 1963 bugs were discovered in Las Vegas. This gave rise to their expectation that there probably were many, many more throughout the United States. You had some other things that were pertinent and relate to that--the gang war which had begun. One highlight, which took place in the congressional halls here in Washington, just 6 weeks before the President's assassination, was the public testimony of Joseph Valachi, something which Attorney General Robert Kennedy characterized as the greatest intelligence breakthrough in the history of organized crime in the United States. Mr. Valachi's testimony had been preceded by that of the Attorney General. He was asking the Congress to consider more effective laws to be used against organized crime. As bad as their condition was then, it would appear that it could get worse. He had asked the Congress to authorize an electronic surveillance law, he had asked the Congress to authorize an immunity statute which would compel testimony. So that in November of 1963 the picture was a very bleak one for them. Mr. CORNWELL. If then the pressures of Bobby Kennedy and the President during those years had created such conditions within La Cosa Nostra they found themselves unable to control the various families, the question then arises, could a member of that organization, such as Trafficante or Marcello, or perhaps even an associate such as James Hoffa, have been involved with the ELSURS, the electronic surveillances which were conducted, adequate to answer the question of the possible involvement of men like that? Mr. SALERNO. No. The electronic surveillances would not have been helpful in the cases that' you cite, sir. The intelligence program was a laudable one. I would even use the word magnificent. But as in any intelligence program, while the overall effort may be very good, there are some weak spots, and in the three cases that 456 you mentioned, Mr. Trafficante was never in that time period the direct target of an electronic surveillance for an extended period. He did show up in conversations a few times where someone else was the target. There was no electronic surveillance on Carlos Marcello. There was no electronic surveillance on James Riddle Hoffa. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you. I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Salerno, you were here this morning and heard Mr. Trafficante testify that his role in the assassination plot upon Fidel Castro was that of being an interpreter. Would you tell us please, whether a man who holds the position that you have described here so eloquently and articulately would perform the role of an interpretor in that type of assassination plot? Mr. SALERNO. No sir; he would not. Chairman STOKES. What then would his role be in such a plot? Mr. SALERNO. Sir, based on my knowledge of the three individ- uals who were working with the CIA, I believe that the first approach was in fact made to Mr. Roselli. Mr. Roselli could not and would not have entertained agreeing to work for the CIA or taking any action With the CIA without the permission of his superior, who was Sam Giancana. I think Sam Giancana's role was to approve Mr. Roselli proceeding further. Mr. Roselli would not have been in a position to go to someone of the rank of Mr. Trafficante without the intercession, without the permission of Giancana. I believe Giancana's real role was, No. 1: to approve Roselli's working with the CIA, No. 2, to approach his peer, Mr. Trafficante, and ask, for his cooperation. Chairman STOKES. Now, as you heard Mr. Trafficante's testimony this morning with reference to what his relationship was with these two men, Roselli and Giancana, over the period of years, did you? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, I did. Chairman STOKES. And based upon what you heard, is that the true relationship that he had with those two men? Mr. SALERNO. No; not at all. I think it would be true that he may not have engaged in any one particular organized crime venture with them, but he was part of the organized crime syndicate that they were a part of. Chairman STOKES. Would his role have been as he described here today, that he performed these acts out of his patriotism for the country? Mr. SALERNO. No. I think Mr. Trafficante's testimony here has got to be evaluated in the light of so much other evidence. If you were going to believe Mr. Trafficante, then Mr. Aleman is mistaken or he is a liar. If you are going to believe Mr. Trafficante, then the official from the CIA, who has given a sworn deposition, is either mistaken or a liar. If you are going to believe Mr. Trafficante, then his associate, John Roselli, and what he has revealed about that particular enterprise, is a liar. It would be necessary to believe that the Government of Spain will waste 12 men per day and the resources necessary to follow 457 and keep Mr. Trafficante under surveillance when there is no need to do that. You would have to believe that various levels of government in the United States have wasted taxpayers' money in trying to follow Mr. Trafficante night and day when there is no need for that. So, I think that you have to evaluate his testimony in view of all of the other evidence, and I think it would be at least naive to accept it at face value. Chairman STOKES. Moving over to another area for a moment, when I look at the chart there with reference to organized crime program, where immediately after the President's death there is this sharp decline in terms of the program under Attorney General Robert Kennedy, it just strikes you that this is a very striking type of thing. Can you comment further and tell us to what do you attribute that fact and the program just fell apart? Mr. SALERNO. I think all of those charts, and my own personal recollections of what happened then, reflect that the success that you see manifested there was not only the work of the individual policemen and the agents but the leadership position that Robert Kennedy took and afforded the entire program. Following the death of the President, my unit in the New York City Police Department was not reduced. FBI men were not transferred en masse to do something else, but the leadership was not there, the driving force was not there, the commitment in government at a very high level was not there, and I believe that is reflected in those charts more than anything else. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. My time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, Mr. Salerno, you have testified that the Cosa Nostra had the means to carry out something like the assassination and you have given us a description of those means and its organization, and you have also indicated that you thought it has the motive to carry it out. You introduced a number of exhibits into evidence which we haven't had the opportunity to go over in detail. But looking through the exhibits that I have here, there is just one which I would like to call attention to, which seems to me related strongly to the motive angle, and I would like to ask you to give us a little description of it. It is the one that states on February 8, 1962, Angelo Bruno and Willie Weisburg discussed the Kennedys. This is at page 1 under tab ELSURS re Kennedy. Mr. SALERNO. Yes sir. Mr. PREYER. At that meeting Weisburg says this: See what Kennedy done. With Kennedy a guy should take a knife, like one of the other guys, and stab and kill the ( --- ) where he is now. Somebody should kill the ( -- ). I mean it. This is true, honest to God, it is about time to go. But I tell you something, I hope I get a week's notice, I will kill, right in the ( ---- ), in the White House. Somebody has got to get rid of this ( --- ). And then Bruno responds to Weisburg's statement with the following story. What I would like to ask you is to briefly tell us who Angelo Bruno was at the time, who Weisburg is--incidentally this is JFK exhibit F-618--and then if you would, give us Bruno's response to 458 Weisburg's statement, that somebody's got to get rid of this (------) and just explain to us what your understanding of his response is. Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir, Mr. Bruno at that point in time was, as shown on that chart, the head of the La Cosa Nostra family in Philadelphia. His response basically is a very philosophical one. He tells an old story. You don't want it verbatim do you? Mr. PREYER. No; if you could just describe it. Mr. SALERNO. Yes; he said when things are bad under one king, some people might view him as being a bad king. However, another point of view is that he is a good king because you think things are bad now=and when there is a succession things get worse. And when there is a succession things get worse, so the man that you think is a bad king is really a good king, because if anything happens to him, then his son will succeed and things will get still worse. It is a very philosophical point of view, but as I indicated earlier today, I think you have to read these ELSURS because there is X another one in that packet which is 1 year later and Mr. Bruno 1 year later, in early 1963, is not very philosophical at all. He de- scribes himself as being crucified and Mr. Bruno is making very serious plans to follow his predecessor and go to Italy for perma- nent residence and he is not coming back. Mr. Bruno expresses that point of view to a colleague in New Jersey Jerr Catena, in which he said, "It is all over for us; I am going to Italy, and you should go too, Jerry," and Mr. Catena responds that Bruno is probably right but because his family would be unhappy there, that he is unlikely to follow the same lead. One year later Bruno has stopped being philosophical and he is getting ready to leave the United States. Mr. PREYER. So that to Weisburg's statement, somebody ought to get rid of Robert Kennedy, Bruno, in effect, answers, we shouldn't get rid of him because whoever succeeds him will be even worse than he was from the mob's point of view. Mr. SALERNO. That is what the philosophical story reflects. Mr. PREYER. So his motive was not to get rid of him because something worse might happen. When he later decided to go to Italy and became more disillusioned with Kennedy, he still decided to go to Italy rather than change his mind about his motive; that is, he didn't say in that later exhibit, did he, we should kill him' he said, I will go to Italy? Mr. SALERNO. No; the indications are that when things got very, very bad that Bruno would have made the choice to leave the country; that would not necessarily be the choice that all his peer group made. Mr. PREYER. I think I used my 5 minutes. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Salerno, for an exceptionally fine description and detail. I have several questions I would like to ask. First of all this morning, Mr. Trafficante testified that "they lived with me" in terms of their surveillance. That seems to be at variance with your testimony. Would 459 you care to elaborate or substantiate or negate Mr. Trafficante or perhaps adjust-- Mr. SALERNO. I think there is always a tendency to slightly exaggerate when people come to feel they are getting some law enforcement attention. However, we do have his associate, Mr. Giancana, who actually went into Federal court and indicated that he was under the same kind' of intense surveillance--bumper to bumper tail it's referred to, with one car immediately behind the other. He actually got a Federal judge to order the FBI, that if they were going to follow Mr. Giancana on a golf course, as they did, that the FBI would be required to leave a foursome between their golf playing group and his group. That ruling was overturned on appeal. Mr. FITHIAN. So it is your testimony then that Mr. Trafficante was not sufficiently, carefully monitored as to tell us one way or the other whether or not he might have been involved in any plot against President Kennedy? Mr. SALERNO. I would answer that this way, sir: I personally was a little bit disappointed to learn that in that time period, he had not been the subject of an electronic surveillance. I would like to also point out, however, that being able to place someone under electronic surveillance is subject to so many conditions: The type of movements the man engages in, the actual physical circumstances of where he spends his time; this kind of work is not as easily done as nonprofessionals who have not engaged in it sometimes assume. Mr. FITHIAN. Are you then directing your assessment of either omission or insufficient coverage so as to give us the story, primar- ily on the lack of electronic surveillance, telephonic monitoring? Mr. SALERNO. I would say that created a big void in the total coverage that was being given. Mr. FITHIAN. Can you explain why, if Trafficante is in the place that you put him in organized crime, that such an electronic sur- veillance activity would be somehow overlooked? Mr. SALERNO. No; I can't answer that question, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. You said that, and have apparently, a very high regard for the level of governmental activity in 1963 and you show us charts, and the like, apparently a great deal of pressure was, as we know, put on La Cosa Nostra in those days. I know this is a little outside the purview of this committee, but it is a rare oppor- tunity for a Member of the House to have a chance to ask you a question like this. How would you suggest that we try to recoup the good old days of 1963? Mr. SALERNO. I think we should take a look at why it was successful and try to duplicate the circumstances as much as we can within our constitutional framework of law. There is no ques- tion that the Federal agencies were coordinated. Cooperation be- tween agencies is not enough in this kind of an effort. They have to be coordinated. Recent evidence by Mr. Civiletti of the Department of Justice before a congressional committee indicated that he was somewhat disappointed in the level of willingness of the U.S. De- partment of Labor to be more aggressive in organized crime in labor matters. That testimony was given in April of this year. I think it is a lot easier for an Attorney General whose brother is 460 the President to make sure that all of the agencies of the Federal Government that should be playing a role are. In other words, you have to go beyond the Attorney General. There has to be that kind of commitment in the White House, is really what is necessary. Mr. FITHIAN. Is it your impression that the statutory changes since 1963 or 1964 with regard to wiretaps and with regard to certain kinds of activities has contributed, or is it just a lack of willingness that has contributed to our present state of pretty much doing nothing, as far as I can see. Mr. SALERNO. No; I think the statute law is actually better and stronger today that it was in 1963. In those days, that electronic surveillance which took place was for intelligence purposes only. Now under title III of the Organized Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act, not only can you get the authorization from the court, but now you can bring the results into court and use it as evidence, something that was not possible in 1963. In my home State of New York, for example, the law, as interpreted at that time by the Supreme Court, said, fine, you in New York State have a State wiretap law. You get authority from a judge, fine. The authority is given to the police department of the city of New York, so you, Ralph Salerno, can execute the court order; you can tell your commander about it; he can tell his commander about it; and he can tell the police commissioner about it because you are all part of a single entity known as the police department of the city of New York. But if I took that evidence to Mr. Klein in the prosecutor's office in New York County, and we proceeded to tell a judge and jury about it, the Supreme Court had said that we would be in violation of 605. So I would much prefer the current status of carefully controlled wiretapping but that amount which you can do, you can use as evidence in court, which we could not do. The confessions of murder that we listened to could not be used for the purposes of evidence. The legislation that Robert Kennedy requested in 1963 was some time in coming, but it has arrived. We have the wiretap law that he recommended; we have the immunity law. So I have no argument with current statutory law. I think it is there. I don't think the commitment is there. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FITHIAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 additional minutes. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized. Mr. FITHIAN. I believe a little bit ago you said that Roselli, by the structure of things, had to get permission from Giancana. Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. To proceed. And that Giancana would, I believe you said, ask his peer, Trafficante, about proceeding. Is that because of a regional jurisdictional thing or is it because of a personal relationship that you have perceived between Giancana and Trafficante. Mr. SALERNO. A combination of both. They were peers but the activity, the initial activity would take place with the Cuban com- 461 munity that was in exile from Cuba. Mr. Trafficante had the best contacts there, and it would be--although Miami is generally referred to as an open city, southern Florida is generally considered to be within Mr. Trafficante's sphere of influence. So it would be a combination of he had the best contacts to the Cubans, plus the fact you would be operating in south Florida where he could be extremely helpful. Mr. FITHIAN. And Giancana's territory-- Mr. SALERNO. Chicago. Mr. FITHIAN. In just Chicago, he didn't have any other? Mr. SALERNO. He had interests elsewhere. He would have had interests in Nevada, that's to a certainty. Mr. FITHIAN. Is the machine or the commission as smoothly functioning now as it was prior to the RFK pressure 1962 and 1963? Mr. SALERNO. It is functioning much better than it was in 1963, and I must add, as I indicated in my testimony, I don't believe that our level of knowledge is as good today as it was in 1963 because of the limits that do exist for electronic surveillance. In other words, electronic surveillance--solely for the purpose of intelligence gathering-it is forbidden by the law. You must specify the specific crime, and the law goes further than that. Even if you have not used up your entire time period of authority, if you have made an allegation as to a certain crime, as soon as you have received the evidence of that crime, you are expected to sign off. I don't know if that implies that criminals 5 minutes later will not commit a second crime, but that is the requirement of the law. Mr. FITHIAN. Finally, if everything seems to be functioning smoothly, how then do we account for Roselli's violent death and Giancana's death which, in the minds of many, are related rather specifically we are doing here. Mr. SALERNO. I think there is a great deal of speculation as to the actual causes of both Mr. Roselli's and Mr. Giancana's deaths..I ! don't think anybody, except the people who were responsible for it, know her it was because of their involvement with the CIA, whether it was because of testimony they had given or were prepared to give, or whether it was a local organized crime matter that we may not even be aware of. I have my own hypothesis about the method of Mr. Roselli's death. Mr. Roselli was cut up and put into an oil drum and his automobile was found at the International Airport. My hypothesis is that being put in an oil drum and buried at sea, his body was not supposed to be found. So if it had been successful, we would have had the absence, the unexplained absence of Mr. Roselli with the red herring of his automobile being at the airport suggesting the possibility that he was voluntarily a fugitive country before he would be deported somewhere that he didn't want to go. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has again expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being here during the full extent of your testimony, but I do have a few questions I would like to put to you. You indicate in the charts the high level of activity of the Justice 462 Department during the period of 1962, 1963, and 1964 in moving out against organized crime figures; is that not correct? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. Mr. EDGAR. And you indicated to Mr. Fithian's question that you felt, as part of where we ought to go from here, is to try to recapture the same skills and tools that we had in those years; is that not correct? Mr. SALERNO. Not so much the skills and the tools, sir, as the dedication and commitment. Mr. EDGAR. I wonder if you could explain then why it seems to me, as one member of this committee, that there was a great deal of confusion, mistakes, in terms of the sharing of the surveillance or the secret information between the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA and whether or not you would go so far as to say that the Justice Department and agencies of this Nation did a good job in coordinating. with each other? Mr. SALERNO. I think that if one were to inspect whatever the official level of sharing and cooperation is, you would get a distorted and mistaken picture as against what actually happened between working agents on different levels of government. The Federal agencies are just that, Federal agencies. They have to deal with local and State police departments all over the United States. Therefore, the official position of a Federal agency has to be similar to that of a convoy that we used in World War II; 300 ships are going to move together for protection. The maximum speed of the convoy has got to be the speed of the slowest ship otherwise you will leave him behind. Therefore, what Federal agencies are willing to share as a matter of policy has got to be the speed of the slowest ship. How much information will you give to the most corrupt police department or the most suspect police department in the United States. It has been my experience that de facto, the FBI particularly and other Federal--- Mr. EDGAR. Could the photographers move so I can see the witness. Mr. SALERNO. The FBI particularly and other Federal agencies very carefully determine different levels of confidence that they can extend and then are very generous in extending cooperation, information and even engaging in coordinated efforts in joint operations together. Mr. EDGAR. I don't want to pursue this any further, but I do note for the record that 17 FBI agents were reprimanded privately because Oswald didn't make the security index and, yet, informa- tion was available to many of those agents to put him on that list. The Secret Service had information about Oswald that was differ- ent from the FBI's information, and I would suggest that if we move back to that level that there be some way that there could be coordination and collaboration between agencies so that as we move toward aggressive' action, that aggressive action is a coordi- nated effort. Let's move to another issue. In terms of your expertise, is there a likelihood that someone of the nature of Jack Ruby would be helped with his labor problems by someone in the underworld, and, 463 further, is it unreasonable to expect that the underworld might use someone like Jack Ruby to do a job for them? Mr. SALERNO. Well, I think Jack Ruby turning to someone in the underworld for help in a labor matter is not unrealistic. Many people do that every day. Many businessmen will buy labor peace, they will ignore collective bargaining; they will ignore all the agencies of government; and if they really want something done, they hire the Godfather. Carlo Gambino, not in the underworld but in the upper worm, was a labor consultant, business firms paid him as much as $40,000 for help in one labor matter. I can tell you that Carlo Gambino doesn't know the difference between Samuel Gompers and Ringo Starr. That is how much he knows about labor but he is a Godfather and he has interjected himself in labor matter where miraculously the strike is headed off, or if it is already ongoing, it has come to an end. So Jack Ruby turning to someone in the underworld for help is not unrealistic at all. There was a second part to your question. Mr. EDGAR. If they did that, would they expect anything in return or would it be likely for them to go to someone who, just a few days ago a captain from the Dallas Police Department described as a buffoon and would suggest the underworld would never hire someone like that to do anything for them. In your experience, would the underworld ever use someone like a Jack Ruby to do an action for them? Mr. SALERNO. I went through the typical representative gangland slaying and nothing in what I had to say fits the assassination of the President. I didn't have an opportunity to give you three exceptions to that rule. The acid blinding of Victor Riesel in New York City was an organized crime motivated crime. It was an exception to the rule. They didn't keep it with trusted professionals. That was a contract offered for $2,000, and someone took $1,000 off that and offered $1,000 to a second man who offered $500 of it to a low level burglar in the city of New York who was an addict at that time. That is an anathema in organized crime, to have anything to do, particulary in 1955, with a drug addict. What happened there was, the young man who did the actual blinding of Mr. Riesel, didn't know the organized crime figure that had sponsored it; never met him. He was himself burned with acid. He got his $500. He went to gambling casinos in Youngstown, Ohio, came back broke, needed more money and then became a potential threat. And the best indication is that he was killed--he was killed--the best indication is he was killed by the middleman who had worked between he and organized crime. If he becomes a problem back to the organized crime figure, they would be in jeopardy. So he was killed. We have another example in the shooting of Joseph Columbo before 85,000 people in Columbus Circle in New York. That. homi- cide was committed by a black man named Jerome Johnson who was himself immediately killed probably by a Columbo bodyguard. A number of people jumped on Mr. Johnson. A crowd of bodies went down and shots went off. There is no question in my mind--I was one block away--when I heard that a black man had shot 464 Joseph Columbo, I said Joseph Gallo did that. We knew that Joseph Gallo had been entering into alliances with black criminals that he had met in prison. But once again, an unhappy ending when there is a violation that goes away from the rule. We have one in Kansas City, four young black men were hired to kill a witness in a Federal gambling case, and they were told by the low level La Cosa Nostra figure who was going to pay them $1,000 to do that, that Mr. Landi, the victim, had to be killed because he was a witness in a Federal case. Those four young men were caught. So we have some exceptions where it appears to be a mistake, at least for the people who engaged in the crime because they are either caught or are themselves killed. The death of President Kennedy does not fit a typical gangland homicide, but there are some dramatic parallels to the exceptions where low level figures, nondependable, nondescript people are used. Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes. I have some very brief questions I would like to ask. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for an additional 3 minutes. Mr. EDGAR. Just to clarify that previous question, the question was, would they use someone like Ruby to kill Oswald, and not so much the Oswald personality as it would be to use a person like Jack Ruby, after getting a favor from the underworld to kill---- Mr. SALERNO. It fits the Riesel case, yes. Mr. EDGAR. Let me ask a couple of questions about Mr. Oswald. In your opinion, is it enough for Oswald to have had an uncle by the name Charles Moret, who is a bookie?, to in any way link Oswald to organized crime? Mr. SALERNO. I think it is a single fact on which you cannot base any serious premise. If it can be joined with other facts in a preponderance of evidence, then with you might be able to come up with a responsible conclusion. Mr. EDGAR. Well, then, let me raise the second possible connection, and that is with David Ferrie, who worked in the same building that Oswald was' in for a time, at least it is alleged that that occurred. Would that have been enough of a connection? Mr. SALERNO. By itself no, but again in concert with many, many other facts it might. Mr. EDGAR. Moving to the question again about Mr. Ruby, it is interesting for us to examine the relationship, if any, between a Mr. Trafficante and a Jack Ruby. Would it have been the custom for somebody like Trafficante, who is at one level, to have any association with somebody like Ruby? Would that be a custom or a norm? Mr. SALERNO. Without any intermediary who might have known them both and introduced one to the other, it would be very, very unlikely. Jack Ruby cannot be characterized as an organized crime figure in any way in my estimation. Jack Ruby would not have made a pimple on the back of the neck of a real organized crime figure. 465 Mr. EDGAR. One final question then. Mr. Aleman yesterday raised in a final question that there was no doubt in his mind that it would be possible for organized crime to have worked with rather than against, but with Fidel Castro, to turn around and go after someone like the President of the United States. In your opinion, would it have been the custom, or is it the custom, of organized crime, to at some point work violently against someone, in this case the regime of Fidel Castro, and at other times for expediency work with Someone, and in this case Fidel Castro for their ends? Mr. SALERNO. Yes; I have seen that done. I have seen that done in a gang war where some people switch sides more than once and totally reversed their loyalties. Mr. EDGAR. You recall the Aleman testimony from yesterday. What is the likelihood of Mr. Trafficante, in your opinion, ever making that kind of statement to Mr. Aleman? Mr. SALERNO. I would have to know more about their relationship. If it was as limited as Mr. Trafficante says, I would say no. If it was to the extent that Mr. Aleman described, it would be believable. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Salerno, can you tell us--I believe you said earlier this morning, in response to something that was said on television about organized crime being larger than, as big as United States Steel, something of that sort, the comment was made it is bigger than United States Steel. Was that the comment? Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir, it was made by Meyer Lansky to his wife. Chairman STOKES. Well, is that statement true? Mr. SALERNO. I don't know the value of United States Steel. I do know this, sir: That if one takes hard data, hard numbers, such as the records that are seized in gambling raids, take the information that we do have, what is the price of heroin, what is the price of cocaine, we know that because undercover men are making such purchases. If we take those records which have been seized in loan sharking cases, if we take those records where there have been convictions for kickbacks that were paid in obtaining loans from the Teamsters Union, I think if you take hard data and from them make the most conservative national projections, organized crime in the United States is an industry that is grossing billions of dollars per year and I think the net profit is extremely significant. There are some operations where the net profit is comparatively small. In bookmaking, you are making, 4 1/2 percent of your total gross as your gross profit. In narcotics you are talking on the importation level of the importer making five times his investment. You are also talking, when you are talking about heroin, you are talking about a product which on the street is selling for between 150 and 200 times the value of gold per ounce even-at today's figure for gold. So the numbers that we do not know about--we know that it takes 6 tons of heroin to supply every addict in the United States, or something in that range. You start taking it per ounce on the street level and going through the most conservative projec- 466 tions you are talking about a multibillion dollar industry which has never been adequately studied by economists who can write. books about what happens if the prime interest rate goes up 1 1/2 percent, what happens if unemployment goes down 2 percent, and here is a multibillion dollar industry and they have never studied it simply because the data is not easily available, and you cannot get a mountain of empirical data with three graduate students mailing out 2,000 questionnaires and conducting 200 interviews in a summer. Chairman STOKES. You mentioned Meyer Lansky. Who is Meyer Lansky? Mr. SALERNO. Meyer Lansky was a young person who came over to the United States at a very young age, he came over at the age of 6 or 9 from Poland, with Jewish parents. He lives on the lower East Side of Manhattan, which at that time was a Jewish ghetto. Mr. Lansky demonstrated with some Jewish-criminals what these Italian criminals have demonstrated, what is demonstrated today in what is beginning to be referred to as the Black Mafia what is being witnessed out in California, with a group that names itself the Mexican Mafia; that there are times when immigrant groups, and I mentioned Blacks because some sociologists say they are the most recent immigrants to the urban areas of our country. Unfortunately in the United States, we give the greatest upward mobility to those immigrants who are willing to go into a life of crime as against what we offer immigrants who will be dutiful citizens and work hard. In other words, what I am saying, sir, is that the name of the game called organized crime has remained constant. Over the years we changed the names of the players, their skin color or language spoken. Meyer Lansky became a very wealthy man during the prohibition era when what we were calling 2 years ago, during our Bicentennial year, what we call today, the sacred document, that is the Constitution of the, United States was being sneered at, ignored, and made a travesty of by so many American citizens and even a larger number simply ignored all that. Meyer Lansky was a bright man who learned that if you engage in a life of crime and select your crime carefully and insulate your role you can become a very, very wealthy man. Meyer Lansky had interests in Cuba. You heard Mr. Trafficante mention the name of his brother Jake Lansky. Meyer Lansky has dealt with heads of government. Mr. Batista in one case, with the governing council in the Bahamas, to where he moved some of his gambling operations. He is a brilliant man. in the shrewd sense of the word, who has made an awful lot of money, who has. kind of thumbed his nose at the law. He fled the United States when three indictments were coming down against him. He went to Israel. He used the Jewish Law of Return, which says any person born of Jewish mother can go to Israel and file for citizenship. He did that. It was resisted by the Attorney General in Israel. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of Israel. There is one exception to the Jewish Law of Return and that is if the person's residence or citizenship in Israel can be considered to 467 be a threat to the State, he can be denied the application for citizenship, and he can be put out of Israel, as happened to Meyer Lansky. I think they stretched the law a little bit. If they had let Meyer Lansky stay there and bring all his money there, 20 years from now there would be two statutes in Jerusalem, one would be Moshe Dayan and the other one would be Meyer Lansky, because he might have helped them buy up the Arabs. Chairman STOKES. You mentioned earlier, the victims of organized crime. Who are the victims of organized crime? Mr. SALERNO. The victims of organized crime are many. They come from all walks of life. You can be victimized, if you are 'a prominent businessman, that they might like to move in on, but I think the people from whom they make money and who they victimize in one form or another come from all walks of life. I am looking for something that I put among my notes and I am very happy for the opportunity to be allowed to look for it, because it was stated much more eloquently than I can by Dr. Martin Luther King. This is what Dr. Martin Luther King wrote eloquently in an article entitled "Beyond the Los Angeles Riots, Next Stop the North," in the Saturday Review, November 13, 1965: The most grievous charge against municipal police is not brutality, although it exists. Permissive crime in the ghettos is the nightmare of the slum family. Permissive crime is the name for the organized crime that flourishes in the ghettos, designed, directed, and activated by the white national crime syndicates operating numbers, narcotics, and prostitution rackets freely in protective sanctuaries of the ghettos. Because no one, including the police, cares particularly about ghetto crime, it pervades every area of life. I think what Dr. King recognizes in that comment is something that is not easily demonstrated in charts. The Kennedy administration had an entire program of policies. The fight against organized crime was one. The improvement of the civil rights of all citizens was another. An attempt to help the poor was a third. But those were not three separate and unrelated programs, they were all part of the same drive that the Kennedys were trying to achieve. Chairman STOKES. I just have one further question. Lewis McWillie testified in these hearings yesterday, I believe, or the day before, that after he left Cuba and came hack to the States he worked at the Cal-Nevada Lodge. Who owns the Cal-Nevada Lodge? Mr. SALERNO. I don't know who owns it today. In 1963, Frank Sinatra was a 50 percent partner. He also had nine points in the Sands Hotel in 9963. That became a matter of record in the press because in 1963 he got into a little bit of trouble with the Nevada Gambling Commission. Mr. Giancana had been his guest at the Lodge and at his home and the licensing authorities were threatening to suspend the licenses at both institutions if Mr. Sinatra did not promise in writing to break off his friendship with Mr. Giancana. Mr. Sinatra elected not to break off his friendship, not to jeopardize his partners, and he divested himself of his interests. Chairman STOKES. My time has expired. 468 The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. MCKINNEY. Just one brief area following through on the questioning of my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. It has sometime been suggested that Premier Castro was only too aware of the attempts, or at least aware of the theory that the Cosa Nostra could be used because of their gambling losses resulting from his takeover of Cuba to dispose of him. It has been suggested that Mr. Castro appealed to reason, and may have said all you have lost is a few gambling casinos, whereas I run Cuba, which is only 90 miles from the most unprotected coastline in the United States and, therefore, is the most logical place from which to supply drugs to this Nation, so don't fight me, join me. Do you have any information or any feeling as to whether or not the Cuban Government or the Premier of Cuba actually are involved with the Mafia in any way in supplying drugs to this country? Mr. SALERNO. I have no direct evidence of that; no, sir. Mr. McKINNEY. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman. During his testimony yesterday Mr. Aleman suggested that Trafficante, at least I thought he did, suggested Trafficante was perhaps working in cooperation with Castro in the 1960's. From what you know about the Cosa Nostra, how likely is it that a situation like this, that is, Trafficante, a Cosa Nostra leader, who had lost very considerable amounts of money and property, with the rise of Castro to power, would be working with him in any way? Mr. SALERNO. The entire name of the game in organized crime is to make money. If Mr. Aleman had added to his opinion some indication, some evidence, showing where and how Santos Trafficante might benefit in terms of money, I think his argument would become much more believable. If we could join a different answer to Mr. McKinney's question, if there were some evidence that Santos Trafficante is using Cuba in fact as a base for narcotics and profiting greatly from that, then he would certainly be able to be considered as being guilty of what Mr. Aleman set forth, but he is not doing it for a reason where he doesn't see some gain. Mr. FITHIAN. Well, now, would this have been the kind of activity that was sufficiently important that the commission approval would be required? Mr. SALERNO. What kind of activity specifically, sir? Mr. FITHIAN. In other words, if Trafficante were going to be working with Castro on any number of things, would that, the fact he is working with another head of state, would that be important enough in and of itself? Mr. SALERNO. No; people in organized crime have dealt on very high levels with other officials. Mr. FITHIAN. So it would be the nature of the activity that would determine--- Mr. SALERNO. And only if it put him in conflict with some vested interest that some other leader in organized crime would have. If no conflict, he is free to do that. 469 Mr. FITHIAN. Then the size and the scope. of the project is not really what requires commission approval, it, is whether or not that might somehow impinge upon somebody else s turf?. Mr. SALERNO. Yes, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Salerno. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EDGAR. I just have one clarifying question. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Earlier we talked about the possibility of whether or not Aleman's recollection was accurate or whether Trafficante's understanding of his statements were accurate, and you indicated that if the meetings were as frequent as Aleman had suggested it might have been a possibility that Trafficante would have divulged statements indicating what Aleman alleges, but it was rare. We got information yesterday from Aleman that no more than three meetings occurred. You would not describe that as frequent? Mr. SALERNO. No; I didn't mean to mislead you. I don't think I said it was the frequency of the meetings, it would be the nature of the meetings. If they are in fact going to be business partners, if Mr. Aleman is going to get a sizable loan from the Teamsters Union, for which Mr. Trafficante would have gotten a kickback--if Mr. Aleman is going to be for Mr. Trafficante and his friend Angelo Bruno the medium to an open door into relationships at high levels of the Dominican Government, where they can become involved in business activities which would accrue to their sharing a great deal of wealth between them, now he would be talking to a business partner, somebody with whom he is going to make a great deal of money, then I would expect that he might have made such a statement. If it was, well, I met the fellow and he asked about a loan, and that was kind of straightened out, and we talked a little bit about possibilities, if you take the impression that Mr. Trafficante wants to put on the nature of their meetings, then I would discount the possibility that it was said. But if they are going to make a great deal of money together, if they are going to be business partners, he might have shared such a thought with him. Mr. EDGAR. But I think it is accurate to say that Trafficante would have been aware of Aleman's previous testimony, well, his relationship may be in giving testimony in Chicago against some other witnesses, and it seemed to me wouldn't it have been natural for somebody in the Cosa Nostra not to discuss such things with someone who may have been involved? Mr. SALERNO. No, not at all. If we are going to infer that this man testified against Norman Rothman and Mr. Mannarino, you might think that if that were going to be the consideration, Mr. Trafficante would not even have found himself in the same room with that man. The overriding consideration was "Forget my friend Norman Rothman, forget my colleague Mannarino, if I can make a lot of money with this cat, I will meet him once, twice or a 100 times." Mr. EDGAR. And your earlier comment was that it was the quality of the content of the meeting and not the quantity of the meetings? 470 Mr. SALERNO. Yes sir. The fact that they were together, Mr. Trafficante makes admission to that, and we know that that took place even after he had given testimony against some of Mr. Trafficante's friends, I think suggests that money is the overriding consideration. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you. I appreciate the response. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Salerno, as a witness before our committee, at the conclusion of your testimony you are entitled to 5 minutes. During that 5 minute period you may in any way expand upon your testimony or comment upon it, and I would extend to you at this time 5 minutes for that purpose, if you so desire. Mr. SALERNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to mention two things and it won't take 5 minutes. No. 1, I would like to, through this committee, thank Attorney General Bell and the people in the FBI with whom I, and my colleagues on the staff dealt, for their grand cooperation, their kindness and their courtesies. The second thing I would like to say to this committee and for the record is this. That from time to time when the Mafia, the Cosa Nostra, has to be discussed, some Americans are angered by that fact. I would like the record to show that I am one of the Americans who is greatly angered when the necessity arises. I resent the fact that some criminals have formed an organization where they require that membership be limited to people of Italian background, where they apply Italian words as a name to a criminal organization, where they apply an Italian word for ranks within that organization. As I sit here looking at the committee, you are members of the Congress, and that together with many other things, I am sure, makes each of you proud of your roots and from whence you came. I would just like to say that I am equally proud of mine. Thank you, sir. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Salerno, I would just like to say on behalf of the committee you are obviously an eminently qualified expert in this field. You have given some very articulate and eloquent testimony before the committee and we want to thank you for the services you have rendered to us. Mr. SALERNO. Thank you, sir. Chairman STOKES. The Chair would like to take a 3 minute in- place recess before we proceed further. Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It could be said that the committee has now come full circle It began with the question "could organized crime have been involved in the plot to murder President Kennedy? It has run an exhaustive check of the possible conspiratorial associations of one figure involved in the assassination, Jack Ruby. The committee obviously has more work to do on Ruby's associates as well as Lee Harvey Oswald's, and it will have the opportunity to say more about them in its final report in December. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the committee's investigation into the possible involvement into organized crime has been more com- 471 plete than that of the FBI or the Warren Commission in 1963 and 1964. It is also fair to comment that had this sort of investigation taken place at that time when the evidence was fresh, it is possible, though hardly a sure thing, that a lot more information might have been forthcoming. But the committee must face this fact. The question of organized crime involvement is still and open one. Nothing that has been uncovered excludes it and much that is new points toward it. Yet frustration ma be the result of this committee's efforts too. To address the issues raised by this frank recognition of the possibility of ultimate frustration and comment on the investigation of the Warren Commission and this committee, as well as the future, the committee has invited the Hon. Burt W. Griffin to appear here today. Judge Griffin was an assistant counsel for the Warren Commission. As such, he shared responsibility for the investigation of Jack Ruby and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Judge Griffin received a B.A. cum laude from Amherst College in 1954 and an L.L.B. degree from Yale in 1959. Judge Griffin has served as the Director of the Cleveland Office of Economic Opportunity, Legal Service Program, as well as the Director of the Legal Aid Society. In January 3, 1975, he was appointed judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Judge Griffin. Chairman STOKES. Judge, I ask you to stand, please, and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge GRIFFIN. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, you may be seated. Judge Griffin, it is a real pleasure to welcome you here. Mr. Blakey, Judge Griffin happens to be not only a long-time close friend, but one of Cleveland's most distinguished jurists. We welcome you here this afternoon, Judge. TESTIMONY OF JUDGE BURT W. GRIFFIN, FORMER ASSISTANT COUNSEL FOR THE WARREN COMMISSION AND JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Judge GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, and my good friend, Louis Stokes. Let me say it is a pleasure for me to be here before your committee. I say it with only one reservation, and I think, Mr. McKinney, this may bring back some memories to you because the last time that I had an opportunity to appear before this committee in executive session, I was about an hour late because I found deficiencies in the Metro transportation system. Last night, your committee was very kind and offered to spare me that indignity and sent Mr.' Mathews with Mr. Blakey's car to the airport to pick me up. I regret to say that when we got out to Mr. Blakey's car, it didn't work. And I found myself behind the car trying to push Mr. Mathews to get it started. So I would suggest that if there are any other areas of investigation for this committee to undertake that there might be some in the field of transportation. Mr. EDGAR. Would the gentleman yield at that point? 472 Chairman STOKES. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. EDGAR. As a very strong advocate of public transit, I think the Metro system is getting better, and I would suggest if you are ever in that predicament again, you might try using it. I have been to the gentleman's city of Cleveland and you have a very fine public transit system. I hope we can have those fine systems throughout the Nation. Judge GRIFFIN. I thank you, Mr. Edgar, for the advice, and I am sure that I will consider it seriously. Let me say in seriousness, that the purpose of my remarks is to discuss with the committee the question of what is the proper process for investigating political murders that have national imPlications. That is what I would like to reflect upon in these minutes with the committee. I propose to begin that inquiry with a brief discussion of what I perceive to have been the goals of the Warren Commission and the Warren Commission's successes and failures. And I would like to end with some suggestions for dealing with future political murders. It is a sad thing to think about, but I think we cannot escape the honest judgment that we will have in this country, political murders in the future and we will, I am sorry to say, in all probability, have Presidents who are assassinated in the future. So that I think more important than attempting to reach a conclusion as to how President Kennedy happened to be killed and why and who all may have participated in that, as important as that inquiry is, the real questions are not for the past, but the real questions for this committee are for the future. The Warren Commission was designed primarily to achieve four goals. First, to establish the true facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. Second, to accomplish that mission in a manner that would satisfy the broadest segment of influential people and the American public in general. Third, to do it in a manner that would not unnecessarily disrupt the stability of the national government and its conduct of international affairs or jeopardize the national security. And, fourth, to conduct this inquiry in a manner that would avoid damaging the reputations or employment of individuals against whom there did not exist convincing evidence of criminal conduct. Those goals were not in every respect stated by the Commission, but I believe that they indeed were the goals of the Commission, and I think that the first two goals, that is, of finding the truth and, second, of accomplishing that investigation in a manner that would be persuasive, were actually articulated in the official Commission documents. The third goal, that is the one that related to the stability of the National Government and the problems of national security, was communicated by the President of the United States to Chief Justice Warren. The fourth goal, that being a civil libertarian goal, although it may not have been articulated in any official documents, was, in fact, the philosophy of Chief Justice Warren, as I had the opportunity to witness his conduct of the Warren Commission. 473 In a rather brief manner, I would like to summarize the reasons for these goals, and I will be brief because I think that the reasons are obvious, but it is perhaps worth mentioning them. President Kennedy's death was surrounded with suspicions of conspiratorial intrigue that could easily have fed efforts at domestic and international turmoil. If the suspicions were true, there would be a need for serious corrective action, but if the suspicions were unfounded and were not abated, the mere suspicions could provide strong weapons in the hands of individuals who desired to manipulate public opinion and power for unjustified ends. The Warren Commission began its inquiry on the very heels of one of the most unfortunate eras in American political history. It was what we all look back upon now as the McCarthy era. And the conduct of investigations into matters of internal security during that period cast not only a blot upon the conduct of senatorial committees, but of congressional committees as well, and I think that we--many of us, if not a vast majority of us--look back upon that period with a great deal of embarrassment and sorrow. There was another period which none of us is old enough to remember where the same kind of political ambitions based upon unfounded suspicions and fears brought the United States into war, and that is the period of the Spanish-American War, which has been well documented and the role that irresponsible newspaper people had to play in the creation of that war is well known to any student of history. So that the fears about the inability to find the truth and to document it in a persuasive manner were not inconsiderable or insubstantial ones, as far as the members of the Warren Commission were concerned. And it was important that a reliable body be established to investigate and report honestly the facts that surrounded the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald and of President Kennedy in order to minimize the possibility of such disastrous consequences. At the outset of the Warren Commission's activities, speed seemed to be an important element in the Commission's operations. Initially, the White House informed the Commission that it should complete its work and make its report prior to the national political conventions that were scheduled for the summer of 1964. The emphasis on speed stemmed from the early perceptions of this problem that I have been alluding to--preventing the unnecessary disruption of public policy and political power. At the outset, the timetable seemed reasonable, but as the scope of the investigation became apparent, such a deadline became obviously unrealistic. The goal of speed came into conflict with the goal of completeness, for many of the suspicions, which the obvious facts generated, could not be explored fully in the 5 months that were originally projected for the Warren Commission's investigation. In retrospect, it seems to me that speed was not the political necessity that the White House originally envisioned. The Warren report was itself not issued until late September 1964, and I reflected as I came here today that I believe that today or tomorrow is the 14th anniversary of the issuance of that report. This was, of course, after both the Republican and Democratic national conventions had nominated their candidates for President. And the issue 474 of the assassination of President Kennedy never became an issue in that Presidential election campaign. At no time prior to the report's issuance did any Member of Congress attempt to use the uncertainties of the assassination to oppose Johnson administration policies. So long as the Commission was operating, the White House, in fact, achieved its goal of preventing the uncertainties that surrounded the assassination from interfering with its own conduct of public policy. I believe that the initial emphasis on speed reflected the recollections which I have made of McCarthyism which were still vivid to President Johnson and members of the Commission when we began our work in early 1964. I would like to turn at this point then to discuss the question of how the Commission came to terminate its investigation. Pressure for a quick report was not, in my experience, what induced the Commission to curtail its investigation of areas that are now a public concern and under investigation by this committee. The reasons for stopping the investigation by the Warren Commission were that to anyone with substantial criminal investigatory experience, and you must remember that Chief Justice Warren had been the prosecutor of Alameda County for 20 years before he became Governor of the State of California, to anyone with such investigative experience, the evidence seemed overwhelming that Oswald was the assassin and the conspiracy questions that remained were entirely speculative. They were based upon political or underworld acquaintanceships but devoid of any concrete evidence on any participation in a murder or in the planning of a murder. As a practical matter, the Commission leadership decided not to pursue further the various speculative theories on conspiracy unless two things could be found. First, unless they could find substantial evidence that a specific suspected conspirator had had personal contact with Lee Oswald or Jack Ruby during the period when that person could have counseled or assisted Oswald or Ruby in the events of November 21-23, 1963. And second, and the two would have to go together, unless there was some evidence that such suspected conspirator desired to kill President Kennedy or was involved in a common political activity with Lee Harvey Oswald. Although the criteria that I have mentioned were not applied at the beginning of any line of inquiry so as to stop an exploration of at least a minimal sort at the beginning, they were applied after months of investigation in deciding to close out a particular line of inquiry.. It was believed by the Commission's leadership that any further investigation not so rounded would require an in-depth probing of the life of any possible conspirator. The mere act of continuing to investigate such individuals, would be a form of accusation that could severly injure innocent people. It seemed unwarranted to conduct such an in-depth investigation merely upon speculation that a conspiratorial link might exist. The cost and length of such investigation seemed immense. The likelihood of success seemed remote and the possible infringement of civil liberties seemed serious. Those two criteria, I might point out, also became the standards that the Commission ultimately used for concluding that "no evi- 475 dence," the famous and much maligned language of the Commission report, that no evidence of any conspiracy had been found. The committee, in my opinion, Mr. Stokes, must seriously consider in reaching its own conclusions whether or not it is proper to depart from the standard of proof that I suggest was followed by the Warren Commission and whether it is proper to apply those standards in making its own judgments as to how far to continue any investigation. I would like then, with that background, to turn to what I believe to be the successes and failures of the Warren Commission. The overriding short-term political objective of President Johnson in establishing the Warren Commission was achieved. That is, the determination of public policy was not substantially affected by the uncertainties of the assassination and no member of Congress or political opponent of President Johnson was able to mobilize public sentiment through manipulation of fears that grew out of these uncertainties. Second, the fact finding goal of the Warren Commission was partially, if not substantially, achieved. The Commission developed an extensive body of information about the assassination and related events. That information not only formed the basis of the Commission's conclusion but has provided, up to this committee's commencement of its investigation, the most solid evidence upon which the Commission's critics have relied. Almost no probative evidence bearing upon the identity of participants in the murders has been uncovered by the legions of Warren Commission critics. No witness, unknown at the time of the original investigation, has come forward with information showing that any specific person assisted or encouraged either Oswald or Ruby in their murders. The most significant newly discovered information has been that evidence in the possession of governmental agencies was deliberately withheld from the Warren Commission. If that evidence had been provided to the Commission, I personally have no doubt that our investigation, that is the investigation of the Warren Commission, would have been extended substantially. And I would like to point out a major success which Warren Commission critics tend largely to ignore. That is, that the civil liberties of Americans were conscientiously protected by the Commission and the Commission did not become an official witch hunt that destroyed the reputations and lives innocent citizens. That success resulted both from the manner in which the Commission conducted its inquiry and from the standards that it applied in deciding to terminate the inquiry. This is a success, Mr. Chairman, which I believe the select committee should recognize and would do well to applaud, lest that accomplishment be forgot. However, it must be recognized that a decision to terminate governmental investigation also unleashed a private witch hunt, and the committee must evaluate that byproduct. Let me turn next to what I believe were the failures of the Warren Commission. It is clear that the Warren Commission failed to prevent the assassination from becoming a long-term political issue. I distinguish here between an issue that remains of public curiosity, such as one might say would be an issue concerning the assas- 476 sination of President Lincoln at this stage, and between that kind of issue and an issue that actually affects in a substantial way the time, money, and decisions of public policy and public officials. A second failure, and a glaring failure, was its inability, the Commission's inability, to gain full cooperation from the investigative agencies. The committee, I know, has carefully examined the areas in which the CIA, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department failed to provide candid and, I might say, loyal assistance to the Warren Commission, and I will not attempt to go into those. The third failure of the Commission relates to this problem of cooperation with investigative agencies. It is the use by the Commission of liaison personnel from other agencies. In retrospect, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Commission needed its own staff presence on the premises of the FBI, CIA, and the Dallas Police Department, with unrestricted access to their files, and with freedom to speak privately and without approval to any employee of each agency. Instead, the FBI and the CIA established their own liaison personnel at the Commission offices. All contacts with the FBI and CIA personnel were cleared, first through agency channels of those agencies, and the agent's reports were reviewed by their supervisors before being forwarded to the Commission. There was, I think, at least a middle ground that the Commission might have adopted in hindsight. The investigative staffs of those agencies might have been assigned to the Commission and controlled by the Commission and the Commission then might have made the decision as to how it would keep the agencies advised of the Commission's progress, as it, the Commission deemed appropriate. I think there was also a failure by the Warren Commission of investigative tactics. The style of the Commission's own staff was in retrospect not fully one of criminal investigators. The rules that governed the staff discouraged off the record conversations with witnesses and emphasized almost exclusively transcribed depositions. Transcribed depositions did not lend themselves to candor, if the deponent feared that this candor could injure him. The Commission itself failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution or prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted. In each case, the failure to have any of its own staff stationed within the agencies, the system of agency-Commission communications, the failure to employ its own staff investigators, and the restraints on Commission interviewing techniques, and the reluctance to use immunity grants and perjury prosecutions, the Commission chose an investigatory course that would cause the least damage to individual citizens and to existing public agencies. I believe that is the reason that the Commission chose that approach. There was a belief among the Commission leadership that the investigatory approaches which were rejected were likely to produce more resistance than truth from public agencies and that the possibility of success by those rejected methods was outweighted by 477 the possible unjustified injury to individual citizens and existing governmental operations. You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that in those days we trusted the various agencies of Government with whom we dealt, much more than we trust them now. At no time, however, despite these investigatory techniques did those limitations ever prevent a Commission staff member from making an inquiry that he believed was relevant. The consequence, nonetheless, was the Commission was powerless to combat deliberate deceit by an investigative agency. A fifth difficulty or failure, as I look back upon the Warren Commission, evolved from the difficulties of conducting a conspiracy investigation through a special commission. The investigatory techniques that the Commission utilized were in fact the standard investigatory techniques of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at that time and were reasonably suited to an investigation which depended on testimony from independent witnesses who generally desired to tell the truth. The primary investigatory approach utilized by the FBI in connection with the murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald was directly and immediately to confront a witness or a suspect with questions. This approach, of course, was important to preserving the memory of an honest witness, but for a possible coconspirator it largely served to keep any possible conspirators fully appraised of the ongoing investigations. To my knowledge, in that period, the FBI never established a list of possible conspirators with either Jack Ruby or Lee Oswald, and if it had such a list, it never placed them under surreptitious investigation, or if it did so, the existence and nature of such investigations was certainly never revealed to me, and I had responsibility for investigating Jack Ruby. Nor was there any indication that the FBI in that period used its own agents in an undercover capacity under any circumstances, or pursued the practice in that period of our history of infiltrating suspect groups, except through paid informants. Indeed, it was my experience as an Assistant U.S. attorney in the years of 1960, 1961, and 1962, that J. Edgar Hoover strongly opposed using his own employees in an undercover capacity. By contrast, during that same period of time, the U.S. Secret Service did have its own employees trained to investigate counterfeiting by undercover means. I think a comparison of the two agencies during that period of time would reveal that the Secret Service had been much more successful in investigating counterfeiting conspiracies than the FBI had been against organized crime. The FBI fully used its standard investigatory techniques for approximately 2 months before any member of the Warren Commission was able to initiate his own investigation-That 2-months delay substantially undermined the ability of the Commission to investigate a conspiracy. First, obviously all tracks were cold and any conspirator had 2 months to flee or hide. Second, all possible suspects and conspirators had ample time to learn what direction the Government's investigation was taking. 478 Third, after 2 months the investigatory agents of the FBI were frankly impatient, since they were convinced that they had done a thorough job and that a staff of Commission amateurs could do no better. Looking backward, under those circumstances, the only way to investigate successfully a possible conspiracy was either to gain the complete cooperation of the original investigators, in a total reexamination of their work, or to employ a new staff of investigators. Even then the timelag would pose serious problems. But once a truly collaborative investigative team was created, it would have been necessary to develop systematically a set of possible conspiracy theories and conspiracy suspects. The development of sound theories and reasonable suspects required a Commission staff that was knowledgeable about the primary suspect groups, pro- and anti-Castro groups in the .United States and Mexico, Cuban counterintelligence and espionage, Soviet counterintelligence and espionage, the possible involvement of organized crime figures with such foreign groups, and the linkages of all those groups to the FBI, CIA, and the Dallas police force. The Commission itself employed only two persons with any substantial background in any of those areas, and that was only in the area of organized crime. We did have two individuals who had been members of organized crime staff in the U.S. Department of Justice. With respect to any conspiracy related to Cuban or Soviet groups, the Commission had no staff members with past expertise and relied entirely on the CIA and FBI for assistance. That lack of in-house expertise, in my view, precluded developing sensible working hypotheses about conspiracies which could be investigated in an economical manner. If such a staff could have developed workable hypotheses for conspiracies and for specific suspects, a special investigative approach would also have had to have been developed. The approach probably would have had to rely heavily upon clandestine surveillance and infiltration of suspected groups and individuals. An investigation that involved infiltration and clandestine surveillance could not have been tied to a political timetable and would have taken years, not months to complete. Certain basic records, such as a telephone call records, hotel registrations, transportation manifests, immigration records, photographs of the murder scene, and audio recordings would have had to have been comprehensively acquired for possible future use and analysis whether or not they had any immediate evidentiary value. This approach would have required a different staff and a different relationship to the President and to the Attorney General. The staff would have needed a variety of skills besides legal, including knowledge of individuals probably associated with the primary suspect groups. Time commitments would have been for years rather than for months. To avoid being threatened by existing agencies, the Commission staff would have required close and direct support from the President and from the Attorney General so that impediments 479 from reluctant investigative agencies could have been resolved with the full support of the President and the Attorney General. A sixth failure or difficulty that I would like to address arises from the prosecution of Jack Ruby. Any investigation of Jack Ruby by the Warren Commission posed an immediate conflict with both the Dallas County prosecutor and the defense in the trial of Jack Ruby. The most serious conflicts were with the right of the State of Texas to prosecute Ruby to the fullest and with the right of Ruby to a fair trial by a Dallas jury unaffected by the actions of the Warren Commission. The interests of Ruby in a fair trial precluded the Commission from taking any testimony from witnesses associated with that trial until the trial was over. It also dictated that the Commission itself not draw conclusions on Ruby's motives and not publicly implicate him in a conspiracy to assassinate the President, if he were in fact so implicated, until all legal avenues were exhausted in his trial for the murder of Lee Oswald. The most important long-range considerations that grows out of the Ruby dilemma was whether or not to seek to obtain immunity for Ruby in his testimony concerning the assassination of President Kennedy once he was convicted of murdering Oswald, in exchange for testimony concerning the assassination. The Commission did not have the power to grant this immunity, since the prosecution for the murder of President Kennedy was controlled by the State of Texas. The Commission, moreover, chose not to exercise even its influence to gain such immunity. Nonetheless, there came a time after the Commission was disbanded and after Ruby's judicial appeals for the murder of Oswald were exhausted, when that issue, the question of immunity, could have been reconsidered, but at that point no public official or public agency existed which had an official interest or responsibility to review the question. Mr. Chairman, I might interrupt my formal remarks at this point, because as I am sitting here speaking I am also looking at my watch, and I understand that you have a plane to catch, and if I were you sitting there, I would be very itchy and wonder how long this friend of yours was going to go on, and if you would like me to stop at this point so that you can intervene, I would be happy to do that. Chairman STOKES. Judge, I would really like to get the benefit of your full statement, because I would like to put a couple of questions to you and then, of course, with your permission, I would at that time make my concluding remarks. Judge GRIFFIN. All right. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. Judge GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, the next problem I would like to raise for the committee's consideration, which I regard as a failure of the Warren Commission, grows out of the problems of publication of the findings of the Warren Commission. I believe that the most serious failures of the Commission were not in the effectiveness with which it investigated the facts surrounding the murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe even if more aggressive and independent means were utilized for such an investigation, that no different conclusions would have been 480 reached as to the participants in the crime or as to whether or not there was a conspiracy. The problems of proof of a conspiracy are probably too great or else the suspicions with which this committee is dealing are in fact not well-founded. The select committee, I would suggest in those regards, should consider the possible reality that under the American system of civil liberties and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is virtually impossible to prosecute or uncover a well-conceived and well-executed conspiracy. The FBI, and I beg to differ with the optimistic projections of Mr. Salerno, certainly up until 1963, and I don't see that much improvement since then, has almost totally failed in its efforts directly to prosecute the organized commission of crime. The few successful prosecutions of effective criminal conspiracies that have oCcurred in America almost always result from the accidental discovery-accidental discovery of a crucial incriminating fact, such as was the case in the Abel spy case, where a young boy found a radio transmitter, as I recall, in a trash can in New York, and that is how the Federal Bureau of Investigation came upon Mr. Abel. Or a second and much more common method of solving and prosecuting criminal conspirators, of course, stems from the willingness of a convicted conspirator to testify against his confederates. It is much better if you have the convicted conspirator facing the death penalty than if you have him facing the penalty of perjury. There was I think, though a reasonable possibility that the American public could have better understood and accepted the integrity of the Commission's work. The select committee may well find deficiencies in the Commission's investigative technique but I would urge the committee to consider seriously if the Commission staff was honest and industrious in its efforts, and if substantial possibilities really existed that any different relevant facts could have been uncovered at that period, especially given the problems of cooperation with the CIA, and perhaps also with the FBI, and especially even with that cooperation but without an individual who was willing to confess. I really doubt that those questions can sincerely be resolved against the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission report, I submit, was a communications failure that need not have occurred. The report was prepared by persons, unfortunately like myself, who distrusted and did not know how to use any form of communications except the written word. The visual media, television, and videotape, were barred from courtrooms, which is lawyers forum, and had brought disrepute to congressional investigative committees. I might commend this committee at this point for setting an example for this country and in Congress as to how an extensive investigation can be conducted in the full presence of all of the modern media that we now have. It is true, as we all know today, that the only effective way to communicate with the American people, and all of us who are elected public officials--I like to point out that Bob Blakey always introduces me improperly as an appointed official, and I think the Congressmen recognize the difference. 481 Any elected public official and others realize the importance of the mass media in communicating to the American people. All the Warren Commission's essential testimony should have been preserved on videotape. The report itself should have been packaged, both for video presentation to small audiences, and for longer video study by amateur analysts and scholars. Incorporated into the presentation should have been an opportunity for questioning by critics and a video presentation of the evidence that related to the questions that were being posed by those critics. The eighth failure that I would like to identify for the committee is the failure to have a mechanism after the Warren Commission closed its operation for evaluating new evidence. I think the Warren Commission was shortsighted in writing its report and closing the door on further investigation. This led to claims that new evidence was being ignored or that the significance of old evidence had been overlooked. The public concern about the assassination of any President and of President Kennedy in this case will not end in the lifetime of anyone in this room. The dedication of a democratic society to an honest search for the truth required an ongoing vehicle for unbiased public inquiry. Such problems might have been minimized if the Attorney General had established within the Justice Department an office which would have continued to receive evidence and analyses from anyone who desired to submit them. A probable consequence would have been that further private and public investigations would have been funneled into that office rather than into the channels which they had predominately been funneled toward. Instead, the public continued to be bombarded with spurious claims that significant leads or new evidence had been developed, when, in fact, the evidence was not new or the leads were not fruitful. Congress, as we all know, ultimately became the only national forum in which continuing questions could be reexamined. The last failure that I wish to identify was the failure of the Warren Commission to have an adequate historical perspective on its task. The Warren Commission partially recognized that its activities did have a long time historical purpose and ultimately one member of the Warren Commission staff was an historian and it was the policy of the Commission to preserve all of its documents for delivery to the archives. I am always interested in those who accuse me of being part of a coverup when they ask me to explain how there can be one document that I prepared that is in the Archives which says one thing and another document that says something slightly different, and I am always amazed that they do not see the existence of both of those documents as a frank evidence of our desire to be candid about how we changed our minds and how things moved along and even the political considerations that affected some of our work. We are, those of us who are former staff members of the Warren Commission, available to be dissected publicly because we made those documents available in as total a fashion as they existed, to my knowledge, and we will be examined, I am sure, as this committee will be in the future because of that attempt to be candid. 482 But the fundamental investigation itself, I think, lacked a proper historical perspective. I think that could have been dealt with, in part, by an investigatory approach which did collect basic raw data, such as I identified a few minutes ago--extensive telephone records, tapes, other things of that sort. Those materials would have served as original data against which new witnesses, new leads and accusations of investigative agency memos could later be evaluated. A second historical perspective would have been to attempt more carefully to anticipate the conspiracy theories of the future critics and to build its investigation in terms of suspect lists and theories. Mr. Chairman, then let me come to the recommendations that I would like to make for the Commission. I would like to start by offering one basic conclusion for this committee's consideration. And that is that political murder, whether it be of an elected or a private person, requires an investigatery treatment different from that of ordinary crime. The political implications of such a murder do not vanish with the criminal prosecution, and over a period of time, new political implications may arise from the manner in which the original criminal investigation and prosecution were handled, even if no new evidence is generated that is persuasive enough to change the conclusions of the original criminal investigation. If a hint of conspiracy exists and possible conspirators are not identified and prosecuted, the case will be retried and reexamined in the public medium. Ultimately, political pressures or new facts may force all or part of the original investigation to be renewed again by a congressional committee, such as yours, or by another commission, such as the Rockefeller Commission. Any governmental investigation into a political murder must, therefore, address both the short-range purpose of its investigation as well as the long-range needs and pressures. Political murders, I might point out, can include the President of the United States, a Governor, as with Huey Long, a Senator, as with Robert Kennedy, a Congressman, or even a mayor or a local official, a civil rights or other leader, a newspaper reporter, as apparently has happened recently in Arizona. Because such a murder threatened the stability of our Government and the political freedoms of all Americans, it does require a special treatment. The murder of a President, moreover, is a crime that requires even more extensive and perhaps even a different investigation than any other political murder. Surely, the reverberations of the murder of the President are louder and longer and the implications reach into questions of foreign policy which may not be touched by any other kind of political murder. Against those basic reflections, I would like to submit the following recommendations to the committee for its actions. First of all, and looking at the narrowest question that I wish to address, is simply what do we do about the assassination of President Kennedy and the ongoing problem of its investigation? I think in the narrowest sense, the select committee should recommend that the John F. Kennedy Library or some other appropriate institution be established as a repository for all materials 483 dealing with the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, including the political aftermath, which I believe is an important consideration, the public reexamination of how the Warren Commission operated and the relationship of all other investigatory agencies to that Commission. All materials that relate to those events should be declassified except those whose publication is inconsistent with human decency. The repository should be federally funded so that it may collect all relevant public and private materials and can become a center for serious scholarly inquiry into the issues that have evolved from those murders and which have brought so many people in practically full-time attendance to these committee hearings. The second recommendation which I wish to make concerns communicating the select committee's conclusions and I suspect I don't need to make this recommendation. The select committee should seriously consider how it can use visual as well as written means to communicate its own investigatory processes and its own findings, even beyond the conclusion of these hearings. The media form should not be designed, as I say, simply for immediate observation by the general public but should be available for repeat presentations to future audiences. You may not like my suggestion in this regard, but I submit to you that you will soon become the target that replaces the Warren Commission as the object of attack for the various critics of the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination. Third, what do we do about possible future evidence that may bear upon the murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald? I suggest to the committee that if criminal prosecution remains possible for either of these murders under any applicable statutes of limitations, the select committee should recommend that the Attorney General of the United States establish a procedure and designate an Assistant Attorney General who will be responsible for the continued evaluation of evidence which may establish a basis for prosecution and for pursuing any leads. While this will undoubtedly have some consequences of encouraging spurious conspiracy claims, it will, in my opinion, have the more beneficial result of affirming the U.S. Government's continuing desire to ascertain the truth. I might broaden that suggestion in a further regard and say that it may well be as a result of the mandate of this committee to investigate. both the assassination of Martin Luther King and President Kennedy that an appropriate recommendation would be that an office be established within the Justice Department which would specialize in what I am identifying as political murder and out of that established committee, it seems to me there should not only be responsibility for investigating the loose ends which will exist because under the pressure of time also this committee will not complete its investigation for reasons that are political, but that there needs to be a capability to move quickly in the event of future assassinations. There needs to be a plan ready to be implemented which a successor Vice President can adopt with some sense that there has been reflection upon it and there needs to be an ability to draw upon techniques and staff without having to reinvent the wheel. 484 I would like to suggest some criteria that should be utilized in deciding how to structure a future investigation of a political murder. I think that it is important to identify the essential goals of any such investigation, and I would like to enumerate them, as I see them, for the benefit of this committee. The goals of any investigation into the assassination of the President of the United States should be, first of all, to ascertain the truth; second of all, to preserve the integrity of the governmental agencies or decision makers against disruption by groups or individuals who would use uncertainties surrounding the political murders in order to achieve results that are not justified by the weight of evidence; third, to protect the civil liberties of individuals and groups who may become the objects of popular suspicion but against whom no violations of law can be proved in a judicial proceeding; fourth, to communicate accurately, honestly, and effectively to the American public the results of any investigation and the reasons for reaching those results; fifth, to maintain responsibility for a continuing investigation in the hands of trusted, unbiased and competent persons who have public accountability rather than leaving the field to be occupied solely by private vigilante groups. Next, to collect, preserve, and make available for historical purposes all records related to the investigation of a political murder; furthermore, to establish the investigative agencies independence from all existing branches of Government when the necessity requires; next, to obtain the widest possible political and public understanding of any investigation, and, last, to protect the national security. In that final regard, I would like to suggest that an appropriate and essential responsibility of this committee is to candidly assess the factors that related to the CIA's withholding of information that it had attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro. And I would like to suggest that this committee must recommend how in the future any information should be handled which is relevant to domestic assassinations but whose disclosure might threaten the national security or interfere with the conduct of foreign affairs by the President. I offer no insights as to how one does that. I merely pose it to the committee as an important task which I believe it faces. Mr. Chairman, you have been very patient and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, very much, Judge Griffin. Our patience is due to the fact we know that you have taken a great deal of time to come here and give this committee the benefit of the kind of thinking that has gone into testimony that you have given here today. I think your testimony has been outstanding in the sense that you made the kind of evaluation that you have made of the work of the Warren Commission, the work of this committee and the kind of proposals that you have made to this committee. Let me pose this question to you. During the course of the existence of this committee, from time to time we have heard people say, well, what have you come up with in terms of asking for a smoking gun to come out of our investigation. 485 At one time, one of the Members of Congress even said to us on an occasion, well, when you finish, will your work have changed the course of history? Then I recall on another occasion we were asked about our work. Judge Preyer here made a comment early on in our investigation, he said that we don't know where our investigation will come out. It may well be that we will come out at the same place the Warren Commission did for different reasons. And then, of course, there are those who say, well, why are you spending all this money to come up with the same thing the Warren Commission came up with? And as one who was a member of the Warren Commission and one who is a highly respected citizen and judge that you are, why don't you just comment on that area, in terms of whatever salutary effect you find from this investigation. Judge GRIFFIN. Mr. Stokes, you and I have known each other too long, I think, for you to think I am simply buttering you up. What I have to say is going to sound that way to everyone else. I think this committee, by its conduct, regardless of what its conclusions are, has demonstrated that it is possible to reexamine or even to examine for the first time in a public forum matters which can have frightening consequences to the American people. I think that the conduct of this committee, as I have been able to perceive it from the provinces, from the newspapers that I read and the television that I have seen, has demonstrated that the fears that the Warren Commission expressed that it would not be possible to publicly examine those questions, and we were the products of a period where I think it had been demonstrated that things of that nature might not be able to be publicly examined because irresponsible people who would conduct the investigation, but I think your committee has done a tremendous service by showing that this House of Representatives and public officials can handle a sensitive matter like this in a highly responsible fashion. I think that in light of the tremendous distrust that this country has come to have, not only about the events that surrounded the assassination of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, but about the integrity of our Government in general, the mere fact that there has been an inquiry, that it has been conducted by a staff which has been determined to prove that the conspiracy theorists were right, that the Warren Commission was wrong, I think reaffirms our faith in our Government's honesty and the ability of us to have an open society. And I think you have also done a service to thousands of Americans who have been deeply troubled by the investigations that have previously been conducted, who have honestly, and often I disagree with them, but I believe have honestly in the vast number of instances, attempted on their own to examine the failures of the Warren Commission. The existence of these people, many of whom I believe are sitting behind me and have been behind other witnesses for days, is strong evidence of how serious this concern has been throughout the United States. We have educated men and women, intelligent men and women, who did not believe in the conclusions or the integrity of the investigation and who arrived at those conclusions, not in a frivolous fashion, but by incredible expenditures of effort and digestion 486 of materials, and I think the Government owed this investigation, reinvestigation to those people who cared so strongly. Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much, Judge. Several of the members have indicated that they wanted the time to be able to extensively examine you regarding policy matters and matters that relate to performance of the agencies, and due to this other commitment that I have, which was made some time ago in anticipation of the fact we were going to conclude today about 4 o'clock, I would beg leave of you at this time to make some concluding observations which I have promised those who have been following these hearings that I would attempt to do on the concluding day. With your permission, I will do that now. Judge GRIFFIN. I yield 3 minutes to the chairman. Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much, Judge: This afternoon, the Select Committee on Assassinations ends this series of public hearings into fact and circumstances, the death of President John F. Kennedy. The committee, in November, will continue its public hearings into the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and policy hearings on the death of both Presi- dent Kennedy and Dr. King may be held in December. There is a possibility, too, that the investigation of the Kennedy assassination will require 1 or more additional days of evidentiary hearings, though no decision has been made as yet on that point. As we have announced, the committee will meet in public in December to reach its conclusion in the two investigations. At this time, I would like to make some general observations attempting to sum up this phase of the public work that ends today. As I indicated when the committee convened on September 6, 1978, it had identified four main issues to investigate m order to fulfill its legislative mandate which is found in House Resolution 222. First, who assassinated President Kennedy? Second, how well did the agencies perform? Third, did the assassin or assassins have: help; that is, was there a conspiracy? Fourth, what recommenda- tions shall the committee make for the future? During the past 3 weeks, the committee's hearings have moved through several general phases, although the evidence it has con- sidered in each phase, obviously bears on the resolution of all of the issues. First, evidence was received on the facts and circumstances sur- rounding the President's death and the connection, if any, between those facts and circumstances and the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Second, an effort was made to evaluate the performance of the various Federal agencies--the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and the Warren Commission. Third, the committee examined certain conspiracy theories, some not so serious, some that cannot be rejected out of hand. Throughout, the committee has strived to consider the recom- mendations it will make for the future. As I noted on September 25, 1978, in presenting its evidence, neither the committee nor its staff has tried to prove or disprove any particular theory. The staff has presented the evidence and the committee has made an effort to evaluate it. The purpose of these hearings has been to consider the evidence available on a particular point. That evidence may 487 prove or disprove this or that theory or be insufficient to make a judgment either way. Nevertheless, because these hearings are legislative in character and not a judicial trial, the committee has had a duty to make what it has learned public, even if the evidence falls short of what everyone might wish to know on any one question. It may be helpful to repeat what has been said here about the quality and quantity of evidence available to the committee. As it has moved through each of the phases of its deliberations, in general, during the first phase of our hearings, the committee had available to it the hard stuff of science, quality and quantity of which was' unusually high. As the committee turned to assessing the performance of the agencies, less scientific evidence was available, and it was necessary to rely more on documents and human memories; chiefly, those of public officials. Then as the committee's attention turned to the question of conspiracy, the hard evidence of science and documents became even more rare. It was necessary to consider in its place oral testimony and recorded conversations. And those who have followed our hearings must recognize the difference in quality and quantity of three types of evidence. Human testimony is sharply qualified by human perception and memory, to say nothing of bias, motive to lie, or fear of retaliation. It is, therefore, less reliable than scientific analysis or documents written, not for litigation, but as an accurate record of actual events. In this context particularly, we must, as I have said, always distinguish between a suspected and a fact found. Another point must be repeated for emphasis. These proceedings have not been a criminal trial. There was no indictment, there was no defendant, there was no prosecutor, there was no defense counsel. The normal rules of evidence found in criminal proceedings have not, therefore, been applicable here. Because none of these elements played a role in our work, a caveat has been imposed on the committee, as evidence has been introduced before it, and should be imposed upon those who follow our proceedings: the caveat it is not to take the evidence that we have considered beyond what it fairly establishes or to sensationalize it. This caution is especially apt on the conspiracy question. When evidence of association has been considered, as I noted at the beginning of this week, conspiracy is rounded on association, but more than association is required to establish conspiracy. Reasoning that guilt goes hand in hand with association, the principal of guilt by association is to be abhored in a free society. Those who have followed our hearings or read our record must evaluate the evidence as the committee, indeed, itself must evaluate. There is an obligation to reserve judgment until all the evidence is in and not to reach conclusions beyond what the evidence fully justifies.. I must also caution you that even though our public hearings have concluded in the Kennedy case, all of the evidence is not yet in. Obviously, it has not been possible for us to consider here every question of concern or even to consider old evidence on those questions. Much was considered in our executive hearings, our 488 depositions, our field interviews and file reviews that will be analyzed and made public in our final report. What has been presented in these public hearings has been the distillation of over a year of effort by the committee, a staff of 40 attorneys, investigators and researchers. Nevertheless, I recognize that there have been loose ends m our hearings. Most of them, we hope, to be able to pin down or tie down in our final report. But frankly, life itself contains loose ends. As I said, not every question that can be asked can be answered. Not every question that can be answered can be answered to the satisfaction of all. Apart from publication of our final report and perhaps 1 and 2, as yet, unscheduled days of hearings, this today brings e committee's public work on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to an end. It has been a fairly intensive 17 days of hearings. In all, 59 witnesses appeared before us and well over 500 exhibits were entered into the record. The committee has heard from witnesses of all character--noted political figures and ordinary citizens, a former President of the United States, a current president of a foreign country and an individual who carried an umbrella on one sunny day in Dallas. The committee and the staff has spent untold man-hours of sorting out a voluminous 15-year accumulation of information. Cities like Miami, New Orleans, and of course, Dallas was visited often. There were trips to foreign countries--Cuba, Mexico, France, Spain. In all, there were 385 trips to 564 points for a total of over 1,870 days in the field, and the work continues and has continued during the course of these very hearings that we have held in this room. Witness interviews, for instance, have totaled over 1,548. Seventy five witnesses were questioned in executive session, 41 of whom were immunized. Over 500 files from the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Departments of State and Defense, as well as other agencies, have been reviewed. Files that range from a few pages to thousands. The FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald alone consists of 238 volumes containing 5,754 serials. Now, let me also point up some of the statistics related to some. of the scientific projects which were made a major part of these hearings. First the contractors. The photo analysis enhancement; 470 man-days were consumed at a total cost to the committee of $9,500. For acoustical analysis, for radio transmissions in Dallas on November 22, 1963, 160 man-days at a cost of $72,000. For simulated gun tests in Dealey Plaza in conjunction with the acoustical test, 38 man-days at a cost of $3,850. The total, 668 man-days, $167,350. As for consultants, for photoanalysis enhancement, 270 man-days at a cost of $50,000. Pathology, 101 man-days at $29,000. Ballistics 110 man-days at $12,000. Medical illustrations, 78 man-days $10,000. Handwriting analysis, 35 man-days at $6,000. MethodologY 20 man-days at $3,200. Polygraph analysis, 16 man-days at $2,500 Dentistry examination, 8 man-days at $1,500. Neutron activation analysis, 23 man-days at $1,500. Fingerprint analysis, 3 man-days at $600. The totals, 828 man-days, $146,200. As all can clearly see, these hearings, while illustrative of our work, have reflected only part of that work. This then would con- 489 clude my comments on the work of the committee and our public hearings. There are, however, a number of individuals and institutions to whom I would like to say a personal word of gratitude on behalf of this committee for their efforts in supporting us in the conduct of these public hearings. Mr. David Fones, the sound engineer who installed a new PA system as the hearings began. Mr. Fones has worked long hours to insure the system functioned properly, has been available to this committee staff at all times. To the superintendent of the three House press galleries for their work in accommodating the press. Mike Michaelson and his assistant Tina Tate, Ben West, and his assistant Charlie Marsten, David Holmes, to Maurice Johnson of the Senate still photographers gallery. To Ed Poland of property supplies service and to all of the staff of the superintendent's office. To Capt. Charles Parks, Lt. William Waters and the Capitol Police providing security for this hearing room 24 hours a day. To Marshall Jerome Bullet, Inspector Reed and his staff for providing extra security for Marina Oswald Porter and Jose Aleman. To the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress for providing the committee with graphic illustrations of its exhibits. To Bara Photographics, Inc., for providing us with photographic enlargements. To the National Archives for providing the actual pieces of evidence for the gentleman whom they sent over here on every occasion that we ever requested. To the Governments of Mexico and Cuba for their assistance in those countries. To the police departments of Dallas and Miami for the cooperation we received in those cities. And the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. Finally, to my fellow members of this committee who have given the Chair excellent cooperation in so many respects and to whom I will be forever grateful for the kind of cooperation given me, to the staff, the lawyers, the researchers, clerical staff, particular to Professor Blakey, chief counsel of the staff and to the young people on the staff who, in my opinion, have done an outstanding job. A few days ago one of the scientists before this committee commented as he left the hearing room, that if the caliber of young people on this staff are any indication of the kind of young people that are coming along in this country today, the country is in good shape, and I would concur and echo his sentiments regarding the brilliant young people who work for us. I would like to thank, also, in particular, the secretaries, the men who run the copying machines, the rest of the administrative staff who worked long into the night to prepare the press packets and briefing books for the members. Oftentimes we tend to overlook the amount of effort that goes on behind the scenes in preparing these kinds of hearings. I am sure that other members of the committee are as grateful as I am for the support that all of those people have given us. Last, may I just say to the working press that has been here who have been with us every moment during these hearings, the press has been vigorous, I think, aggressive, probing, they have also been cooperative in many respects and courteous to this committee, to the Chair in many respects, and I want to acknowledge that. 490 All in all, I want to thank all persons who had anything to .do with the way in which we were able to present these hearings. It is particularly important to me, and I think all members of this committee, to have the American people understand the nature of the undertaking this committee has undertaken, has, in our opinion, from the very beginning been a very serious undertaking. We were all determined these hearings would not be conducted in any kind of a circus atmosphere, they would have all of the professionalism of the House of Representatives behind them, they would be done professionally and competently. The Chair feels that has been accomplished and I appreciate the cooperation that we have received from everyone in being able to perform our work in that manner. Thank you, and at this time, I will ask Judge Preyer if he will assume the Chair. Mr. PREYER: [now presiding]. Well, I hope the rest of the after- noon won't be anticlimatic after the Chairman's statement. Have a good trip, Mr. Chairman, you have earned it. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. Mr. PREYER. Judge Griffin, we appreciate your statement, your deeply thoughtful statement. I think you went well beyond just talking about the facts of the Warren Commission study and the facts of this Commission's study and you have got into the question of the meaning of it, and you have talked to us about the meaning of criminal law and political murders and uses of history. It is certainly a stimulating paper. We have one historian, at least, who is a member of this panel, and the Chair at this time would recognize Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN Thank you Mr. Chairman and judge we welcome you to the committee hearings today, and you have given us very thoughtful food for thought, recommendations, some of which I suspect we won't be able to carry out but some we will. I have two or three categories of things I would like to explore with you, and I think rather than just ask for continuance of time repeatedly, I would like to take one of those areas first and then after others have had their chance to ask questions, perhaps I could get additional time. I want now to go directly to the policy questions and policy recommendations that you make, which are large, I would like to return to those, but in 5 minutes before the second set of bells ring, I would like to explore some specific questions that come out of your testimony. First, on your preliminary draft, which I went over last night, and repeated today, you indicated that certain things might have been done differently had you known certain kinds of information. Now, for your information, it seems to me as one member of this committee that upon occasion and sometimes even frequently two agencies that we questioned most carefully, the CIA and the FBI, frequently excused themselves for not giving information the Warren Commission by saying something like this--"we gave them whatever they asked for." But if the Warren Commission didn't know of its existence, the question logically arises, how they ask for it. 491 And when we talked to the Warren Commission members, in- cluding the President the former President, and J. Lee Rankin, we seemed to get that refrain, we couldn't ask for something we didn't know existed. It reminds me ever so much of the chicken and egg dilemma that we get into sometimes in life. But assuming that at some future date some other commission, some other group, some other time, might be faced with the same kind of problem for a political assassination, could you make any specific recommendations as to how we could break that at the outset institutionally or structurally? Judge GRIFFIN. Well, you are talking specifically, I presume, about the failure of the CIA to reveal that they had supported, as I understand the evidence, actually initiated attempts to assassinate premier Castro? Mr. FITHIAN. That is one example. There are other lesser lights in the discussion. Judge GRIFFIN. Certainly I think that is the most troublesome one. I don't know what your evidence is as to what the President knew. I think that decision has to be made at the highest level, and I think that unless the President himself was kept ignorant, and I believe that the Attorney General has to be considered in this case, since he was the brother of the President, it strikes me that when you have a situation that seems to indicate, and I think it is a question that you must develop the facts on, that the decision may have been made at that level to keep information from the Commission. I don't think there is anything we can do about it. Mr. FITHIAN. You don't think there is anything that the Commission could do about it? Judge GRIFFIN. No; as far as what we do about that situation in the future, I think you are going to stumble onto that information. Incidentally, I think, as I understand the evidence before this Commission, Allen Dulles, I believe, was privy to that information and did not convey it to the rest of the Commission members. I would rather answer the question this way: I think it might be legitimate to keep that information from a commission provided within the governmental process there was an assurance that the President knew that there was a complementary investigation going on and that ultimately all of that information would be preserved and come to light. I am troubled even by that kind of suggestion. Mr. FITHIAN. Yes. Judge GRIFFIN. But I recognize that if it had been known in 1964 that the CIA was attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro, I think the possibilities were very great in that period that pressures would have been brought in this country to begin a war against Cuba which might have had implications that would have brought this country into a thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. Those are frightening consequences and I have frankly myself wondered whether the reason Chief Justice Warren said to us that our investigation had those implications,. was that something that had been communicated to him by the President in that regard. But I think in the long run if that decision is made and if made by a responsible official, that that is what is crucial, if it were 492 made by President Johnson, I think I could accept that decision being made by President Johnson provided---- Mr. FITHIAN. This is hypothetical? Judge GRIFFIN. Yes, sir; talking about the future, Mr. Future President, I could accept that decision being made that something was crucial in the national interest that it could not even be revealed to a body such as ours, provided we could have substantial certainty that ultimately the record of this would be disclosed, that it would ultimately become available for examination, so that at a later stage in history we could assess whether that was a sound decision or not. Mr. FITHIAN. Let me turn to another question related to that. retrospect, many of the shortcomings of the Warren Commission, which you spoke of here today in your presentation seemed glar- ingly obvious, yet no member of the Commission has been willing or no one associated with the Commission, up to today, had been willing to acknowledge the shortcomings, and we have had, for example, as you know, former members of the Commission and the Chief Counsel. This in itself seems to me to sort of contribute to the speculations over consipracy, coverup, all of those dark terms. Why do you think that no one else who was directly associated with the Warren Commission has really been willing to make what I would call a candid critique of the successes and failures of the Commission? Judge GRIFFIN. Well, one, I think that there are other people who were members of the staff who may genuinely and honestly disagree with my criticism. Some of the issues which I raised were actually raised and are apparent from the Commission documents and decisions were made at that point that the approach that have suggested was an improper approach. Frankly, many of the suggestions I have made, I made as a staff member, either in writing or orally, and there were differences opinion, and I think that those other members, whom I both from the standpoint of their intelligence and their integrity, have honest differences of opinion on this. I also think that we are all human and it is difficult, when we feel strongly about something, it is difficult to change our position. I guess in part what I am saying is that it is easier for me to do it because I am not changing my position that much. Mr. FITHIAN. Let me turn to one of your stated goals of Warren Commission. In your presentation you indicated that one of the, I should say unstated goals, of the Warren Commission was to conduct "an investigation in a manner as to protect the reputation and employment of individuals against whom did not exist! convincing evidence of criminal conduct." Not necessarily naming names but could you give us examples of how this goal was implemented in the work of the Commission? Let me explain why I am asking the question, if I may. When you omit from any official body of evidence a name or activity, even with the very best of intent that you are trying to protect someone, you are legitimately trying to protect someone, you always open yourself up to that bane of existence, I suppose and that is the advantage of 20-20 hindsight by someone who 493 would like to say, well, they shouldn't have covered that up, we should have known about it. Judge GRIFFIN. Let me say that I don't think anything was covered up with respect to any individual by the Commission of which I am aware, and I would be very interested if this committee has found any instance in which the Commission failed to preserve any information about any individual which it had in its possession I think the way in which the Commission attempted to achieve the objective of protecting the reputations and employment of people was in the way that the information which they received was handled. One of the things that is so disturbing, I believe, to the critics of the Warren Commission is that they can find in many of the footnotes of the Warren Commission contradictory citations to contradictory documents, and when the Commission itself draws a conclusion that, for instance, there was no evidence, I think one of the conclusions that is written into the report is something to the effect that there was no evidence that Ruby was involved in any conspiracy with organized crime figures, which you have gone into. The fact of the matter is there is a great deal of evidence in the Warren Commission footnotes and the documents that support them which have been available for public investigation to show that many of the names that have been recited publicly in these hearings, many of those people were interviewed and much of the information which this committee has been going over was then available to the Commission. The Commission could have published that in its report and said that so and so did such and such, Mr. Trafficante, for example, I don't know what we had on Trafficante, I think very little, or Lewis McWillie we had quite a bit, and we could have published things about Lewis McWillie and Lewis McWillie may not be involved in the kind of activities that I want my children to go into, or myself, but I think even with Lewis McWillie there is a question of whether the proper step is to publicly discuss him. Now, although I must say we did publicly discuss McWillie, maybe there were instances of people who visited with Jack Ruby, a gentleman from Chicago, who saw him the night before Oswald was assassinated. We had a lot of questions about that relationship. We came to the conclusion that in all probability one of the things he was doing was cheating on his wife that evening. We decided not to publish that information, although anybody could read the investigatory materials and find that in there. Those are the kinds of things I am talking about. Mr. FITHIAN. You said on page 7 of your testimony, "Had the information been known to the Commission of CIA activities against Castro, the Commission's activity would have been greatly altered," and you go on to elaborate, although pretty briefly, about how that might be altered and---- Judge GRIFFIN. I don't think, for example-- Mr. FITHIAN. You project that it might have involved a rather prolonged investigation, as conspiracy investigations are wont to be. 494 Do you have any indication that your findings would have been different--- Judge GRIFFIN. I think that our findings-- Mr. FITHIAN. After 15 years? Judge GRIFFIN. I would make this observation. I think our findings on Oswald's motive would have been different, and this is a question that I don't hear discussed very often, but I happen to believe it is a very important question, because I think if an analysis of the evidence indicates that. the greatest possibility is that Oswald was motivated to do this because he was aware through his so-called underground, or whatever you want to call these sources, grassroots sources, that the CIA was involved in an assassination to murder, in plot to. murder President Kennedy, then it becomes clear that the motive for the assassination was supplied by this activity of the CIA, and that raises a very vital question of public policy, and if that were to be the conclusion of this committee, it would have implications that would go beyond these particular events that you are studying. So I think we would have had to pursue that. We frankly ducked, I think, everybody who has read the report knows, we ducked the question of motive. I do not think we could have ducked the question of motive under those circumstances. Mr. FITHIAN. Are you satisfied with regard to the question of motive or the testimony that, the information that has come about and been reiterated time and again, that Lee Harvey Oswald's most likely motive for pulling the trigger was because he was mentally or psychologically bent in the direction of trying to become somebody important? Judge GRIFFIN. Yes; I think that is a factor, but that does not explain why he selected President Kennedy or why he did it when he did. I mean, we know, I think many of us accepted this point, that Oswald attempted to assassinate General Walker. What motivated Oswald at that particular time to select Walker? If Oswald in November of 1963, with all his personality problems, with the sense of total inadequacy that was being given him by his wife, was then in such a psychological state that he was prepared to pull another General Walker, it might not have been President Kennedy he might have gone after someone else and, therefore, it becomes very important that something, that perhaps that the U.S. Government did is what supplied the impetus to select President Kennedy rather than some other person. Mr. FITHIAN. I have one. more minor matter, then I would like to ask a policy recommendation question. You use the word, very powerful words on page 12, of the consequences, nonetheless, that the Commission was powerless to combat, and you used the word "deliberate deceit by an investiga. tive agency." Judge GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Can you give me any indication, is that your con. clusion, it was deliberate deceit? Judge GRIFFIN. I think the CIA deliberately deceived the Warren Commission, based on evidence that I have seen. I think the answer that they have given that they didn't provide the information because nobody asked them is the kind of statement I get from 495 criminal defendants time in and time out, presiding over ordinary trials, and I think it is patent to me. The FBI conducted, I think the Hosty incident, I am satisfied it was deliberate and not accidental, although that we did find out about. I am not familiar with what you have found out as far as withholding of information by the FBI so I wouldn't really comment upon anything beyond what happened in the Hosty episode. Mr. FITHIAN. Finally, you make a very fervent plea for open hearings, open investigations, procedures in public, et cetera. Judge GRIFFIN. At some point. Mr. FITHIAN. Given the emotions of the 1963 and 1964 period, when you were working with the Warren Commission, is it not probable that the Warren Commission really couldn't have conducted a public hearing at that time? Judge GRIFFIN. I think that merits very serious consideration. I think, as I reflect upon my state of trauma and what I think was the state of trauma of this country, even when the Commission came out, the Commission's report came out, it may be that with an event of that magnitude at that time, so close to the events, that a proper judgment is under those circumstances that there cannot be any public hearings. I would think, however, that if one focused on the question in an intense way there would still be a way to structure public hearings that could avoid the trauma and could preserve the ultimate visual record for presentation at another time. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Judge. I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. MCKINNEY. Judge, let me assure you our subway is running better and better everyday. Judge GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. McKinney. Mr. McKINNEY. Good to see you. We have discussed these points before and they will be in the record. So, very briefly, I gather you are suggesting that this committee come forth with almost a body of Federal law. that would set up a certain line to follow in the case of any public assassination? Judge GRIFFIN. Mr. McKinney, I don't know whether legislation is needed in this area. I am inclined to believe that a recommendation from this committee that would be implemented administratively by the executive branch might deal with a lot of the problems and might in fact be a preferred way to do it, because I do think there has to be flexibility, and when you write a statute you are frozen for a long time. But I think, for example, the recommendation I made about continuing this investigation in some way through the Justice Department, even after this committee ceases to operate, is one that could be implemented, and I think the further suggestion that a responsibility of the Justice Department should be to create a game plan which could be immediately implemented in the event of a future assassination. I think that could be implemented and those things could be done without legislation. Mr. McKINNEY. I think one of the problems that we have had, in retrospect, relates to the trauma of the times. It would seem to me that we need to set up some sort of a pattern as to what must happen in a sequence. 496 Judge GRIFFIN. The only reason I answered the question that you pose in the way that I did is that I don't feel any confidence in my judgment about where you draw the line between legislation and administrative action, but it may be that there are matters, as you suggest, that require legislation, and it may be a form of legislation which imposed an obligation under certain guidelines upon an appropriate agency of government, which may be the Justice Department. Maybe that is what needs to be done. Mr. McKINNEY. Of course, in neither one of these cases did we have a trial which is really the citizens chance to have the knowl- edge and the facts presented before. them. It is perfectly possible and let's hope it never happens again, if something like this were to happen again, that there would be a trial, which would answer a lot of these problems. Do you think it could be a good idea for this committee to suggest, through legislation that within any given period of time, after a political assassination, that there. be an open public hear- ing, a year or two later, in which a commission would present all of the evidence to the American people? Judge GRIFFIN. There might be substantial value in setting a timetable, because it may be a way of dealing with the problem of trauma that Mr. Fithian mentioned. If you always have to be deciding when are you going to get to this, it may be more difficult to deal with it, but if you say that there must be a public hearing in 2 years, or whatever period of time is, it has a number of not only psychological advantages but it perhaps insulates the investi- gators from pressure to prematurely go public. Mr. MCKINNEY. Far enough from the time itself to avoid an emotional witch hunt and close enough so people would be assured that everything the government knew would be put in front of them? Judge GRIFFIN. That is right. Mr. MCKINNEY. It has been a great pleasure having you here again and I want to thank you for all the help you have given this. committee in both its executive session and the public session. Judge GRIFFIN. Thank you very much. Mr. FITHIAN. We are just checking to see if Judge Preyer has anything. I see he has some notes. Let me ask one question while you are getting in here. Do you feel the Warren Commission was under such pressure of time that they couldn't do as complete a job as you wanted them to do. Judge GRIFFIN. I feel that the time problems were resolved. They were agonizing questions. You put this to me in two ways. I think I am answering in one way, but I realize your question was, as much as I wanted to do. I wanted to do things that others didn't want to do. So my answer would be I think that we prematurely, closed out, we may have-let me say maybe I would like to reflect on this more. There is a possibility we may have prematurely closed out the investigation from my standpoint-he standards that were used, I think, though, that in terms which I tried to discuss at the beginning of my remarks, in terms of the standards that were used in making a decision as to whether or not, I think that in the minds of my colleagues, who had the 497 policymaking authority, that this was not closed out prematurely. There were certainly, and the record is full of the evidence of the struggle within the staff on this issue, but I think in every instance where a staff member, after discussion, insisted that the investigation had to go forward, the opportunity was given to him to go forward, and I for one, at the time that we concluded the investigation, was satisfied that under the standards that were being applied, I had gone as far as I could go. So, when I answered the question in saying that I would have gone further, it is because I would have undertaken a form of investigation that was actually different from the kind that we ultimately wound up taking. So, my kind of investigation would have taken longer. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. I have no further questions of the witness. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Judge Griffin. I see I have a number of deep philosophical questions here which would probably best at this hour of the afternoon go unasked or at least I can ask you in private. We do thank you for your very fine statement and I think you have made a real contribution. I noticed when you set out the goals of the Warren Commission in the first part of your paper, one of those goals had nothing to do with how agencies had performed or how we should handle an assassination, a political murder, as you call it, if one came up in the future. I think that is a goal this committee has in mind, that we want to study how the agencies performed, and in the unlikely, we hope unlikely, event of future assassinations, how it should be handled, and you have given us some very good practical answers on that subject. Let me just ask you this one question and no other. On the question of how a political murder should be handled in the future, is there anything further that you want to add to what you have already spelled out in your paper? Judge GRIFFIN. I think I have nothing further to say other than to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here and to address all of you. Mr. PREYER. We are grateful to you. The chairman has thanked many people for their contribution in this public hearing. I would like to just very briefly name a few people who have worked so hard, and I am referring to the staff. You mentioned, Judge, the incredible expenditure of effort, I think is the way you put it, on behalf of the staff, and I certainly agree with you on that. We have recognized Mr. Blakey, but let me just briefly name a few other people who have done an outstanding job. Some have become media personalities now, such as the umbrella girl, Cynthia Cooper, but many have labored in obscurity, and I think at least we should name them. I think the morale in the whole team has been remarkable in view of the kind of hours they have worked. Probably one definition of what morale is is when you are united in a common effort, then each person is perhaps better than they 498 thought they could be, do more that they thought they were capable of. I think the staff has done that. Mr. Blakey, of course, has been our chief counsel. Gary Cornwell, has been our deputy chief counsel. Charlie Mathews our special counsel, who has been sitting here whispering in Mr. Stokes' and my ear for this month. Kenney Klein, who sits just below me here, has been our assist- ant chief counsel and team I leader. Cliff Fenton has been our chief investigator. Jackie Hess, deputy chief researcher, who has done some work Jim McDonald, team II and III leader, semor staff counsel on the exhibition board. Lee Matthews, senior staff counsel and team IV leader. The Kennedy investigation is divided into five teams. Michael Goldsmith, who is a senior staff counsel and the team V leader. And Staff Counsel Surell Brady and Andy Purdy, Jonathan Blackmer, Belford Lawson, Bob Genzman, secretaries, who hadn't had the chance to appear here much, Ida Jane Ross, Jane Godfrey, Ann Misita, Rebecca Rife, Connie Smith, and the press officer, Dawne Miller, whose name we have all seen on many releases, and Lance Svendsen, and Paul Golden, who Xeroxed the press release material which-you have been receiving regularly, and all the researchers and investigators whom I wish I had time to name one person who I think has become a media person, along with Cynthia, has been Elizabeth Berning, our clerk here, who has been very faithful and very efficient in keeping some 500-odd exhibits straight. We appreciate that very much. So at this time, is there anything further from any member the committee? If not, the committee will adjourn sine die. [Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned, sine die.] . INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, at 9:10 a.m., in the Caucus Room, room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, Fauntroy, Dodd, Fithian, and Edgar. . Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. The Chair at this time wishes to make some opening remarks. Today, the Select Committee on Assassinations will hold 1 day of public hearings into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As those of you who followed our Kennedy hearings may recall, I observed at their conclusion that there might be a need for 1 or more additional day of public presentation of evidence. What I had in mind was the prospect of more hearings for our acoustics project, which is an analysis of an audio tape recorded at the scene of the assassination. The results of the project were first presented in a public hearing on September 11. Today we will hear an independent review of those results. Since September, the committee has had the opportunity to contract for a refinement of the acoustical data. The results of this work have been fully presented to committee members by the staff and expert consultants in executive session or in formal briefings over the past 2 weeks. The committee has also given careful consideration to the implications of the acoustics evidence in terms of all aspects of the investigation of the Kennedy assassination. The committee is also now prepared to reach its final conclusions and to make its final recommendations on all of the questions before it in both the assassination of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which, indeed, it will do tonight after this public session has adjourned. Nevertheless, because of the significance of the new acoustics analysis, the committee thought it would be appropriate to examine it and explore its implications in public hearing before the formal vote by the committee. I would now like to recognize Prof. G. Robert Blakey, the committee's chief counsel and staff director. NARRATION BY PROF. G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (499) 500 Testimony in 1964 before the. President's Commission to Investi- gate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, called the Warren Commission after its chairman, the former Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren, and before this committee over the last 2 years, has established that crucial issues in the assassination of President Kennedy turn on questions about the shots. How many were fired? Over what time span? From what direction? Answers to these questions formed the basis for the Warren Commission's lone assassination finding. If three shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository in a time period long enough for them to have been fired from one rifle, then the verdict of the Warren Commission may well stand. But the work of the Commission must be fundamentally reappraised, if the time span between the shots was too short for them to have come from one rifle, or if one or more of the shots came from different directions. If either of these occurred, it must be frankly recognized that a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy may have been afoot in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. The Warren Commission was persuaded that there were at least two and most probably three shots fired in Dealey Plaza, each fired from the Book Depository building. In arriving at this finding, the Commission considered a variety of evidence, including medical and ballistics data as well as testimony by witnesses as to what they heard or saw. The Commission maintained that the time span between the shots was either 4.8 to 5.6 seconds or 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. The difference between the two sets of figures depended which of the three shots the Warren Commission felt was-a miss. The discovery of three spent cartridge cases on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was considered "convincing" proof of only three shots. The Commission also concluded that its extensive investiga- tion "disclosed no credible evidence that any shots were fired from anywhere else." The work of this committee on the number, timing and direction of the shots has been based almost entirely on scientific evidence. The committee has had available to it a motion picture record of the assassination made by Abraham Zapruder, forensic medical evidence and testimony, ballistics and neutron activation analysis a trajectory reconstruction and, most significantly, an analysis of a recording of sound transmissions from a police motorcycle radio: The hearing today, Mr. Chairman, will be concerned, for the most part, with that scientific evidence and its implications. Particular attention will be paid to results of a new analysis of data previously developed in the committee's acoustics project. It was conducted by independent consultants whose findings were recently submitted to the committee. But before turning to the acoustics analysis, it may be useful, by way of introduction, to review some of the testimony of witnesses that was available to the Warren Commission in 1964. For that purpose, I request that JFK exhibit F-361 be entered into the record and appropriately displayed. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record again and displayed appropriately at this time. [The information follows:] 501 JFK EXHIBIT F-361 Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an aerial view of Dealey Plaza, the scene of the assassination. I would direct the committee's attention to the route of the presidential motorcade along Elm Street, the Texas School Book Depository to the rear of the President's limousine at the time of the shooting, and the grassy knoll, a parklike area that was to the right front of the President's car. As the Warren Commission itself candidly acknowledged, testimony on the number of shots varied. While the consensus seemed to be three, some witnesses heard only two, and others said they heard four or as many as five or six. The witnesses on the scene also gave varying accounts of the time span of the shots. Most agreed that they were all fired within a few seconds: The general estimate was five to six seconds. FBI tests indicated that Oswald's rifle could not be aimed and fired in less than 2.25 to 2.3 seconds. Consequently, for the Commission to conclude that only one assassin was involved, there had to be at least that time span between the shots. As noted above, the Warren Commission had testimony that shots came from directions other than the Depository Building. But the Commission was persuaded that that testimony should not be credited because of the "difficulty of accurate perception" and since the "physical and other evidence" apparently did not support it. This general summary of the witness evidence is useful, but it does not give a full picture of what the Commission faced, particularly as it applies to resolving the issue of the direction of the shots. Witness testimony may be summarized statistically. The committee has prepared an analysis of the statements of some 178 persons in Dealey Plaza that were available to the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that JFK exhibit F-360 be inserted into the record again and now be appropriately displayed. 502 Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record again and displayed at this time. [The information follows:] The first entry is the obtained data. The number in parenthesis is the expected number of such judgements if the source and number of shots are independent judgements. *7 other witnesses report 1, 4-5, 5, 6 or 8 shots. JFK EXHIBIT F-360 Mr. BLAKEY. The committee's analysis of this testimony shows that out of a majority who could establish a direction, 49 of them-- or 27.5 percent--thought the shots had come from the Book Depository; but 21 others--or 11.8 percent--believed that they had come from the grassy knoll; 30 of them--16.9 percent--thought they had originated elsewhere; and 78--or 43.8 percent--were unable to tell. The actual statements of certain witnesses who felt the shots may have come from somewhere in addition to the Depository may, however, be more illuminating than statistics, especially in the case of law enforcement personnel, whose training could be expect- ed to improve the quality of their judgment. A Dallas police officer Bobb W. Hargis was for example, riding a motorcycle to the left and slightly to the rear of the President's 503 limousine. He was questioned by Samuel A. Stern, a Warren Commission counsel. I request at this time, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of the Warren Commission testimony of Dallas Patrolman Bobby W. Hargis be entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-644. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it is so ordered. [The information follows:] 504 JFK EXHIBIT F-644 TESTIMONY OF BOBBY W. HARGIS The testimony of Bobby W. Hargis was taken at 3:20 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. STERN. Will you stand, please Do you solemnly swear that the evidence :you ,are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. HARRIS. I do Mr. STERN. Would you state for the record your name and residence address. Mr. HARGIS. Bobby W. Hargis, 1818 Adelaide, Dallas, Tex. Mr. STERN. What is your occupation ? Mr. HARGIS. Police officer. Mr. STERN. How long have you been a member of the Dallas Police Department? Mr. HARGIS. Nine years and about 7 months. Mr. STERN. And you are now a member of the motorcycle-- Mr. HARGIS. Division. Mr. STERN. Division? Mr. HARGIS. Yes. Mr. STERN. Were you a part of the motorcade on November 22d? Mr. HARGIS. Yes; I was. Mr. STERN. In what position? Mr. HARGIS. I was at the left-hand side of the Presidential limousine. Mr. STERN. At what part of the President's car? Mr. HARRIS. Well.. Mr. STERN. Front, or rear? Mr. HARGIS. Oh. Rear. Mr. STERN. Riding next to Mrs. Kennedy ? Mr. HARGIS. Right. Mr. STERN. Will you describe what occurred or what you observed limousine turned into Elm Street? Mr. HARGIS. Well, at the time that the limousine turned left on Elm I was staying pretty well right up with the ear. Sometimes on Elm we get right up next to it on account of the crowd, but the crowd was out down here at the triple underpass, so, I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and a real shocked and surprised expression on his face. Mr. STERN. On Governor Connally's? Mr. HARGIS. Yes; that is why I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that (indicating) the shot that killed him hit him. I don't know whether it was the second or the third shot. Everything happened so fast. Mr. STERN. But, you cannot now recall more than two shots? Mr. HARGIS. That is all that I can recall remembering. Of course, everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would have noticed them. Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally in connection with the shot you have Just described? Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting Mr. STERN. Yes. 505 JFK EXHIBIT F-644 cont. Mr. HARGIS. Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going," Mr. STERN. Someone inside-- Mr. HARGIS. I don't know whether it was the Secret Service ear, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in' first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole. Mr. STERN. Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots? Mr. HARGIS. Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could ten where they were coming from. but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary 'place that could have been shot from. Mr. STERN. You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots? Mr. HARGIS. Yes. sir: I knew they were shots. Mr. STERN. All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle? Mr. HARGIS. Yes, uh-huh---- Mr. STERN. Where? Mr. HARGIS. It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street. Mr. STERN. And then what did you Mr. HARGIS. I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked. Mr. STERN. People on the overpass? Mr. HARGIS. Yes ; people that were there to see the President I guess- They were taking pictures and things. It was kind of a confused crowd. I don't know whether they were trying to hide or see what was happening or what-and then I looked over to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and no one that .was standing at the base of the building was--seemed to be looking up at the building or anything like they knew where the shots were coming from so--- Mr. STERN. How about the people on the incline on the north side of Elm Street? Do you recall their behavior? Mr. HARGIS. Yes; I remember a man holding a child. Fell to the Found and covered his child with his body, and people running everywhere, trying to get out of there, I guess, and they were about as confused as to where the shots were coming from as everyone else was. Mr. STERN. And did you run up the incline on your side of Elm Street? Mr. HARGIS. Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over there. Mr. STERN. Did you get behind the picket fence that runs from the overpass to the concrete wall? Mr. HARGIS. No. Mr. STERN. On the north side of Elm Street? Mr. HARGIS. No, no; I don't remember any picket fence. 506 JFK EXHIBIT F-644 cont. Mr. STERN. Did you observe anything then on the overpass, Or on the incline, or around the Depository? Anything out of the ordinary besides people running? Mr. HARGIS. No; I didn't That is what got me. Mr. STERN. So, at that point you were still uncertain as to the direction of the shots? Mr. HARGIS. Yes, uh-huh. Mr. STERN. Then, what did you do? Mr. HARGIS. Well, then, I thought since I Ired looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on, but none of them were looking towards, or near anywhere the shots had been fired from. At the time I didn't know, but about the only activity I could see was on the bridge, on the railroad bridge so---- Mr. STERN. What sort of activity was that? Mr. HARGIS. Well, the people that were up there were Just trying to get a better look at what was happening and was in a haze and running, Or in a timed fashion, and I thought maybe of them had seen who did the shooting and the rifle. Mr. STERN. Then what did you do? Mr. HARGIS. Then I got back on my motorcycle, which was still running, and rode underneath the first underpass to look on the opposite side in order to see if I could see anyone running away from the scene, and since I didn't see anyone coming from that direction I rode under the second underpass, which is Stemmons Expressway and went up around to see if I could see anyone coming from across Stemmons and back that way, and I couldn't see anything that was of a suspicious nature, so, I came back to the Texas School Book Depository. At that time it seemed like the activity was centered around the Texas School Book Depository, so, that is when I heard someone say. one of the sergeants or lieutenants, I don't know, "Don't let anyone out of the Texas School Book Depository," and so, I went to a gap that had not been filled, which was at the southwest corner. Mr. STERN. And you remained there until you were relieved? Mr. HARGIS. Yes. Mr. STERN. Anything else that you haven't told us that you think is relevant to our inquiry? Mr. HARIS. No I don't believe so. Mr. STERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hargis. The reporter will transcribe your testimony and have it available for you to read and sign if you care to. Otherwise, you may waive your right to review and sign the testimony and she will mail it direct-to the Commission, whichever you prefer. It is entirely your option. Mr. HARGIS. Well; it really doesn't make any difference. It is more or less what you all think is best. Mr. STERN. It's entirely up to you. Mr. HARGIS. Well, how long will it be until she fixes it up? Mr. STERN. Well, off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. STERN. On the record. Mr. HARGIS. All right. Well, Just go ahead and I will Just let you go ahead and send it in without the signature. Mr. STERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hargis. 507 Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Stern asked Officer Hargis to describe what occurred. Mr. Hargis said: I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. Mr. Hargis was then asked if anything unusual had happened to him during the shooting-He replied: Yes; when president Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet (hit) him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain. In describing this scene, Mr. Hargis was interrupted by Mr. Stern, who asked about the direction of the shots. Mr. Hargis replied: Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered * * * I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was (sic) the primary place that could have been shot from. After the shooting, Mr. Hargis stated that he saw a man holding a child fall to the ground at the base of the incline and cover his child. He also saw other people running-I request at this time, Mr. Chairman, that JFK exhibit F-661 be entered into the record and appropriately displayed. Chairman STOKES-Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-661 508 Mr. BLAKEY. It is a photograph apparently of what Mr. Hargis saw. Mr. Hargis himself stopped his motorcycle and ran up the incline. The man Officer Hargis saw lying on the ground was William Eugene Newman. I would, at this time, Mr. Chairman, request that a copy of Mr. Newman's statement to the Dallas County Sheriffs Department be entered into the record as exhibit F-645. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-645 509 The Newmans were observing the motorcade from the curb near the west end of the concrete standard on Elm Street. Mr. Newman gave this description of their actions after hearing the shots: Then we fell down on the grass as it seemed that we were in direct path of fire * * * I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vicinity of the garden. Abraham Zapruder was standing with his 8 millimeter motion picture camera on a concrete abutment on the grassy knoll, just beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign. Here I would request that JFK exhibit F-155 be entered into the record again and appropriately displayed. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record again at this point. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-155 Mr. BLAKEY. It shows Mr. Zapruder as he is taking his motion picture. I would also ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of Mr. Zapruder's Warren Commission deposition be entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-646. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 510 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER The testimony of Abraham Zapruder was taken at 1 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex. by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, would you stand and take the oath, please? Do you solemnly swear this testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. ZAPRUDER I do. Mr. LIEBELER. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. Mr. ZAPRUDER. What is your name? Mr. LIEBELER. Wesley J. Liebeler [spelling] L-i-e-b-e-l-e-r. I am an attorney on the staff of the Presidents Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order 11130 dated November 29, 1963, and the Joint resolution of Congress, No. 137. Under the rules of the Commission you are entitled to have your attorney present, should you desire to have him here. You are entitled to 3 days' notice of the hearing and you need not answer any questions you think would violate any rights or privileges that you may have. Did you receive the 3 days' notice of the hearing? Mr. ZAPRUDER. I was out of town--I was in New York any my secretary called--she called me and told me that she made an appointment for me and that's about all that I know, Mr. Liebeler. The other proceedings--I don't know. Mr. LIEBELER. I assume that you are willing to go today since you are here. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, I am. 511 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Mr. LIEBELER. Would you state your full name for the record, please? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Abraham Zapruder. Mr. LIEBELER. That's spelled [spelling] Z-a-p-r-u-d-e-r? Is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. What is your address? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Home address? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Mr. ZAPRUDER. 3909 Marquette. Mr. LIEBELER. Here in Dallas? Mr. ZAPRUDER. In Dallas yes. Mr. LIEBELER. Are you in business here in Dallas, Mr. Zapruder? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. What business are you in? Mr. LIEBELER. The manufacture of ladies dresses? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. I understand that you took some motion pictures at the time of the assassination? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell us about the circumstances under which-you did that, where you were at the time and what happened? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And what you saw. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, of course. what I saw you have on film. but that was November 22 it was around 11:30. In fact, I didn't have my camera the day, but my secretary asked me why I don't have it and I told her I wouldn't have a chance even to see the President and somehow she urged me and I went home and got my camera and came back and first I thought I might take pictures from the window because my building is right next to the building where the alleged assassin was, and it's just across---501 Elm Street. but I figured--I may go down and get better pictures, and I walked down. I believe it was Elm Street and on down to the lower part, closer to the underpass and I was trying to pick a space from where to take those pictures and I tried one place and it was on a narrow ledge and I couldn't balance myself very much. I tried another place and that had some obstruction of signs or whatever it was there and finally I found a place farther down near the underpass that was a square of concrete--I don't know what you call it--maybe about 4 feet high. Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit I and ask you if you can in fact see yourself in that picture? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Let me see--there it is here. That's me standing there--there's a girl--that's where I was standing. Mr. LIEBELER. You are pointing out a concrete abutment that comes up mediately to the right of the sign that reads "Stemmons Freeway. Keep Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. That's the girl behind me that's my girl that works in my office. She was up there too. Mr. LIEBELER. So, you and this girl are shown standing on top of this concrete abutment there ? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right---she was right behind me and that's from where I took the pictures. Mr. LIEBELER. Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture, can't you? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I can't distinguish myself being--I know I was there. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that this picture was taken at the time you were there? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; I was there and I would say this Couldn't be anybody unless-- this is an authentic photograph and it isn't composed now or changed--I would say that's me- That's the first time I have. seen that. Were these pictures ever published in a magazine--there were pictures like that I suppose--actually? Mr. LIEBELER. This picture here is in fact one of a series of pictures that being sold down here in Dallas by a fellow named Willis. I believe his name is Phil Willis. He has a series of slides that are available and it's picture No. of those slides in which you can see yourself back there. 512 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Mr. ZAPRUDER. That must be it because there's another couple back there---I took some from there and I was shooting some of the pictures to start my roll from the beginning. I didn't want to have a blank and I shot some, in fact. they have it--the Federal Bureau of Investigation have those pictures. Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street. Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line---I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area). Mr. LIEBELER. Grab himself on the front of his chest? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Right something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that. Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw--I don't believe the President is going to make Jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [the witness crying]. Mr. LIEBELER. That's all right, Mr. Zapruder, would you like a drink of water? Why don't you step out and have a drink of water? Mr. ZAPRUDER. I'm sorry--I'm ashamed of myself really, but I couldn't help it. Mr. LIEBELER. Nobody should ever be ashamed of feeling that way, Mr. Zapruder. I feel the same way myself. It was a terrible thing. Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether. Mr. ZAPRUDER. I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see---I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the 'second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot. Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit? Mr. ZAPRUDER. I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass---I don't even know how I did it. And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there, but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming, "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What happened, what happened, what happened ?" It seemed that they had heard a shot but they didn't know exactly what had happened as the car sped away, and I kept on just yelling, "They killed him, they killed him, they killed him," and finally got to my office and my secretary--l told her to call the police or the Secret Service. I don't know what' she was doing, and that's about all. I was very much upset Naturally, couldn't imagine such a thing being done. I just went to my desk and stopped. there until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the films. I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help--I know what. As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There 513 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height. Mr. LIEBELER. As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down the railroad track behind that, is that right? Mr. ZAPRUDER After the shots? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes--after the shots-yes, some of them were motorcycle guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there. Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, yes. Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direc- tion the shots did come from actually? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No. Mr. LIEBELER. And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front. WeLl, it could have been--in other words if you have a point-you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I have no way determining what direction the bullet was going. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over. Mr. LIEBELER. And with the buildings around there, too? ZAPRUDER. Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't ribrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire-- in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is. Mr. LIEBELER. Well, there are many different theories about that. One thing would like you to do now--we have a series---a little book here that is Commission Exhibit No. 885 and it consists of a number of frameS from motion pictures and I want to show you certain numbers of them which are important to our work and ask you it those look like they were taken from your film and if in tact you could recognized it as you look through this book that these axe individual frame-by-frame pictures of the pictures that you took. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, they are frame by frame and they weren't very clear, for the simple reason that on the telephoto lens it's good to take stills--when you move did you ever have binoculars and, every time you move everything is exaggerated in the move that's one reason why they are kind of blurred--the movement. Now, you want me to identify whether these are my pictures? 514 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, specifically, I first call your attention to No. 185. This is No. 185 on the back of it and will you look at the whole book and identify it if you can and tell us that those are the pictures that--that those appear to be the pictures or copies of the pictures that you took from your motion picture camera? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I would say this, they look like if they were taken from the film I had--these are the ones. I mean, I don't know how to express myself. Mr. LEIBELER. Well, they were? Mr. ZAPRUDER Well, it looks like them--that's when they turned in from Elm Street. Is that it? I'm trying to visualize it. This is taking it from the opposite side of me, is it, where I would have been taking it, because I see this structure--I have been around there and---or these--this couldn't be here---where did they get this in there. how did they get this in there, if I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there? That shouldn't be there. Mr. LIEBELER. This is the thing back up behind on Delay Plaza, I think, isn't it? Mr. ZAPRUDER. They have one there, too? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, I think there is. Now, if you will look at Hudson Exhibit No. 1, you will see that there is some kind of concrete structure there and is a different kind from that figure. It has bigger holes in it. Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right--in the back of this here, that's where it is---that's what I thought it was--that's where I got mixed up. Mr. LIEBELER. You thought that the concrete latticework on the individual pictures in Commission Exhibit No. 885 Mr. ZAPRUDER. Now I see it--that's where they have moved now the flowers and all that. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes--I have to state this for the record--so they can understand what we are talking about--you confused it with the concrete lattice-work shown in the background in the individual photographs in Commission Exhibit No. 885: with the larger and obviously different concrete structure in the background of Hudson Exhibit No. 17 Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, that--there is Elm Street there this is a corner. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, specifically here--let me show you the ones that have been numbered 185 and 186 and see if you can recognize those. This is 185 here that we are looking at now-of Commission Exhibit No. 885. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. This is where he came in from Houston Street and turned there. Mr. LIEBELER. yes; and they are going down Elm Street now? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; this is before---this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? You can't tell from here? Mr. LIEBELER (no response). Mr. ZAPRUDER. I believe it was closer down here where it happened. Of course, on the film they could see better but you take an 8 millimeter and you enlarge it in color or in black and white, you lose a lot of detail. I wish I had an enlarger here for you. Mr. LIEBELER. In any event, frame No. 185 does look like it's one of the frames, sir? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And 186 is similar also? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I've got a list of them here that I want to ask you about-picture 207 and turn on over to this picture. It appears that a sign starts to come in the picture there was a sign in the picture. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; there were signs there also and trees and-somehow--I told them I was going to get the whole view and I must have. Mr. LIEBELER. But the sign was in the way ? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; but I must have neglected one part--I know what has happened--I think this was after that happened--something had happened. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember when you looked at your pictures yourself, do you remember that there was a sign that does appear between the camera and the motorcade itself and you can see the motorcade for a while and the sign comes in the view? 515 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. Mr. LIEBELER. And the motorcade comes behind it. Now, what about picture No. 210--however there is no No. 210 in here. Mr. ZAPRUDER No. Mr. LIEBELER. How about No. 222? Now, in No. 222 you can see the President's car coming out from behind the sign. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And you can see Governor Connally right there in that center seat, I believe ? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; Governor Connally--yes--these are all the same pictures---I remember the car was kind of buried and I was kind of low and I don't know how I got that view--I didn't get Just the full view of the shot. Mr. LIEBELER. Let's turn to 225 and there the car is coming further out from behind the sign. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. Is that still the same part of the sequence? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LEIBELER. You can now see the President for the first time. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; that's the President. Mr. LIEBELER. The President appears tO have his hand up by his throat as he is Just coming from behind the Sign. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; it looks like he was hit--it seems--there-- somewhere behind the Sign. You see. he is still sitting upright. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; he's sitting up and holding his hand Mr. ZAPRUDER. Do we have the sequence the next frames? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; it will be No. 227 and his hand comes up even more and he starts to move a little to his left. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Apparently. And they started speeding the car then to--but he is still sitting up here. Is that still the President here? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; iii picture No. 228--he still appears to have his hand up and in No. 229 it's even more pronounced. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. As the car keeps coming up from behind and in picture 230 he has raised both hands up. Mr. ZAPRUDER. It looks to me like he went like this--did he go to his throat-I don't remember--I thought he went like this [holding both hands on the left side of his chest]. Did it show? Mr. LIEBELER. Let's turn over to picture 231 here--these still appear to be the same sequence of pictures, do they not? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; you get about 16 per second and I think my camera was moving a little fast, maybe 18 frames per second. You see, we have a lot of pictures on there. Mr. LIEBELER. And 235 is there. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; we've got that. Mr. LIEBELER. In 235 both hands are up by his throat there or up to the top of his chest and Mrs. Kennedy is looking at him. me it looks like it. Mr. LIEBELER. You mean it looks to you as though he moved a little more sharply perhaps? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Toward her--there are so many frames, of course, this probably his first reaction, but he leaned over--it would be after the shot was fired, after I heard a sound, he went like this [leaning to the left and holding both hands to the left side of his chest]. Mr. LIEBELER. He moved over to his left and pulled his hands there? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; he moved to the left and pulled his hands somewhat in this direction. Mr. LIEBELER. Does picture 235 appear to be one of the pictures that was taken from your sequence? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. How about 240--let's turn over to 240 and there he has turned his head toward the left a little bit more. Mr. ZAPRUDER. There's only about 100 frames--they are so close. 516 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Mr. LIEBELER. Five frames? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Five frames is nothing-I believe. Mr. LIEBELER. How about 249? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No. 249--I just wonder if it was the motion that he went back with that I don't remember-it looks like he has got his hand on his head-I don't remember seeing that. Of course, the pictures would show. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; when you pick one of them out it's hard to break it down and pick them out. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; it's hard. We run them in single frames-and to get the main shot-it's hard. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, let's turn over to picture 255--these all do look like they are from your film? Mr. Zapruder. Yes; they are--I know this--I have seen it so many times. In fact, I used to have nightmares. The thing would come every night--I wake up and see this. Mr. LIEBELER. What about 255--what about that one? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's still the same series. Mr. LIEBELER. That's still the same series-they keep moving along. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And let's look at No. 213-as we go along here-then be does start moving sharply to the left. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; when you take it frame by frame, it could have been just 2 or 3 seconds, but the impression was that he was leaning over and not just sitting there and looking over that and grabbing himself at the left side. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; moving toward Mrs. Kennedy. Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's what impressed me. Now, what number are you on? Mr. LIEBELER. 313-you remember that one? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That was-that was the horrible one. Mr. LIEBELER. It appears to you then, that this book of pictures here as you look through it, are your pictures? Mr. Zapruder. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mr. Zapruder, after you had the film developed I understand Mr. Sorrels from the Secret Service came over and helped you get the films developed and you gave two copies of your films to Mr. Sorrels, is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. one we have sent to washington the same night and one went over for the viewers of the FBI on Ervay Street. Mr. LIEBELER. That's the Secret Service? Mr. ZAPRUDER. The Secret Service-I brought one roll there and they told me to dispatch it by Army pane or I don't know what they had done with it but it was supposed to have gone to Washington and one of them, I believe, remained here with Mr. Sorrels. He came to my office quite a few times to show them to different people. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I understand that you, yourself, retained the original film? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No; I don't have that at all-I don't have any at all. They were sold to Time and Life magazines. Mr. LIEBELER. You sold that to Life magazine? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission is interested in one aspect of this and I would like to ask you if you would mind telling us how much they paid you for that film. Mr. ZAPRUDER. For the film? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I just wonder whether I should answer it or not because it involves a lot of things and it's not one price--it's a question of how they are going to use it, are they going to use it or are they not going to use it, so I will say I really don't know how to answer that. Mr. LIEBELER. Well, I am not going to even urge you to answer the question. We will ask it and if you would rather not answer it--the Commission feels it would be helpful. Mr. ZAPRUDER. I received $25,000, as you know, and I have given that to the 517 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Firemen's and Policemen's Benevolence with a suggestion for Mrs. Tippit You know that? Mr. LIEBELER. I don't know that--you received $25,000? Mr. ZAPRUDER. $25,000 was paid and I have given it to the Firemen's and Policemen's Fund. Mr. LIEBELER. You gave the whole $25,000? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes. This was all over the world. I got letters from all over the world and newspapers--I mean letters from all over the world. It was all over the world---I am surprised--that you don't know it--I don't like to talk about it too much. Mr. LIEBELER. We appreciate your answer very much. Mr. ZAPRUDER. I haven't done anything, the way I have given it, at a time like this. Mr. LIEBELER. I want to tell you, you may not be aware of it yourself, but I want to tell you that your film has been one of the most helpful thing to the work of the Commission that we could possibly have had because it has enabled us to study the various positions of the people in the car and to determine by comparing it with the reenactment--by comparing it tO the view from the window of the building, to develop with a fair degree of accuracy the facts here. Mr. ZAPRUDER. I understand-and I am willing to be helpful but I am sorry it had to be on an occasion like this. I am willing to be helpful but I wish this would never have happened. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; that's right. Mr. ZAPRUDER. I know they have taken my camera to Washington. Mr. LIEBELER. It was a Bell & Howell camera, isn't that right? Mr. ZAPRUDES. That's right. Mr. LIEBELER. And you turned it over to the FBI and they have made tests on it? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; and then Bell & Howell wanted it for their archives and I thought they were through with it and let them have it. In return, they gave me, not for my personal use. but a sound projector which was given to the Golden Age Group. It's a place where old folks have a home. I asked them to donate something. I didn't want the camera. I didn't want anything for myself. Then the FBI wanted the camera again and I referred them to the Bell & Howell people. Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; the FBI asked for the camera back because the Commission wanted to determine whether there was any difference in the frame speed as the camera unwound itself, as it went along. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, they claimed they told me it was about 2 frames fast-instead of 16 it was 18 frames and they told me it was about 2 frames fast in the speed and they told me that the time between the 2 rapid shots, as I understand, that was determined--the length of time it took to the second one and that they were very fast and they claim it has proven it could be done by 1 man. You know there was indication there were two? Mr. LIEBELER. Your films were extremely helpful to the work of the Commission, Mr. Zapruder. Mr. ZAPRUDER. I am only sorry I broke down--I didn't know I was going to do I." Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Zapruder, I want to thank you very much, for the Commission, for coming down. It has been. very helpful. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I'm ashamed of myself. I didn't know I was going to break down and for a man to--but it was a tragic thing, and when you started asking me that, and I saw the thing all over again, and it was an awful thing--I know very few people who had seen it like that--it was an awful thing and I loved the President, and to see that happen before my eyes--his head Just opened up and shot down like a dog--it leaves a very, very deep sentimental impression with you; it's terrible. Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you don't have to feel ashamed about that at all. and thank you very much. I enjoyed meeting you very much. Mr. ZAPRUDER. All right, any time you want some more help you can call on me and I win be glad to come in. Mr. LIEBELER. All right, thank you a lot. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Goodbye. 518 JFK EXHIBIT F-646 cont. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Zapruder was questioned by Warren Commission counsel, Wesley Liebeler: Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line--it could come from anywhere,* * * Mr. Liebeler tried to focus Mr. Zapruder's memory of the event: Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No. Mr. LIEBELER. And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front. Mr. Zapruder then agreed that any direction, was possible and that he had no way of determining the bullets course. He did, however, distinguish between the shots: Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen? Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over * * * Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot * * * (that gave the reverberations). Secret Service Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., wrote a statement on the shooting, dated November 30, 1963. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that document entered into the record as JFK exhibit F- 647. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 519 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, AT DALLAS, TEXAS Statement of Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., United States Secret Service, concerning his activities and official duties on November 22, 1963. On November 22, 1963, I arrived at Love Field AirPort, Dallas, Texas. st 11:35 &.to.; having traveled from Ft. Worth, Texas to Dallas, Texas, on board U.S. Air Force Flight #6970. Upon my arrival I disembarked from the" aircraft and immediately walked to where the motorcade vehicles were parked. Special Agent Sam Kinney was the first person that I recognized; and I remember speaking to him and standing by the Follow-up car sad jokingly asking him if he could tell me where the Follow-up car was. After speaking to Sam, I walked over to Special Agent Win Lawson just to double check to see if I was still assigned to working the Follow-up car as had previously been arranged. He was standing by the front right fender of the car in which the president would be riding, and he told me that I was still to ride in the Follow-up car. Only & very Sew moments later the president's Aircraft was pulling up to its mooring spot and I moved up to where I would be near the president and First Lady when they disembarked from the aircraft. There appeared to be a very large crowd at the airport and most of the people were restrained behind a chain-link fence which was about four or five feet high. On the opposite side of the fence from the crowd there was a very narrow sidewalk and ourbing which ran along the fence-line. There were several people on the same side of the fence as the president but most of them were photographers. As soon as the president and First Lady disembarked from the Aircraft Mrs. Kennedy was presented a bouquet of roses. The president was also presented what appeared to be two hand-drawn charcoal portraits of himself and Mrs. Kennedy in a black leather and glass folding frame. I believe that this was given to him by a lady wearing a red coat. Just after the president received the black leather frame I held out my hand and he handed it to me. I had been standing just off to Mrs. Kennedy's left, slightly in front of her. She was on the left side of the president. At this time the president and First Lady started walking towards the crowd which was restrained behind the fence. On the way, they did stop for a few seconds to talk to an elderly lady in a wheel chair who was on the field area about thirty 560t from where the above presentations were made. They then walked over to the crowd and walked along the fence from their right to their left. At first I was in front of the president; clearing pathway through the photographers and observing the crowd reaching over the fence; COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 520 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 cont. Page Two of Statement of Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., dated Nov. 30, 1963: but I noticed that Mrs. Kennedy was moving along slower and becoming seperated from the president so I asked another agent, I don't recall who, to move up where I was and I dropped back to assist Special Agent Clinton Hill who was next to Mrs. Kennedy. I continued to keep a pathway clear for Mrs. Kennedy removing small hand signs that had been dropped in her pathway on the sidewalk and occasionally cautioning to watch out for the curbing. At one point, where the direction of the fence made a right angle turn to the left of the way we were moving, I do remember reaching up and holding a fairly large flag away that someone was waving over the fence. Only a few feet further and the fence and sidewalk made another 90 degree turn in the direction in which we were originally moving. At this point we stopped momentarily and started in the direction of the cars which were slightly behind us and had been moving along towards us. Mrs. Kennedy asked where the President was and SA Hill noticed him continuing along the fence shaking hands with the crowd; so Mrs. Kennedy returned to the fence and did the same. Only a short distance later the President and First Lady stopped shaking hands and entered their automobile. I stood by the right rear side until the car started moving and then hopped on the right rear portion of the right running board of the Follow-up car. I was standing with my right leg on the running board and my leg up over and inside the Follow-up car. I stayed in this position until we were leaving the Airport area and remarked that, "I might as well get all the way in," and I did so. I glanced at my watch but I don't recall the time. Special Agent Glenn Bennett and George Hickey were seated to my left respectively in the rear of the Follow-up car. Mr. David powers was seated directly in front of me in the center portion of the Follow-up car and Mr. Kenneth O'Donnell was seated on Mr. Power's left. Special Agent Sam Kinney was driving and ATSAIC Roberts was seated in the right front seat. Special Agents John Ready, Clinton Hill, and Tim McIntyre were standing on the right front, left front, and left rear portions of the running board, respectvely. The motorcade had not proceeded far when ATSAIC Roberts asked me to get back on the outside running board, "Just in case," which I immediately did. The crowd was about two deep along each side of the road and I would guess that we were traveling about twenty miles per hour. As the motorcade proceeded towards the main business section of downtown Dallas I watched the crowd for anyone trying to run towards the President's car or any person who might be holding anything harmful in his hands. I observed the rooftops and windows of the buildings along the route. On the outskirts of town most of the buildings were of a one or two story type structure and very few people were on the rooftops. The crowd was three or more deep along the street as we proceeded towards downtown Dallas with most intersections more heavily crowded. The outskirts seemed to consist mostly of used car lots, junk COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 521 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 cont. page Three of Statement or Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., dated Nov. 30, 1963: dealers, auto parts stores, and this typical type of neighborhood. At one intersection there were some Cuba Pickets but I don't recall exactly what their signs said except that they did have "Cuba" on them. A little further towards town some people had a sign asking the President to please stop and shake hands, which he saw as he passed and stopped. I immediately ran up to his car as it stopped and assumed a position next to him and observed the crowd as it merged on the car, especially watching the hands. Most of the people were children but I do remember one of the adult ladies who was holding the sign, remarking, "It worked, our sign worked!" At various places along the route I remember Mr. Dave Powers standing up and taking movies of the President's car and the crowd. The closer we came to downtown Dallas the larger the crowds became. several places they were forcing their way into the street and there was just barely enough room for the cars to get through. There were two motorcycle escorts on each side of the President's and the Follow-up car and in several instances the crowd was so close that the motorcycles could not get through and had to drop completely behind the Follow-up car. During these instances SA Clint Hill would up and jump on the left rear bumper or the President's car and he would ride there until the crowd was further back away from the president's car. Just before we reached the heart of downtown Dallas, I remember noticing some new looking, very high, multi-storied skyscrapers and I remarked to Jack Ready that there were even people way up on the roof of one. I think the motorcade made a right turn onto Main Street, as that is the only street sign I saw and remembered. I remember thinking to myself that about every town I know of has a Main Street. I'm not sure how far we traveled on Main Street, but I do know that this is where the crowd seemed heaviest. The buildings were tall on both sides the street but I didn't notice many people in the windows. I continued to scan the crowds on the street and the buildings along the route. I glanced at the President's car somewhere along Main Street and saw Clint Hill again standing on the left rear bumper behind Mrs. Kennedy who was seated to the President's left. Governor Connally was seated in front of the President and Mrs. Connally was in front of Mrs. Kennedy. The crowd lined both sides of the street and in several places was right out into the street leaving barely enough room to get through. Not long after we turned onto Main Street there was one boy who, I would say, was in his early teens who ran out from the crowd after the president's Follow-up cars had passed and tried to overtake the President's car. I saw him coming and tapped SA Ready on the shoulder and pointed towards him. He was carrying a camera. SA Ready jumped off the running board, overtook the boy and pushed him back into the crowd. COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 522 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 cont. page Four of Statement of Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr. dated Nov. 30, 1963: When we reached the end of Main Street we turned right and approached a gradual left turn. As we approached the intersection and while we were turning left, the crowd seemed to thin and almost disappear around the turn. l then made a quick surveillance of a building which was to be on the President's right once the left turn was completed. It appeared to be the last one in sight. It was a modernistic type building, approximately eight stories high, and it had large glass windows. I also seem to recollect orange paneling or siding. None of the windows were open, and I did not see anyone standing by them. I surmised that the building was closed or that all its employees were out on the street corner. As the President's car continued around the corner, I continued to survey the crowd along the righthand side of the road and noticed that it was fairly scattered, with hardly enough people to form a single line. I continued to look ahead to an overpass over the route we were traveling. At approximately this point, I would say, the President's car and the Follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out. At this moment I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder. When I heard the sound there was no question in my mind what it was. My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway, I saw him moving in a manner which I thought was to look in the direction of the sound. I did not realize that President Kennedy had been shot at this point. I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder, toward the modernistic building I had observed before. With a quick glance I saw nothing and immediately started scanning the crowd at the intersection from my right to my left. I observed nothing unusual and began to think that the sound had been that of a fire cracker but I hadn't seen any smoke. In fact, I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, "What was it? A Fire Cracker?" I remarked, "I don't know, I don't see any smoke." So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds. All during this time I continued to scan the crowd, returning my gaze towards the President's car. It must have been another second or two before the next shot was fired because, as I recall having seen nothing out of the ordinary, I then thought that maybe one of the cars in the motorade had had a blowout that had echoed off the buildings. I looked at the right front tire of the President's car and saw it was all right. I then glanced to see the right rear tire, but could not because the Follow-up car was too close. I also thought of trying to run and jump on the President's car but did not think I could make it because of the speed at which we were traveling. I decided I had better stay where I was so that I would at least be near the First Lady, to whom I am assigned. I think that it was at this point that I thought, "Faster, Faster, faster," thinking that we could not get out of the area soon enough. However, I don't have any idea as to how fast we were then moving. COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 523 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 cont. page Five of Statement of Special Agent Paul s. Landis, Jr., dated Nov. 30, 1963: I had drawn my gun, but I am not sure exactly when I did this. I did leave my suit coat unbuttoned all during the motorcade movement, thinking at the time that I could get to my gun faster this way, if I had to. I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly toward Mrs. Kennedy with his head slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President's shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the beak of the President's car. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a mellon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy. The time lapse between the first and second report must have been about four or five seconds. My immediate thought was that the President could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was. I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, right-hand side of the road. I did not notice anyone on the overpass, and I scanned the area to the right of and below the overpass were the terrain sloped towards the road on we were traveling. The only person I recall seeing clearly was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a sidewalk, towards some steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall. He was bent over while running and I started to point towards him, but I didn't notice anything in his hands and by this time we were going under the overpass at a very high rate of speed. I was looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stepping along the curb approximately adjacent to where I saw the Negro running. After we rode under the overpass I again looked at the President's and saw Special Agent Clint Hill lying across the trunk. He was looking towards the Follow-up car shaking his head back and forth and gave a thumbs-down sign with his hand. ATSAIC Roberts asked if anyone got the exact time of the shooting sad someone said"about 12:30 p.m.;" then someone told me to get inside the car and pulled me by the arm. My sun glasses fell off and Special Agent Bennett handed them to me. By now we were on an Expressway and a few people were standing in spots along the way waving as we went by. COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 524 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 cont. Page Six of statemeat of Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., dated Nov. 30, 1963: ATSAIC Roberts was telling the other agents in the Follow-up car to cover Vice-President Johnson as soon as we stopped. Sometime around 12:37 p.m. we arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital. I immediately ran to the left rear side of the President's car, reached over and tried to help Mrs. Kennedy up taking hold of her shoulders. She did not want to let go of President Kennedy whose head she held in her lap and she was bending over him. She said something like, "No, I want to stay with him!" Agent Hill had in the meantime opened the left rear door of the Presidential Convertible, stepped inside and took Mrs. Kennedy by the arm. She released the President and someone said, "Cover up his head." Agent Hill took off his suit coat and covered up the President's head. I also remember Mr. Powers leaning in the car and saying, "Oh, No!, Mr. President! Mr. President!" By this time someone was lifting the President's body out of the right side of the car. Agent Hill helped Mrs. Kennedy out of the car, and I followed. Mrs. Kennedy's purse and hat and a cigarette lighter were on the back seat. I picked these three items up as I walked through the car and followed Mrs. Kennedy into the hospital. The President's body was taken directly to an Emergency Room, and I think I remember Mrs. Kennedy following the people in but coming out almost immediately. The door to the Emergency Room was closed and I stayed by Mrs. Kennedy's side. Someone, in the meantime, had brought a chair for Mrs. Kennedy to sit in and she sat just outside of the Emergency Room. There were several people milling around and with the help of a nurse we cleared all unauthorized personnel out of the immediate area. Someone came out of the Room that the President was in and asked if anyone knew his Blood type. ASAIC Kellerman and SA Hill immediately reached for their wallets. ASAIC Kellerman gave the man the information first. At one point someone else came out of the President's Room again and said he was still breathing. Mrs. Kennedy stood up and said, "Do you mean he may live?" No one answered. Most of the time while in the hospital I stayed right next to Mrs. Kennedy. Twice, I believe, she went into the Room where the President was; however, I remained outside by the door. A short time later I still remember several people standing around and I asked a doctor for help in clearing the area. At approximately 2:00 p.m. the President's body was wheeled from the hospital in a coffin into an ambulance. Special Agent Andrew Berger drove the ambulance; ASAIC Kellerman and ATSAIC Stout were in the front seat. Mrs. Kennedy, Admiral Burkley, and Agent Hill rode in the rear of the ambulance with the President's body. COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 525 JFK EXHIBIT F-647 cont. Page Seven of Statement of Special Agent Paul p. Landis, Jr., dated Nov..30, 1963: I rode in the Follow-up car behind the ambulance which departed the hospital at 2:04 p.m. At 2:14 p.m., the President's body arrived at Love Field Airport and several Secret Service agents immediately carried it on board U.S. Air Force No. One via the rear door. I followed on board behind Mrs. Kennedy and then moved to the forward section of the plane. I witnessed the swearing in of President in the center compartment on board Air Force #1, and at 2:47 p.m. departed Love Field Airport, Dallas, Texas, via Air Force No. One, with Mrs. Kennedy and the body of the late President Kennedy. Upon our arrival at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., at 5:58 p.m. I helped carry the late President Kennedy's coffin from Air Force #1. The body was placed in an ambulance which departed Andrews Air Force Base at approximately 6:10 driven by Special Agent William Greet. ASAIC Kellerman, Admiral Burkley, and I rode in the front seat of the ambulance. Mrs. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy rode in the rear of the ambulance with President Kennedy's body. The above party arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Md., at approximately 6:55 p.m. Special Agent Hill and I escorted Mrs. Kennedy to the 17th Floor where we immediately secured the area. Only hospital personnel assigned to the area, Kennedy family members and friends, and authorized personnel were allowed in the area. I only left the 17th Floor twice while Mrs. Kennedy was there. Once, to find ASAIC Kellerman in the hospital morgue and give him a telephone message from Chief Rowley. The other time was to find a White House driver. At 3:56 am, on November 23, 1963, Mrs. Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy departed Bethesda Naval Hospital via ambulance, accompanying the President John F. Kennedy's body to the White House. Special Agent William Greer was driving and ASAIC Kellerman accompanied. Special Agent Clinton Hill. rode in the first limousine behind the ambulance and I rode in the second limousine. The above Party arrived at the White House at 4:24 a.m. Paul E. Landis, Jr.. Special Agent U.S. Secret Service COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1024--Continued 526 Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Landis was in the follow-up car, behind the presidential limousine, on the outside running board on the right. He may be seen in JFK exhibit 155. He indicated that the first shot sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder. According to his statement, the second shot might have come from a different direction. He said: I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere toward the front, right*hand side of the road. Another witness, S.M. Holland, also saw signs of a shot coming from a group of trees on the knoll. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter Mr. Holland's testimony before the Warren Commission, JFK exhibit F-648, into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 527 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 528 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 529 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 530 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 531 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 532 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 533 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 534 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 535 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. 536 JFK EXHIBIT F-648 cont. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Holland was standing on top of the overpass above Elm Street, looking down on Elm Street. Mr. Holland indicated that he had heard four shots. After the first, he said he saw Governor Connally turn around. Then there was another report. The first two sounded like they came from the upper part of the street. The third was not as loud as the others. He said: "There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots." When Commission Counsel Stern asked Mr. Holland if he had any doubts about the four shots, he said: "I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from those trees either." Later in his testimony, Mr. Holland commented on the activity after the shooting. He said: Now, do you want to know about the two policemen that were riding in that motorcade and one of them throwed the motorcycle down right in the middle of the street and run up toward that location with his gun in his hand. Mr. STERN. Toward-- Mr. HOLLAND. The location that-- Mr. STERN. Where you saw the puff of smoke? Mr. HOLLAND. Where I saw the puff of smoke. And another one tried to ride up the rest of the hill on his motorcycle and got about halfway up there and he run up the way on foot. In addition to testimony relating to the direction of the shots, several witnesses also reported seeing bullets strike at various points in the plaza. For example, two witnesses said they saw bullets hit the pavement on Elm Street. I would like to enter into the record JFK exhibit F-649. 537 Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-649 538 Mr. BLAKEY. It is a statement by Royce Skelton made to the sheriffs department on November 22, 1963. Mr. Skelton related: I was standing on top of the train trestle where it crosses Elm Street with Austin Miller * * * I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got m the right hand lane and I heard two more shots * * * I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the South away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane. Mr. Skelton also testified before the Warren Commission. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter that testimony into the record as JFK exhibit F-650. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 539 JFK EXHIBIT F-650 540 JFK EXHIBIT F-650 cont. 541 JFK EXHIBIT F-650 cont. 542 Mr. BLAKEY. On that occasion, Mr. Skelton said that he saw smoke rise from the pavement where the bullet hit and that he thought the gunfire had come from the area of the presidential limousine. * * * I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building. Later he said that the smoke "would be southwest, you know, in a direct line from the Texas Depository." Another witness to see a bullet was Ms. Virgie Baker. It would be appropriate to enter into the record JFK exhibit F-651, Ms. Baker's statement to the FBI, dated November 24, 1963. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 543 JFK EXHIBIT F-651 544 JFK EXHIBIT F-651 cont. 2 DL 89-43 left the scene just seconds before the Presidential car case into sight on Houston Street. This ambulance picked up the man directly across Houston Street from the Sheriff's office. RACKLEY stated that she did not look up at the Texas School Book Depository Building since she did not think that the sounds were coming from that building. She recalled no one who had mentioned seeing anyone in the windows of the building prior to the shooting although Just after the shooting some unidentified man who had been sitting on a wall directly across the: street and south of the Texas School Book Depository Building stated "I saw everything. She did not know what he was talking about at the time and does not know whether he saw anyone In the windows of the building or not. She recalled that after the second shot she smelled gunsmoke but did not know where it was coming from. Mr. BLAKEY. Ms. Baker was standing across the street from the Texas School Book Depository when she heard the shots. She thought they came from the direction of the triple overpass. When she looked that way, she saw what she presumed to be a bullet bouncing off the pavement. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to enter into the record JFK exhibit F-652, Ms. Baker's testimony before the Warren Commission. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it is so ordered. [The information follows:] 545 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 546 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 547 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 548 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 549 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 550 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 551 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 552 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. 553 JFK EXHIBIT F-652 cont. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Liebeler asked her where the noise she heard came from. Ms. Baker thought it was close to the underpass. Mr. Liebeler then continued with respect to the bullet: Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side--near the curb side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right? Ms. BAKER. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was? Ms. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane--I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there. Mr. BLAKEY. Later Ms. Baker describes the bullet's relation to the car: "I thought it was--well--behind it." In addition to those who heard shots, saw smoke, or saw the impact of bullets, there is testimony in the Commission's record of what may be fairly described as suspicious conduct around the knoll--footprints by the fence, an individual who identified himself as a Secret Service agent when no agent was supposed to be in that area, activity that could be called flight--but the fact remains that no one gives credible testimony that he saw anyone with a rifle around the fence at the time of the assassination. In the absence of such testimony or hard evidence that would corroborate or independently substantiate the ear- and eye- witness testimony pointing toward the knoll shot, the Commission concluded the shots came from only one place: The Texas School Book Depository where Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, worked. In September 1977, the committee learned of the possibility of obtaining what the Commission lacked: An acoustics analysis of a sound recording of what happened in Dealey Plaza. There was in existence a Dallas police tape that had recorded the sounds of the assassination from the transmitter of a motorcycle policeman whose microphone switch was in the on position. The committee hoped it might obtain evidence not considered by the Commission. 554 The committee searched for the best people in the acoustics field. After careful consideration, it contracted with the firm of Bolt, Beranek & Newman of Cambridge, Mass., for an analysis of the tape. Early testing by the firm was uneventful, since all that had been made available to the committee was a copy of the orignal tape on which no audio sounds could be discerned. But with the help of a retired assistant chief of the Dallas Police Department, the committee eventually obtained the original of the November 22, 1963, dispatch tape, along with dictabelts that had recorded the transmission. The analysis of the dispatch tape was conducted by James E. Barger, chief scientist at B.B. & N. After preliminary filtering, Dr. Barger was able to locate several segments of the tape that contained impulses that might have been caused by gunfire. The impulses were then put through six screening tests, as follows: One: Did the impulse patterns occur at the approximate time of the assassination? Two: Were the impulse patterns unique and not repeated elsewhere in the tape? Three: Did the intervals between the impulses approximate the timing of the shots as indicated on the Zapruder film? Four: Did the shape of the impulses resemble the shape of recorded impulses produced by tests of comparable gunfire through comparable transmission systems? Five: Was the amplitude of the impulses similar to that recorded in tests of comparable gunfire through comparable transmission systems? Six: Did the number of impulses in the expected echo pattern of Dealey Plaza approximately correspond to what was recorded on the tape? In actual firing tests conducted on behalf of the committee by the Dallas Police Department in Dealey Plaza in August, Dr. Barger set out to determine what the echo structure looks like for two shooter locations--the TSBD and the grassy knoll--and several target locations along the motorcade route. He then matched his 1978 Dealey Plaza environment data with the 1963 tape, and he was able to arrive at several conclusions: First, the motorcycle whose radio transmitted the broadcast was apparently in Dealey Plaza; second, there was a 95-percent probability that two of the impulses were caused by gunshots; and, three, there was a 60 to 70-percent probability there were three shots. And finally, four, there were indications of a fourth shot from the grassy knoll, but at the time he was to testify in public hearing of the committee in September 1978, Dr. Barger was only willing to call it a 50-50 probability. The committee then asked two independent experts who had been recommended to the committee by the Acoustical Society of America to review the work of Dr. Barger and determine if they might be able to refine it. Prof. Mark Weiss and his assistant, Mr. Ernest Aschkenasy, agreed to try to refine Dr. Barger's work. At the committee's request, they focused on the third shot, the one that Dr. Barger thought might have come from the grassy knoll. 555 The effort took from September until the end of November. They are available to testify here this morning. Professor Weiss received a B.E.E. degree from the City College of New York in 1952, and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Columbia University in 1957. From 1957 until 1964, he worked as a project engineer for the Federal Scientific Corp., and from 1965 until 1974 he was vice president of that corporation for acoustical research. He is presently a professor in the Department of Comput- er Science of Queens College of the City University of New York, a position he assumed in 1974. Professor Weiss is the author of over 30 articles and technical reports concerning electronics for acoustical engineering. He has worked on projects such as the development of instruments for real-time spectrum analysis of audio signals; development of the first real-time system for extraction of vocal pitch using the cep- strum approach; and he is currently involved in development of techniques for reducing wide band noise and other interference on speech recordings to increase the detectability and intelligibility of speech. From November 1973 until June 1974, Professor Weiss was a member of a panel of technical experts appointed by Chief Judge John J. Sirica to examine the White House tape recordings in connection with the Watergate grand jury investigation. He is a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and a member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineering. Mr. Ernest Aschkenasy received a B.E.E. from the City College of New York in 1967, and his M.S. from the City College of New York in 1972. From 1967 until 1974, he worked as an engineer with the Federal Scientific Corp., where he had primary responsibility for the development of computer programs for analysis and reduction of large volumes of acoustic data. In 1974, Mr. Aschkenasy also assisted in the Watergate tape analysis and began his present work as a research associate for the Department of Computer Science at Queens College of the City University of New York, where he is presently acting as Prof. Mark Weiss' assistant. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call as witnesses Professor Weiss and his associate, Mr. Aschkenasy. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy. May I ask both of you to stand raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. WEISS. I do. Mr. ASCHKENASY. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The committee recognizes deputy chief counsel Gary Cornwell. TESTIMONY OF PROF. MARK WEISS AND MR. ERNEST ASCHKENASY Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Barger and his team of scientists at Bolt Beranek & Newman, which led to Dr. Barger's testimony in September of this year before the committee? Mr. WEISS. Yes; we are. 556 Mr. CORNWELL. When did you first have the opportunity to review that work? Mr. WEISS. In August of this year we examined the results of Dr. Barger's analysis up to that time, and also reviewed the plan for the reconstruction experiment to be conducted in Dallas and judged whether the experiment was necessary to be performed. We did visit Dr. Barger at his lab in Cambridge, Mass., and had a lengthy discussion with him, saw his result, and reported back to the committee that in our opinion the reconstruction experiment was not only fully justified but also necessary for the continuance of his analysis. Mr. CORNWELL. So at that time you simply reviewed the process- es and techniques that Dr. Barger was using and specifically you did so for the purpose of rendering an independent opinion to the committee as to the necessity of going to Dallas and conducting the lab test is that correct? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. After the hearings of September were concluded were you again asked to look at the work of the team of Bolt, Beranek & Newman in more detail. Mr. WEISS. That is correct. We were asked to take a more de- tailed look at not only their work, but also at the Dallas police tape. recording. Mr. CORNWELL. What was the purpose of that request? What were you asked to do on this occasion? Mr. WEISS. The object there was to perform a refined analysis of the data relating to the presumed shot occurring, the third possible shot that was examined by Dr. Barger, the one that was thought to have been the result of a gun firing at the grassy knoll. Mr. CORNWELL. And you began that work in early October? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. And you just very recently concluded the work; is that correct? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Based upon the work, were you able to reach a conclusion with any greater degree of certainty as to whether or not that shot did or did not occur? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir, we did. Mr. CORNWELL. And what was your conclusion? Mr. WEISS. It is our conclusion that as a result of very careful analysis, it appears that with a probability of 95 percent or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy knoll. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask you--just very, very recently you reached that conclusion--would you tell us why it was that it took from early October until just very recently to complete your work? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir, our problem was that we had other obligations in addition to working on this problem. We have a major contract with the Air Force for development of some special purpose speech processing equipment, and in order to both work on that and work on this problem, we could not work on this problem fulltime. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you very generally describe for us what the scientific principles are that you utilized in your work? 557 Mr. Weiss. Well, the principles are basically the fundamental principles in acoustics, namely, that if someone makes a loud noise somewhere, like here [witness claps his hands], that sort of thing, everybody in this room can hear that noise, which means that sound moves out in all possible directions. A second principle is that that sound which they hear directly also will bounce off walls and be reflected. So they will hear not only the direct sound but also sounds called echoes bouncing from walls, corners, and other surfaces. The third principle, also very fundamental, is that the speed of sound is constant in whatever direction it may go. So that the farther you are from the source of the sound, the longer it will take for that sound to reach you, whether that source is, in fact, the original source of the sound or a reflecting surface which would cause an echo. I would like to illustrate basically what is meant by echoes at this point here. I think everybody is pretty much aware of what happens if you stand at a canyon and holler something like "Hello" and you get back a series of "Hello, hello, hello," that sort of thing. You can hear each of these echoes in such a circumstance because the reflecting surfaces are quite far apart from you and from each other. In a situation such as an echo generated in Dealey Plaza, you have reflecting surfaces, also the walls and corners of the buildings there. They, too, will generate echoes, but they will tend to come in very much more closely in sequence so that even if you have a very short, sharp sound such as a rifle firing, OK, or again a clap of the hands, you will get back what to an observer or many observers will sound like a single, loud bang-type thing. But if you were to record that and play it back at one-quarter or one-eighth the speed you recorded it, you will be able to hear something like the independent echoes coming back, in fact what you would hear would be something like bang-bang-bangbang, and diminishing in amplitude as you get echoes over longer periods. To the human ear you don't hear that because the first loud sound partially deafens the ear, and it decreases your sensitivity to the later arriving sounds. What you hear is a single loud sound with a diminishing intensity. Mr. CORNWELL. In what we might describe as a complex urban type of environment with a number of different solid structures in it such as you might find in any city or in Dealey Plaza, do I understand, then, that the echoes would arrive back at a varied spacing in time; they would not all arrive back at the evenly spaced intervals? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. They will arrive back at spacings which depend entirely on where the listener is relative to the surfaces that produce the reflections that generate the echo paths and also it will depend on where the source of the sound is. Mr. CORNWELL. So if then you were given one location for the listener and one location for the sound source, would you get the same type of pattern time after time if you reproduce the sounds from that location? Mr. WEISS. Yes. In fact, if you had to listen, as in the specific case of Dealey Plaza, if you had a listener standing someplace in the Plaza, say on the sidewalk near the depository building, and he stood still and a rifle was exactly held in another place, as the rifle fired, he would hear a succession of echoes. If it was fired again, he 558 would hear identically the same succession of echoes if nobody moved. If he came back 15 years later and the buildings were the same, as they are in this case, and he stood in the same spot and a rifle was fired from exactly the same spot and the temperature the air was the same he would, in fact, even then hear exactly the same sequence of echoes. If somebody is standing close by, but not in exactly the same place, he will hear a similar succession of echoes but not identically the same. There will be small measur- able differences. The farther away the other listener gets from the first person, the greater the difference will be in the pattern of echoes that he hears. Mr. CORNWELL. And likewise, I take it if you were to move the location of a sound source, whether it is someone clapping their hands or rifle fire, you also, by moving it a few feet, would get a different echo pattern? Mr. WEISS. You would get a different echo pattern. Mr. CORNWELL. How well established are these acoustics princi- ples you have been describing? Mr. WEISS. These have been established a very long time. They have been known for several hundred years. These are fudamen- tal things in acoustics, the things taught in high school or college undergraduate level physics. Mr. CORNWELL. Were there other more complex or more sophisti- cated principles that you were required to use in your analysis which were not so well established, which were newer or less well established? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. We only needed to apply these basic well- tested, well-established principles; nothing more. Mr. CORNWELL. In your analysis, what equipment were you re-! quired to use? Mr. WEISS. Basically we used a large plan map of Dealey Plaza Mr. CORNWELL. A survey map? Mr. WEISS. A survey map; that is correct. The scale was 1 inch corresponding to 10 feet in Dealey Plaza. We used a long graduated ruler that could be extended to measure long distances on the map. We used a hand calculator for computing some very simple things, and we used a device, an electric device called an oscilloscope, for observing the wave shapes of the sounds that we got when we played back tape recordings, and also a device that enabled us to plot these patterns on paper so that we could examine them in very fine detail. Mr. CORNWELL. Were you required to use anything sophisticated such as a computer or anything beyond what you have mentioned? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. This is the only equipment that we used. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you very generally describe what the basic process was that you went through in applying these princi- ples to the available data? Mr. WEISS. Well, basically the idea was this. As I indicated, each position in the plaza would have a unique set of echoes associated with it. If a sound heard on the police tape was, in fact, the sound of gunfire heard by a microphone--and a microphone, remember, is kind of an electronic ear--it hears the same as an ear hear--if that indeed was the case, then I ought to be able to position for that microphone and a position for the gun such that I 559 could predict a pattern of echoes that would match the sounds heard on the police tape to a high degree of accuracy. I could then say that this kind of match of a predicted pattern with the observed pattern is so close that the probability that what I am really looking at on the Dallas police tape is noise becomes very small. So we set out to be able to predict what the echo structures would be at various locations in Dealey Plaza. This was the whole art of it. As I say, it was done by using the simple concept that sound would travel in all directions from a source and that it will reflect off surfaces and travel back. Mr. CORNWELL. In your attempt then to calculate various echo patterns and find out if they precisely matched or relatively precisely matched what is on the Dallas police tape, did you or were you required to use in any way the test that Dr. Barger conducted with his team from B.B. & N.? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir, that set of test data, in fact, proved to be invaluable in this case. It was by analysis of a number of these firings that Dr. Barger and his associates recorded in, I guess it was, August of this year that we got to become familiar with the acoustical structure of Dealey Plaza. By using these recordings in conjunction with this map of Dealey Plaza, we got to know where the buildings--where were the reflecting surfaces that gave rise to the echoes that could be heard. Mr. CORNWELL. In addition to the tests that Dr. Barger conducted, did you need anything else, any other information in order to follow this process? Mr. WEISS. Well, yes. We needed, in order to perform this prediction process, we needed to know a number of things. First, we needed to know where the sources of sound were. Now, of course, that means we had to have some idea of where a shooter might have been, and by all indications, he had to be someplace up on the grassy knoll, and we had that area taken care of. We had to know, of course, also where the reflecting surfaces were. That is for a particular assumed position of the microphone, where the major reflecting surfaces were. So we had to refine our understanding of how the echoes were produced in that case. We had to know approximately where the motorcycle was, because although this technique is simple and straightforward, it can become pretty tedious if you don't know approximately where or reasonably well where the motorcycle is, and you can assume it to be anywhere in the Plaza. So we had to have some idea where it was. And what we assumed was that it was approximately in the neighborhood of that microphone that gave the strongest matching pattern in Dr. Barger's experiment between a shot from the knoll and the impulses audible on the police tape recordings. Furthermore, in order to calculate the echo times, the time of arrival at each of these echoes, we had to know what the velocity of sound was in the air. As I said before, the velocity of sound is constant in all directions. However, it is not always the same value. In particular, it is a function of the temperature of the air. So we had to find out what was the temperature of the air at the time of the assassination. And that was about all we really had to know in order to perform the prediction. 560 Mr. CORNWELL. Would you have an opinion to know what speed the tape recorder ran at that recorded the initial sounds? Mr. WEISS. Yes. We had an estimate from Dr. Barger that the speed of the tape recorder was about 5 or so percent slow from a normal, nominal speed, and we had to build this factor into the correction of time observed on the tape so we could get a time interval for the echoes, if, indeed, these impulses are echoes, that would be true for a correctly running tape. Mr. CORNWELL. Just to be sure I understood one statement you made, you said you needed to know the source of the sound, the location of the source of the sound, and the location or approximate location of the motorcycle. Do I understand from that that what you are saying is you need to know a general area in which to begin making your calcula- tions? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, that is what I meant. As I said, I assumed that the motorcycle would have been somewhere in the vicinity of microphone 4, for example, which was down on Elm Street in the experiment performed by Dr. Barger. Mr. CORNWELL So you didn't take as a given that the motorcycle was in that location, and you simply began to look in that general area. Mr. WEISS. That is correct, and if we had not found it, we would have looked in a wider and wider zone. Mr. CORNWELL Ultimately you may have found it was not even in the Plaza. Mr. WEISS. That is correct. In fact, this brings up another point If, in fact, after diligent searching we could not get a pattern of echoes, a predicted pattern of echoes, that would sufficiently closely match the impulses visible on the police tape recording, then we would have to conclude either that we did not have a shot recorded there, or that if we did have a shot recorded, then the motorcycle was not anywhere near the position we had assumed it to be the shooter was not anywhere near the position we assumed to be, or both conditions. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask at this time that we leave exhibit F-361, which has previously been admitted, on the easel, and also add to it, the exhibit F-349, which was previously admitted in these hearings in September, and, in addition, I would request that exhibits F-672 and F-667 be admitted into evidence and displayed so that all four exhibits are displayed simultaneously. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record and displayed appropriately. [The exhibits follow:] 561 JFK EXHIBIT F-349 562 JFK EXHIBIT 672 563 JFK EXHIBIT F-667 564 Mr. CORNWELL. Professor Weiss, I would ask, if you would be able to, utilizing those exhibits, to actually illustrate for us the process that you employed in reaching your final conclusion. Mr. WEISS. Sure. Just to illustrate briefly what I was saying before, here is a photograph of Dealey Plaza, and let s assume for a moment that you have an observer standing right around over here, sort of visible on the street between these two trees, and then you have a source of sound m this area here, which would be behind the wooden stockade fence on the grassy knoll. Now, if he fires a rifle at this point, the sound of that firing will go directly to the observer over here. It will also go to this building over here, the so-called DCRB, Dallas. County Records Building, and bounce back to the observer. It will also go, to the corner of these buildings here, and each of these corners reflections will then bounce back. Now the time taken for the sound, the original sound to reach the observer depends, of course, upon how far the observer is from the rifle--and by the "observer" here, it could be an individual or it could be a microphone--and this time is the distance the sound travels divided by the velocity of sound, which is approximately, say, 1,100 feet per second. Now, the time taken for this echo here to come back to the observer will be the total distance taken going from the rifle to the building and then back to the observer, also divided by the velocity of sound. As you can see, each of these echo paths will have a different length. Therefore, there will be a different travel time for each echo. What that means is that you will hear first the one sound and then a whole series of them coming in, each of these coming in after the first sound you hear. Now, this exhibit illustration here shows the intensity of the sounds that were received by microphone No. 4 in the Dallas reconstruction experiment for a shot fired from the grassy knoll area. Microphone 4 was in fact approximately over here. This first rather tall, dark line, which I hope is visible to everyone, is, in fact, the intensity of the sound received for the direct muzzle blast, the first sound. Following that, there are a series of' dark lines which are, in fact, the echoes coming into the microphone following its receiving the muzzle blast sound. Way out over here, about three-tenths of a second after the first one, is another sound, and there are some others that are further out and sort of getting smaller and smaller and so on. Now, the way you use this information in identifying the echo-generating sources is as follows. Here is a topographic survey map of Dealey Plaza which gives us a better view of where things are, it is turned around from the way that one is. Here is Elm Street. This is Houston Street. Elm Street. Here is the grassy knoll area. Here is the position of microphone No. 4. The shooter is here. The sound goes from here directly to here. It also goes to this building, bounces off it, goes back to the microphone. It goes to various corners represented over here for various other structures and buildings. And all is recorded. Now, supposing we want to know what was the echo producing surface that gave rise to this echo in the recording. Well---- 565 Mr. CORNWELL. Professor, excuse me one more time. Mr. WEISS. Sure. Mr. CORNWELL. The wiring is having trouble picking up your voice-Could we move the mike up perhaps to your tie or lapel? Mr. WEISS. OK. Now we know what the time taken for the direct sound to reach the microphone was, because we know the distance precisely from the rifle to the microphone. Mr. CORNWELL. And again you are still now talking about on the test? Mr. WEISS. Yes, this is simply for the purpose of confirming our understanding of exactly where, and it is important to know exactly where, the echo-generating surfaces are. Mr. CORNWELL. So you, in other words-- Mr. WEISS. So this location is approximately in Dealey Plaza. Mr. CORNWELL. So, in other words, you are using Dr. Barger's test waves, which are the exhibits you have been referring to, and when those were generated, of course we were all standing there watching, and we know exactly where the shooter was located and exactly where the microphone was. Is that correct? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. We had good information as to where both of these points were so we could know in advance what the distance was from the shooter to the microphone, and we knew what the time would be that it took for the sound to go directly from the rifle to the microphone. Now, we also know what the additional time was from the time that the first sound of the rifle was received to the time this echo here that we are interested in was received. If you add this amount of time to the direct time, you have a total time taken to go from here to some echo-generating surface and to the microphone. All right? If you know what that total time is, you can, therefore, predict what the total path length was. OK? Because you now take that total time, now you multiply it by the velocity of sound, and you can compute how many feet, in fact, that sound traveled before it came back and was recorded as this highest peak at this point. Fine. What you do is the following: Knowing the length of that path--and this is scaled, as I said, approximately at 1 inch equals 10 feet--you can find out the length of that path in inches; you simply cut a piece of string to that length--and I just happen to have some string here pre-cut. Now I am going to put a pin in here at the position of the rifle. I am going to put another pin in at the known position of the microphone. Now this piece of string, the length of this corresponds, in fact, to the distance the sound must have traveled in order to have produced this echo. And I sort of now loop it between here and here. Now sound travels in straight lines so that this string if--I hope it is visible--now if I pull tight on it, it forms two straight lines. It will form a line going from the rifle to some reflecting surface and then bouncing from that surface back to the microphone. OK. Well, so we start looking--well, there is nothing out here, over here--and what you do is move the string along here over until it intercepts a surface. Well, in passing through here, has to go further, so this can't be it. And you keep on trying, and because 566 it is easier to do with a pencil, OK, so we can now sort of see the arc formed, the possible positions for a reflecting--a surface that will generate an echo. And as I bring it along, you can see that it just touches building over here. If I proceed on, it moves away from it, and, in fact, this is the only point at which this line will just touch surface. It can't go beyond it, and can't fall in front of it. It just touches it in order to be considered to be a surface that generated that echo. And so we have now the location of surface that produced this echo over here. And it is, in fact, the wall of the Dallas County Records Building. Now we can take another echo, just to illustrate the again. We take one that's closer in; we pull out this string; and for that one, again, the same calculation. We know what the time get from the rifle to the microphone is. We know what the later, that we hear this additional echo is, so we know how that echo actually traveled from the rifle to some surface back. to the microphone. And we do the same thing: We compute that in terms of real distance, and then we cut a string according to that distance, scaled to this map. I hook one end of it around the position of the rifle. As one can see, one does not need a large digital computer to do this kind of thing. Put one end where the microphone or observer is, and we start again doing this business of stretching, and, again you can see, there is really nothing in here that just touches! anything. So we try the other side here and, 10 and behold, we hit this corner over here. There's a wall that is apparently about 4 or 5 feet high at this point, and this string has now just touched this point, so that for this instance the echo traveled from the rifle to this corner of the wall, and now back up to the microphone. So that's how we identified or confirmed these two points as echo-generating surfaces. Well, we picked out, in fact, a total of some 20 or so, or 22 actually, echo paths that we were able to determine by analysis of exactly this sort, just continuing on down the line, picking up therse echoes as they can be seen on here and using this technique to actually find where they were generated. Mr. CORNWELL. Then from that process, as I understand, you were able to sort of confirm what the real echo structure of Dealey Plaza was? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Which surfaces in it generated echoes from roughly the area of the grassy knoll and being received roughly in the area of the second pin? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. These surfaces would be correct for that set of conditions for something out here and for something in around here. For something elsewhere it would have been perhaps a different set of echo-generating surfaces. Mr. CORNWELL. So after you had made that determination, what use did you make of what you had learned? Mr. WEISS. OK. As I said earlier, the objective was to be able to see if we could, in fact, predict a set of echoes that would closely 567 match the impulses that we could hear and observe on the Dallas police tape recording. Now this is a wave form chart of the Dallas police tape recording. Here is actually what you hear, but this is what it looks like in terms of the variations of electrical signals as times goes on. Here is time moving along in this direction, and here's how the signal strength varies. It's a big bang here and here and here (indicating). These are primarily the impulses I am talking about in this set of data. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask you, before you begin to describe that exhibit: Why is it that the wave form which you have printed there from the Dallas P.D. tape appears to us to look absolutely nothing like the test tape wave forms that Dr. Barger created? Mr. WEISS. Dr. Barger's wave form here represents the total power or strength of the signal as we see it. The problem here was to actually be able to look, indicate points where that energy level was significantly above the background noise level, which was relatively quiet here, but also to get some sense of the relative strengths of these echoes coming back. This is different because we were interested in very precise measures of time elapsed from any point to any other point in this pattern. Mr. CORNWELL. In other words, it's simply a different way of displaying--- Mr. WEISS. That's all it is. Mr. CORNWELL [continuing]. The sound? Mr. WEISS. The same information is displayed in both of them; yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. In other words, it is the space between the peaks, and not whether they go up or below the line, that is important? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. OK. Would you proceed? Mr. WEISS. Now what we did, very simply, was, we put a shooter someplace on the knoll over here, we put a microphone someplace in the plaza over here, and then we started the prediction process. Now the prediction process is sort of the reverse of the process we had used before. Could I have the scale? Thank you. In the prediction process, you don't know, of course, where the shooter is, and you don't know where the microphone is. You make an assumption. You say, "Well, I am going to put him down over here somewhere, let's say the corner of the fence, and I am going to put the microphone over here, let's say somewhere on to the right side, closer to the north side of Elm Street here," and, OK, fine. So now I have this position here; I can measure off on here what the total path length is, and I can convert that into the time it would take for the sound to travel directly from here to here. Fine. Now I know where my echo-generating surfaces are, so I now can measure from the rifle to an echo-generating surface to a point; and then I can measure from that point, let's say, back to the microphone. I have a total path length; I can convert that into the total time it took for this echo to travel from here to this position here. 568 Now I know that original direct travel travel time; I know the echo time. The difference between these two corresponds to the time spacing --say, in this case--between this large bang of the muzzle blast, and some echo time. Now I believe there is a blackboard here that I can use. Is there chalk? Let me just sort of represent things this way here. Chairman STOKES. Professor, can you turn the blackboard just a (little bit so the committee can see it?) Mr. WEISS. Surely. We will move this back again later on. OK. Supposing that, in fact, this represents time running along- here, and this is the time at which you received the muzzle bang itself, OK, which would correspond to this again, this first large dark mark on the exhibit there, and I have computed now for this first position echo a time that that echo would arrive which might be, let's say, over here. OK, that's one echo. Now I go ahead and I say, OK, that's one surface. I know there are other surfaces here, and I start computing the echos that would be received at that position of the microphone for that position of. the shooter, I have assumed when echoes would come m from other. surfaces that are known to be echo generators for this set of positions, and I might get some kind of pattern, OK, like this, and I would want to compare that with, in fact, the pattern for the Dallas police tape recording. And so I line up what looks like the muzzle blast, the sound, which is this very first, very large peak over here, and I say, all right, that one corresponds to this over here, so let's put this one in over here; and now I have a set of sounds which sort of looks like this. And then there are a few things out further here, and then maybe something else out over here. Well, you crank this all through, and you find it doesn't match at all. This is nowhere near it, so what you do is, you start moving the microphone around and/or moving the motorcycle--pardon me, the rifle--around. . Mr. CORNWELL In other words, what you have concluded by the very first choice, arbitrary choice, is that the shooter was not m, the location you chose, or the microphone was not in the location, or both? Mr. WEISS. That is correct or both--you don't really know--both are variables. So we start moving them around. The whole process The whole process is one of experimentation, trial and error, until finally you begin to get some set of data that begins to look reasonable, and then you can close in on a set of positions that will give a reasonably good and accurate match. Well, this is, in fact, what happened. I got a set of positions which gave an extremely good match to this early set of echoes. This is the Dallas Police Department tape-these are the predic- tions. OK here's what is actually being matched to, the observed data, and this is the predicted data. Now after a while we got some very good agreements with this set of data here that was not as good for the echoes that were at a distance there. All right, so we started adjusting again in fact, we got excellent agreement for here. Only what happened 569 now was, we didn't get such good agreement as we had before for the early echoes. And after doing this enough times, the light finally dawned, and it occurred to us that the concept wasn't complete. We weren't dealing with a shooter here and a microphone here. We were dealing with a shooter here all right, but with a microphone that wasn't just here; it was in motion; it was going down the street. If it was a motorcycle in the motorcade, it had to have been in motion; it couldn't just be standing there in the middle of the street; and, in fact, if it was going down the street it was probably going at about the speed of the motorcade, which was supposed to be about 11 miles an hour. So we started moving the microphone down the street at 11 miles an hour, and for this set of moved positions--now predicting what the echo pattern would be at every position as it comes on down-let's say, at what time it would receive each of these echoes. This is a somewhat more complicated process. It is the same process; it just takes a lot longer because you have to do a lot more calculations. As soon as we started doing that, it became immediately obvious we could quite easily find positions for the rifle and for the motorcycle, such that the match at both the early and the late echoes was getting increasingly close; and, in fact, once we were there, we were practically in the ballpark. It was a little more work, and we closed on a set of echoes that we could predict that matched the observed impulses on this pattern with an accuracy of approximately one-thousandth of a second. Mr. CORNWELL. So you found that by moving the microphone at approximately 11 miles an hour, the peaks that you predicted the wave form would look like were correct all the way through from the beginning to the end of particular parts of a tape? Mr. WEISS. That's correct. That's correct. Mr. CORNWELL. And each of those peaks fell exactly where you would expect them to fall within one-thousandth of a second? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. In fact, I have on here numbered some 22 peaks for which I can predict an echo path that will match it to within one-thousandth of a second. Mr. CORNWELL. Are you able to quantify in some fashion the probability that results from the ability to identify a large number of peaks, as you did, to that degree of precision? Mr. WEISS. Yes, if you have a fit of some 22 points, you have a terrific fit to begin with. It really is hard to imagine this could be an accident, but you can't express it in those terms. You have to reduce it to some formal number that you can actually show is reasonable. Now some of these echoes, and particularly the early ones coming from surfaces such as doorways over here and some corners over here, come in small. In fact, they come in below the noise level of impulse peaks in the general area of the recording where this is heard. There is noise that is heard; there is the motorcycle noises; there is electrical noise; static is coming in. All of this is approximately at the level shown by these dashed lines on this exhibit. 570 Now we didn't want to include anything that might be noise in this comparison we wanted to deal only with things of which we could be reasonably certain. So we excluded from the consideration anything which was at the noise level itself. If we knew it was below that level, then it was more probably noise than anything else, we excluded it. We wanted to know do those things that excessed this noise level match? Well if so how many are there, how many do we expect to find, and how many are matched? The answer to those three points is that there are total of some 14 of these greater-than-noise-level peaks observed; there are a total of 10 of them that, in fact, correspond very closely to echo paths that we have been able to predict. Now our predictions also show that we should have had 12 larger-than-noise-level peaks present; but if you take these numbers and put it in an equation or formula known as the binary correlation formula, you get a number, known as a binary correlation coefficient, of .77, which says, in effect, that this pattern matches, is matched by a corresponding pattern of strong echoes with a coefficient of .77. If you take that now and you say, well, what is the probability that this is noise, that it is just an accident that these impulses happened to fall into this sequence of spacings, the answer that you get then is that the probability that this is noise is less than 5 percent. In fact, putting it in a slightly different way, if I may, if I were a betting man, I would say that the odds are 20 to 1 that this is not noise; and I would take 20-to-l odds. Mr. CORNWELL. Just to be sure that it is clear, could you have put the microphone at where--I mean, the shooter--at where you ultimately located it and moved the microphone alone and compensated for the error? Let's suppose you erroneously placed the shooter. Mr. WEISS. OK. In fact, we performed experiments along that line. Once we knew where everything was, we then tried to adjust positions, and we found that if you move the shooter by perhaps 5 feet on here, you could compensate in a sense for that by moving the initial position of the microphone by about 1 foot, but that when you did that, the compensation was never going to be perfect and, in fact, the range of fit of prediction to observed peak was now somewhat greater than 1 millisecond; it ran to about 1.5 milliseconds. If you started moving a shooter much more than 5 feet away, you really could not find a position of the microphone that would gove any kind of decent fit anymore. Mr. CORNWELL. So the only two locations in Dealey Plaza which would produce this echo pattern would be the shooter as you have located it on the grassy knoll within the 5 feet circumference? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. And likewise, a microphone location within about a foot and one-half? Mr. WEISS. That Is correct. We tried numerous positions for shooter on the grassy knoll area and, of course, many positions for the microphone, and these are the two that yield the tightest and best fit. 571 Mr. CORNWELL. From that, I take it that you have established to a very high confidence level that it is a shot from some sort of firearm. Let me ask you if you were able to tell from the wave forms what kind of firearm it was, whether it was supersonic or subsonic, or a rifle or a pistol? Mr. WEISS. Right. Of course, we have been dealing, up until now, with the question of the sounds of the muzzle blast, which this is identified as, and of all the different echoes that come in later on. Now if--if this was a rifle firing a supersonic bullet, then we would expect that immediately preceding the sound of the muzzle blast we would find the sound of the shockwave generated by the bullet while it is in flight that always precedes the muzzle blast; and, of course, it precedes it because the bullet is flying at a speed much greater than the speed of sound. And if we look in the data, we, in fact, do find a very strong impulse preceding the muzzle blast by a reasonable distance that is not so close so that it could not possibly be it, nor is it too far away. It is pretty much in the right position to be considered to be a probable shockwave sound, recorded just before the recording of the direct muzzle blast sound. You can see similar such events, of course, over there on the recording of the test firings in Dealey Plaza. Over here I have been pointing previously to the muzzle blast sound arriving. Well, just before it, over here, there is a dark line which, in fact, is the sound of the shockwave that arrives at the microphone before the muzzle blast. Mr. CORNWELL So are you telling us that the indications are that it was a supersonic bullet and, therefore, probably a rifle? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL And would you also be able to tell us from the wave form what direction the rifle was pointed, what its target was, and whether or not it hit its target? Mr. WEISS. Well, to deal -with the first question, it is quite difficult to say exactly where the rifle would have to have been pointing. It could have been pointing--now, it could have been pointing approximately in a zone, let's say, this wide, so that it could have included the last position of the limousine at frame 312 of the Zapruder film, but, of course, it could have been firing off else where. It couldn't have been firing, for example, straight up in the air. You would never have observed the shockwave for such a condition, nor for that matter could he have been firing off toward, let's say the underpass region, because again you would simply not have observed it. There are other positions where in all likelihood you would have observed it, but it would have come in at drastically different times than it does here. If you figure out what the region is for the rifle to have been aimed at, it does include this sort of a region along here [indicat- ing] Mr. CORNWELL. And if that's the direction it was aimed, can you tell us how far out the bullet went before it terminated? Mr. WEISS. No, I cannot, because in order to know that, you have to know both precisely where the rifle was fired--and, as I indicated, you cannot know that really--and you must know exactly what 572 the muzzle velocity of the bullet was, and there is no way of determining that from these data. Mr. CORNWELL. You said you cannot know precisely where the rifle was fired; you mean at what target? Mr. WEISS. In what direction it was fired, exactly at what it was aimed at the time it was fired. Mr. CORNWELL. And if you were to vary the velocity of the rifle bullet from, say, what you might expect to be a normal rifle velocity, somewhere in the 2,000-foot-per-second range up to something considerably higher, up to the upper. 3,000 or perhaps 4,000.-foot-per-second range, I take it that every time you would vary any assumption like that you would also conclude that there would be a different assumption about where the bullet struck? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Even if one makes the assumption that it was aimed directly at the head of the President, you could for a range of such velocities, assume that it fell short of. the target, that it fell at the target, that it went well beyond the target. There is simply no way of knowing. Mr. CORNWELL. With respect to the last point, Mr. Chairman, I might suggest that we admit as an exhibit, F-673, which is simply a Xerox copy of a 1963 Gun Digest which has the number of velocities of rifles that were available at that time period ranging from everything from just above supersonic speed, all the way up to above 4,000 feet per second. Chairman STOKES. Has it been marked as an exhibit, counsel? Mr. CORNWELL. Yes, it has. Chairman STOKES. All right. Without objection, it may be entered. [The exhibit follows:] 573 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 574 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 575 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 576 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 577 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 578 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 579 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 580 JFK EXHIBIT F-673 cont. 581 Mr. CORNWELL. In addition to the characteristics of the form which you have just described as indicating that the weapon fired a supersonic bullet, was there anything else about the waveforms that you discovered in your analysis? Mr. WEISS. Yes; there are perhaps two things that are relevant to confirming that what we are dealing with here is not noise but is in fact a sound recording of a bullet, of a gunshot by equipment such as was used by the Dallas police motorcycle men. First and simplest is the following: that if, in fact, this was--no, let me put it differently. You can in, as part of the prediction, you can determine what the general pattern of the shape will be at the microphone as you receive it. Now, for example, if at the microphone, as you receive it, you expect that--well, let me go back to the blackboard here, if I may. Now if the muzzle blast came in looking something like this, it goes up, it goes down, and then it sort of settles back, then from some of these surfaces you can quite accurately predict that it will do exactly the same sort of thing, let us say that the echo shape will be simply a mirror image replica of the muzzle blast. Now if this is noise, then there is nothing which says that it has to start out going positive. It could equally, let us say, going upwards, the sound could equally, with equal probability, start out going this way and come back this way. But in every one of these instances where we identified an echo as coming back from a flat reflecting surface, it has precisely the correct replication quality when compared to the pattern of the muzzle blast. As I say, for noise, you have no right to expect that sort of thing will happen. It is like saying I have a coin which is going to flip once, and the first time it comes up heads, and thereafter every time it is going to come up heads. It doesn't happen that way. The second thing is, if you look at these patterns in somewhat more expanded detail than perhaps is visible here, you will see in the case of the muzzle blast there is a very sharp, short, initial, positive, upward going spike or peak, then it goes strongly down, and then it comes up again, and so on. Now, in fact, as recorded through a high-fidelity system and an open microphone, it really does this, it is very sharply upward first, then it goes down and so on. Well, something must have happened to this upward, strong one . to make it seem much smaller. It now is just a little bitty one over here. It goes down, and now it comes up afterwards, and does that sort of thing. And we considered why that is so, and thought that it is probable that if this is a microphone on the motorcycle, and the motorcycle, in fact, is over here in Dealey Plaza, facing in this direction, and if there is a rifle over here, that the windshield of the motorcycle is sort of between the sound that comes directly at it from the muzzle blast and the microphone, so the windshield is screening the microphone to some degree. Well, the effect of that can be predicted. But to confirm our understanding of this, we arranged with the New York City Police Department to perform some experiments at their shooting range in the Bronx. We went out there, and they trotted out an old Harley-Davidson motorcycle and put a transmitter on it, vintage 582 1963 or 1964, and an old microphone pretty much the same kind as was used by the Dallas Police Department, and we performed some experiments with people firing rifles at various locations some times with the motorcycle facing the shooter, sometimes with the motorcycle crosswise to the shooter. At the same time we made recordings using high fidelity equipment of the sounds of the shots. Now there were two kinds of recordings made. The first, as I say was high fidelity equipment, good microphone, good recorder on the spot. The second was through the microphone which was on the motorbike, which was a microphone of the type used in Dallas, through the transmitter and recorded downtown at the police communications laboratory. And we comp- ared the results of these two recordings, and what we found was exactly what we had thought we would find, that is, that in the case of the high fidelity recording, we got that kind of big, first spike upward and downward, and so on. In the case of the recording made through the police microphone, that first spike was greatly attenuated and it went negative and came back up and so on. This was true, howev- er, only in the case where the motorcycle was facing the rifle. When the motorcycle was crosswise to the rifle, the recording made by the police microphone fairly closely matched, looks, looked pretty much like with some distortions but looked pretty much like the recording made using the high fidelity equipment. So it was essentially confirmed that the windshield really does? have this effect on reducing the strength of that initial, very sharp spike received, and, of course, this is what we have over here. It is consistent with the assumption that this is a microphone behind, the windshield facing a rifle. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. Professor, you may resume your seat at the witness table. The committee will now operate under the 5-minute rule. Professor Weiss, I guess I am sort of reminded this morning how, some months ago, when several members of this committee and I appeared before the House Administration Committee, which is the committee of the Congress that recommends funding for all of the committees in Congress, and one of the distinguished mem- bers of the committee posed the question to me, he said, Stokes, has your investigation revealed anything that would change the course of history?" And I said to that Member of Congress that nothing that we had uncovered thus far would, in my opinion, change the course of history. I am sure that as a scientist that you are aware of the enormous impact that your testimony has here today because if the commit- tee accepts your testimony, the committee then, in effect, accepts the fact that on that particular day in 1963 when the President was assassinated, there were two shooters in Dealey Plaza. From that premise, one can further assume association, and then from association there can be the further legal asssumption, the possibility of a conspiracy. So I am sure that you are aware of the enormous impact of your testimony here today in terms of history. Mr. WEISS. I am, sir; yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. For that reason, I would assume that you.. realize that for many years to come your work will be scrutinized 583 extremely carefully by persons who are interested in this fascinating aspect of evidentiary material. I would, therefore, at this point ask you the question I asked you in executive session. I would ask you to play the devil's advocate for us for a moment. Obviously there are other scientists in your field, men who are, or women perhaps, who are as eminently qualified as you and your associate are. Would you, for this committee, then tell us what type of criticisms could other members of your field have of your work here? Mr. WEISS. Well, a few things. I would, of course, assume that other researchers would read our written report before volunteering criticisms of what we have presented here today. But if I were a critic of this work, I would look to see if, in fact, it left out of these considerations any important parameters of the situation that existed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, that could affect the predicted positions of echoes, as I have done. Now, when we did this work, we tried very hard to take into account every possible thing that might affect the accuracy of our predictions. We took into account, for example, the fact that the map itself is probably accurate to only about 1 foot, so we knew that there was no point in attempting to push for accuracies greater than that quoted, approximately 1 millisecond. We took into account the temperature as given to us by staff members of this committee. We investigated the question, the fact of whether humidity might have any affect on the velocity of sound. We considered the question of whether there had been any significant changes in the architecture in Dealey Plaza area for those structures that could have given rise to echoes. We considered the question of waveshape, and of distortion of microphone, and of the transmitter, and tried to take into account additional distortions that probably would have been produced by the receiver and the Dictabelt recorder. Now, if there is any weakness in the results of our analysis, it has to be in some consideration that has escaped us entirely, and that, contrary to anything I can imagine, would have significant impact on the measurements we have made. We, in fact, in performing this work, made every single measurement there many times, each of us made the measurements on the map, checked the results of the other fellow's measurement, checked the calculations out many times, and just to be sure that there were no errors that had crept in and then propagated through this analysis. Otherwise, I really cannot see a basis for finding significant fault with the acoustical analysis as described. Chairman STOKES. Then as a scientist, you are comfortable with the statement to this committee that beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a degree of 95 percent or better, there were four shots in Dealey Plaza? Mr. WEISS. Well, I would agree with that, with the somewhat clarification, that since our work concentrated primarily on the third shot, the one from the grassy knoll area, I would imply for the moment, limit the statement to that, with a, again, a confidence level of 95 percent or higher, which I guess if I were a lawyer, I might well express as beyond a reasonable doubt, that shot took place. And then relying upon the corresponding confi- 584 dence expressed by Dr. Barger about the other shots, I would agree with the statement that there is an overall probability of 95 percent or better that there were four shots fired in Dealey Plaza. Chairman STOKES. Let me ask you this. This is 1978, this tape existed in 1963. Had this tape been given, let's say, to you or other scientists who specialized in this particular area, have you done anything new that could not have been done in 1963 with this tape? Mr. WEISS. No, sir; the only thing that is new--this is an old technology that we are dealing with--the application is new, insofar as the use of the physics and science of acoustics for predicting the position of a microphone and/or a gun. I believe that the first application of it was only several years ago, and by Dr. Barger, in the case of the Kent State shootings. But other than that, there is nothing new in this at all. Chairman STOKES. I recall at the executive session, I believe Professor Blakey asked you, for purposes of clarifying it for the committee, whether what you were basically using was high school physics and geometry principles, and that basically that is what you have done here. Mr. WEISS. That is correct, sir. Chairman STOKES. Now, what about the work of Dr. Barger? When Dr. Barger testified before our committee on September 11, based upon the work that he had done, he said to us at that time that there were definitely three shots, but would not commit himself to more than a possibility of a fourth shot. And, of course, we have now heard Dr. Barger's testimony in executive session, and we will hear it here later today. Tell the committee whether or not, if he has now changed his opinion to agree with yours, whether such a conservative estimate on his part at that time and his unwillingness to say that, in fact, there was beyond a reasonable doubt a fourth shot, is the proper type of analysis that a scientist should have made at that time, prior to additional work being performed on his work. Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir; Dr. Barger's analysis was exactly right, as a matter of fact. The difference between his analysis and ours, which is, in fact, might be considered to be a kind of extension by analysis, by mathematical analysis, of what he had done, or a refinement, if you will, of what he did, is the following: that in our" matching of the pattern, by being able to predict precisely for precise location of a microphone in the plaza what the echo would have been, I was able to use an uncertainty window of plus or minus 1/1,000 of a second at each of the echo points that I had predicted when I made the comparison to the peaks on waveform of the Dallas Police tape recording. Now, in Dr. Barger's work, because his data were based on array of microphones that were strung out in Dealey Plaza, phones spaced, as I recall, 18 feet apart, he could not be sure the presumed motorcycle microphone was in relationship to one of those microphones, so he had to use an uncertainty which was wider. The microphone on the motorcycle, for could have been halfway between two of his microphones, or to one, or closer to another. 585 Because he could not know precisely where it was, he had to use a window which was about plus or minus 6 milliseconds wide, total width of about 12 milliseconds, compared to a total width here of about 2. Now, that difference is very significant in the, insofar as it affects the degree of confidence that you can express in whether or not the patterns that is observed there that matches a prediction or an observed set of data is, in fact, perhaps noise and not meaningful data. And his number is a very reasonable one. Fifty percent is what I, myself, would have quoted under those circumstances. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Professor. My time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Weiss. I think that many of us who aren't scientists, when we first heard of the acoustics test, tended to think of it as some sort of arcane science, perhaps like a polygraph test, which my former colleague, Senator Erwin, once called modern witchcraft. But I gather you are telling us that this is not like a polygraph test or modern, electronic witchcraft. It doesn't involve any subjective judgment; it is based on everlasting and relative simple mathematical principles. It was interesting to me to see you use pen and string and thread, that you can physically maneuver and physically see until you come out with the kind of match which would not happen in the nature of things otherwise. Mr. WEISS. That is correct. The differentiation is even greater than a matter of interpretation, as one would have to do in case of polygraph. You have to recall that polygraphs and other such devices are based on assumed physiological responses of the human being to some set of conditions or stimuli. This has nothing to do with human responses or to interpretation, which may vary from one observer of results of a test to another observer. This is simple, pure, basic physics and geometry. Mr. PREYER. I might say, the committee's experience with polygraphs, our expert panel, looking at various polygraphs that Jack Ruby, James Earl Ray, Nosenko and others have taken, hasn't been very encouraging as to the scientific accuracy of it; but it does seem to me that you pointed out this is quite a different situation. We all know as human beings that sound plays tricks on our ears when we hear it. We had Dr. Green, a professor at MIT, a psychoacoustics expert, testify in connection with the witnesses that Professor Blakey mentioned earlier who testified as to where the sound came from, and he pointed out that the shockwave of a bullet causes a confusion of the direction of the sound, and it would make a spectator point to the direction from which the sound came that was actually being perpendicular from the area in which the sound came. While I am sure your kind of equipment doesn't play the sort of tricks that sound plays on the human ear, a layman like me would wonder if other sounds had played tricks. For example, what is the possibility of the backfire on a motorcycle making this sort of waves and spikes? 586 Mr. WEISS. Well, the answer to that question is, first, I haven't had the opportunity to examine the waveshape of a backfire of a motorcycle, so I cannot say absolutely that this might not resemble it in some way, but if there was a motorcycle backfiring in this instance, that motorcycle was up there behind the stockade fence in Dealey Plaza. Mr. PREYER. You mentioned--and we will. all be looking for possible flaws in your analysis in view of the Importance of it, as Chairman Stokes pointed out--you mentioned that you excluded in your calculations anything at the noise level, and .you matched peaks above the noise levels. You then said something like there are 10 such peaks, and I understood you to say there should have been 12. What was the meaning of that? Mr. WEISS. Well, in fact, there are those 12 that were predicted, are actually there. Just two of them, for reasons that I am not sure of, came in somewhat smaller than I expected them to be, and indeed fell below the noise level. Because they fell below the noise level, although I was confident that I had actually confirmed their identification, I did not include them in the correlation equation. Had I done so, it would only have strengthened the equation, and quite significantly strengthened it. But in order to be conservative in this calculation, I had to simply reject them from consideration. In fact, in the act of rejecting them I simply--in computing the equation, the fact that I expected 12 but found only 10--I actually, weakened the correlation. Mr. PREYER. So you did not exclude two, which did not confirm your analysis? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. Mr. PREYER. But you had two which would have further corrobo- rated---- Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Dr. Weiss, we appreciate your contribution to the record now in public session. Do you consider your profession pretty much of an exact science? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. Much more so, I take it, than you feel in polygraph field, because the human factor is not as prevalent? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. DEVINE. Do you consider Dr. James Barger an expert? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir, I do. Mr. DEVINE. And do you respect his opinion very much? Mr. WEISS. I do. Mr. DEVINE. Do you think that he made an incomplete study in as much as his conclusions, when he testified here, I think on September 11, suggested that there was about a 50-50 chance that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. That study as it was being performed was moving exactly along the path that any study of this sort ought to move. Mr. DEVINE. Yet you saw fit to supplement his study by a number of things--and I have outlined them here--by seeking to 587 determine where the source of the sounds were, where reflection surfaces were, where the motorcycle was--you assumed it was in the neighborhood of the strongest impulses from the grassy knoll-- the velocity of sound at the temperture given on November 22, 1963, as well as the time intervals and the echoes. Now did Dr. Barger fail to take these important things into consideration in his study, or are these things that you found necessary in order to arrive at a different conclusion? Mr. WEISS. No; as a matter of fact, Dr. Barger actually intrinsi- cally used all of his information in his study and, in fact, it really was as a result of his study that we were able in the first place to say that the motorcycle was there in Dealey Plaza. It was because of his study that we were able to say that at the time of shot No. 3 it was, in fact, in the vicinity of the microphone No. 4 position in the array when the experiment was performed in Dealey Plaza. All of the things that Dr. Barger did were natural steps along this kind of investigation. I am sure that had it been continued, or had there been more time available to Dr. Barger, this further result would have been the natural evolution of that process. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you. Going into a different direction, I assume you were not present when Dr. Barger testified on the previous occasion; however, if I am not mistaken, at that time they played a recording of the sounds, and I think, inferentially, although you suggested that all of these tests may have been available to the Warren Commission had they sought them, that under the more sophisticated electronic sound selection, to use an expression, that you are able to pretty well remove the motorcycle noise, remove the street noise and still have the blips left on the tape. As I recall, when those tapes were played before this committee, one, two and four sounded quite alike, but the third blip, which from your testimony would suggest the one from the grassy knoll, was of a different sound, at least to a layman's ear. You have probably heard those statements since that time. Have you come to any conclusions that the sounds were identical or that there was a difference? Mr. WEISS. No. As a matter of fact, I did not hear that tape. Mr. DEVINE. You did not hear it? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. Mr. DEVINE. Do you have an opinion as to whether, if in fact there was a shot from the grassy knoll, whether it hit anything in the motorcade? Mr. WEISS. I have no way of knowing that, sir. There is no way of predicting or determining that from the data that are available. Mr. DEVINE. Did you not try to coordinate the tapes with the Zapruder films and come to conclusions? Mr. WEISS. Well, we had tried some matching, but now we are sort of out of the area of pure acoustics and getting into other areas, and there are various matters that in fact can be raised, but since that is not an area of my expertise, I really would rather not comment on that. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you very much. You, of course, understand the very difficult position that this committee finds itself in. I think it was pretty well put in an 588 editorial by a local paper here, how much weight in an evidentiary study, whether by a court or a congressional committee, should. assigned to an arcane science understood only by the same experts who draw the conclusions? Mr. WEISS. Well, I beg to disagree with the phrasing, as elegant as it is. This is not an arcane science insofar .as it is taught in high school and college level physics, to begin with, and it can be explained and demonstrated in the manner in which I attempted to and I think can be understood by anybody who has ever heard an echo. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Weiss, you have cleared up for us the question as to whether you employed the marvels and refinements of computerized tronics to reach your conclusion about the 95 percent chance shot from the grassy knoll. You have also dealt with noises are indistinguishable to the unaided ear. And is it your testimony which that the shots that you have distinguished were not back fires? Mr. WEISS. Not exactly so, sir. In the case of shot No. 3, since there is evidence of a shockwave preceding the muzzle blast, then it would have to be concluded that this was not a backfire, since backfires are not known to produce shockwave sounds. Mr. FAUNTROY. Then your answer is yes, that the shot which you examined, the noise that you examined, was not in fact a backfire? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. If it had been a backfire, you testified have had to come from the grassy knoll? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, since I did not concern myself with the nature of the sound, only the location at which it originated. Mr. FAUNTROY. But from your knowledge of sound veloc- ity of a missile traveling at that speed it would not have been a backfire? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. FAUNTROY. All right. Thank you. Second, the problem that we have is that nobody saw anyone with a rifle in that area. My question is: Could a shot from a pistol have created the same noise, shockwaves and echoes? Mr. WEISS. In order to do so, the bullet fired from such a pistol would have had to have left the muzzle at supersonic speed, and so, if indeed there are pistols that fire supersonic bullets, the answer would be yes in such a circumstance. However, to my understanding, most pistols do not fire supersonic bullets. Mr. FAUNTROY. So that on the basis of your knowledge we would have to identify a pistol that fired that fast before you could conclude that it was probably a pistol or could have been a pistol Mr. WEISS. Could have been; that is correct. Mr. FAUNTROY. I guess my question Mr Chairman now goes to staff, Mr. Cornwell or Mr Blake and that is what do we know about the alleged encounter with a person bearing Secret Service credentials in the area of the grassy Knoll? 589 Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Fauntroy, the committee did look into that incident and did what it could 15 years later to determine whether it occurred and, if it occurred, could we identify the individual. The testimony in essence is that an individual identified himself by showing what he said to be Secret Service credentials behind the picket fence, and based on that was allowed to continue. A careful examination of where all of the Secret Service agents were that day, and their duty assignments, indicates that no Secret Service agent was in that area. And that is about as far as we have been able to carry it. Mr. FAUNTROY. But who had the encounter? Mr. BLAKEY. My memory is, a policeman, one of the first to come up over the fence, ironically, with a gun drawn, encountered an individual who, seeing the gun, identified himself as a Secret Service agent and was thus able to pass on. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FAUNTROY. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DoDD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Weiss, for your testimony this morning. In responding to Judge Preyer's question about the degree of exactitude in your science of acoustics, has the science progressed to such a significant note in the past 15 years that what you have done could also have been done by the Warren Commission? Mr. WEISS. Well, as a matter of fact, the science, insofar as what I needed to know in order to do what I have done, was known long before 15 years ago, so that it could have been done at that time, yes, sir. Mr. DODD. What about the tests of Dr. Barger? Mr. WEISS. Yes, those also. Mr. DODD. So .there has been no appreciable improvement in the science in 15 years that what you did or what Dr. Barger did would have precluded the Warren Commission or someone conducting a similar test in 1963 from reaching the same conclusions that you have? Mr. WEISS. Nothing that I know of. The only difference that I recall is that in part of the work that Dr. Barger did, in order to establish that there were no indications of shots earlier than the timeframe indicated, he used a novel type of filtering technique to remove the sound, to reduce the sound level of the motorcycle and thereby hopefully expose impulse sounds similar to those that we have observed in the region of the shot here. That technique has been developed only in the last 15 years. Mr. DODD. You, in responding to Chairman Stokes and Mr. Fauntroy, indicated that as a result of your assessment of these wave forms you rule out the possibility of backfire as causing a similar echo pattern. Is that correct? Mr. WEISS. Well, not so much the echo pattern as the evidence of a shockwave present, but also, as I indicated, that if there was backfire it had to have been from the same location that I place the shooter of the rifle. 590 Mr. DODD. My point is this: Are you excluding all other possible noise patterns that could have produced a similar kind of wave form that we see on your predicted response tape or that was evident on the Dallas Police Department tape? Mr. WEISS. If there are other kinds of sounds which resemble sounds produced by a bullet in supersonic flight followed by the sound of a muzzle blast, then they must, of course, be considered but I don't know that there is. Mr. DODD. Could you share with this committee what other possible noises could produce that sort of thing, other than a rifle or a pistol? Mr. WEISS. I don't know--that is the point I was trying to reach--can I think of any that might resemble it. Mr. DODD. Was there any assessment made of other things that might have been occurring at that time at Dealey Plaza which could have produced that kind of noise pattern? Mr. WEISS. I think somebody had once suggested a firecracker being thrown, or something like that. Mr. DODD. Well, there was a train. I think we had evidence that there was a freight train that was moving or present at the time in Dealey Plaza. Could a train have done anything, cars backing into each other? Mr. WEISS. No, sir, they would not have produced this kind of pattern. Mr. DODD. Let me ask you something and see if I have, after listening to you--this is my third or fourth time, I think I am beginning to understand some of the terminology. Is this statement correct? Would the absence of any identifiable pattern in the predicted response from the Dallas Police Department tape, would that raise a serious question as to the authenticity of the test, the absence of an identifiable pattern, and one from the other? Mr. WEISS. Well, the test is authentic, regardless. If I could not find a pattern that matched sufficiently closely, I would only have been able to conclude that we have not found proof either that this is a shot that was recorded or that there was a microphone at that location in Dealey Plaza. Mr. DODD. So it would raise questions, anyway, as not necessarily to the authenticity of the test, but rather whether or not your predicted response compared favorably to a certain degree of probability with the original tape? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. We could not make a statement that there was a 95-percent probability of having identified a shot. Mr. DODD. Conversely, could we also say that the inclusion of a wave form in the Dallas Police Department tape that it would have been impossible to record on the predicted response recording, would also raise serious questions? Mr. WEISS. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Mr. DODD. We have evidence that there was a Dallas Police Department tape under, I guess it is exhibit F-355 the carillon bell going off in Dealey Plaza. That is on the Dallas Police Department tape. To the best of our knowledge, there were no bells ringing. In Dealey Plaza at that time, November 22, 1963. How do we explain 591 the ringing of a carillon bell that would be impossible to record at Dealey Plaza? Mr. WEISS. Offhand, I really can't address that question, since I didn't consider it in any detail when I was examining these data. Mr. DODD. As someone who is trained and provides expertise in this area, my point is, can you have the sound of something that could be impossible to be heard on a tape-recording and somehow that be picked up some other place? Was it possible for another policeman to have had his tape-recorder on at some other location? Mr. WEISS. Yes; that is a possibility. I think Mr. Aschkenasy wants to say something. Mr. ASCHKENASY. You are making an assumption that there was a source of a bell in Dealey Plaza, but that is your assumption. However, you have to look at the tape and the data on the tape a little more carefully, and one can see there an indication of a keying-on-transient which means that someone else tried to get onto the channel at that very time. He may have been in position to be close to a source of a carillon bell rather than anyone in Dealey Plaza, because there is associated with that carillon bell some indication of somebody else transmitting at the same time, which puts it just equally as well outside of Dealey Plaza. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for unanimous consent just to proceed for a couple of additional minutes? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 2 additional minutes. Mr. DODD. I realize that you are not an expert on police transmitters, motorcycle transmitters, but to my knowledge, anyway, having looked into this a little bit, it would be impossible for--and you correct me if I am wrong--but I am led to believe it would be impossible for someone else to interrupt a transmission once there is a transmission occurring. Do you understand what I am saying? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Yes. What you mean to say is, if one guy has the channel--- Mr. DODD. Has the channel open, it is impossible to break in? Mr. ASCHKENASY. It is not impossible to break. It is a question of the strength of each individual transmitter and its relation to the antenna that is receiving the transmission. The one who has the stronger signal is the one who grabs the channel, notwithstanding whether someone else is on the channel at that time. If I am coming in with a big 20-kilowatt signal, I will swamp everybody else in sight. Mr. DODD. Then you are telling me it would be impossible to record two sounds at the same time? Mr. ASCHKENASY. No. Mr. DODD. Or is it? Mr. WEISS. No. As a matter. of fact--let me respond to that one. We sort of play ping-pong here. In fact, if you listen to the police tape recording during the entire period of the so-called--the 5 minutes when the microphone on this motorcycle was accidentally on, you can in fact hear other transmitters coming on. Most of 592 them failed insofar as all you hear is the microphone click and you hear a kind of a chirp as they try to capture the channel. But there are a number of times where you do hear other voices coming on, other people communicating, sometimes very distorted sounds of the voices, sometimes quite clear and intelligible; and it is all during the time that this one transmitter has been on. In fact, as you go on in time past the point at which the shots occur, the ability of other transmitters to come into the channel becomes increasingly--it occurs more frequently. You hear more people: coming in. You hear comments to the effect that somebody has his microphone button stuck, and it is all audible and understandable so there are indeed several transmitters being received simultaneously during that period, and therefore it could very well have been that there was another motorcycle who happened to key on at just that point in time and picked up the sound of a bell where. Mr. DODD. Let me try to conclude this, by asking you this, though. Having said that, and using the expertise that you have in acoustics, you, I think, said, Dr. Aschkenasy, that to .have found a sound that you developed in your predicted response in some place other than Dealey Plaza, it would have been necessary to reconstruct, in effect, Dealey Plaza in some other place? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Correct. Mr. DODD. So that even if that sound that we hear is the third or fourth response, that would have only been able to have come, based on your expertise and your tests, only could have come from Dealey Plaza, unless you could have recreated Dealey Plaza? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Yes. Congressman Sawyer at that time asked the question, if somebody were to tell me that the motorcycle was not at Dealey Plaza--and he was in fact somewhere else and he was transmitting from another location--my response to him at that time was that I would ask to be told where that location and once told where it is, I would go there, and one thing I would expect to find is a replica of Dealey Plaza at that location. That is the only way it can come out. Chairman Stokes. The time of the gentleman has again expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Weiss, Chairman Stokes alluded earlier to some of the prob- lems that your analysis will undoubtedly cause this committee, and indeed cause history and people who look at this on down the way We may, in fact, be in the position of finally having raised more serious questions than we answered as a committee. We are particularly aware of the lateness in the life of committee, matched up with your findings. I suppose we could take some comfort in the fact that you came up with your findings 3 weeks before, rather than 3 weeks after, we rendered our findings but I must, without being personal, now pursue some lines, of questioning which I think will be asked of us, and of you and your professional characteristics and findings, so please don't take the initial questions at least, personally, but I think that they be asked. 593 When you and Mr. Aschkenasy entered into this series of mathematical and geometrical computations, did you set out with any particular result desired? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. Mr. ASCHKENASY. No, sir. Mr. WEISS. We had no preconception as to what we were going to find. If anything, when we first heard the tape recording and first began to examine the data, our initial reaction was, somebody has got to be kidding; this can't be gunshots. But as we examined the data more carefully, subjected it to all the tests that we have described, the procedures that we have described, the results of the analyses themselves convinced us of where we were heading. Obviously, we did not have any plan or any objective other than to do the best we could to find out what really these data represent. Mr. ASCHKENASY. If I may-- Mr. FITHIAN. Yes, sir; go ahead. Mr. ASCHKENASY. If I may say just one line, it's that the numbers could not be refuted. That was our problem. The numbers just came back again and again the same way, pointing only in one direction, as to what these findings were. There just didn't seem to be any way to make those numbers go away, no matter how hard we tried. It was not a question of interpretation of the numbers; it was a question of what the analysis yielded, the mechanical analysis, because it was just a hand calculator and a piece of string, as you saw it, a tape measure, and it all just came out the same way. Mr. FITHIAN. What were your instructions from the committee staff when you set out to extend or refine Dr. Barger's work? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Is there any way to take Dr. Barger's statement of 50-50 percent and move it off center either way? Mr. FITHIAN. And so you are telling me that it really didn't matter to you which way it moved, that you were trying to get at more certainty than a probability of 50-50? Mr. ASCHKENASY. That is correct, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Did you have any instructions from any member of the committee, any suggestions, any recommended lines of pursuit, that you should follow? Mr. ASCHKENASY. We were totally independent of the committee. Mr. FITHIAN. Now during your testimony, Dr. Weiss, you stated that the principles you employ are really basically very simple; they are mathematical; they are a part of the physical sciences. Has this technique been commonly employed in criminal investigations in recent years? Mr. WEISS. I think, as I stated earlier, the only application of this technique that comes to mind is the one in the instance of the shootings at Kent State College, and in that analysis and investigation the technique was developed originally by Dr. Barger. Mr. FITHIAN. Then we are in a pretty small circle, the two of you and Dr. Barger and his firm, in what must be a much larger field, that is, the field of acoustics. Are we saying, then, that this whole thing is really rather novel, that is, the application of acoustical principles to criminalistics, if you will? 594 Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir; the application is novel in this area, because these are first times that questions of this sort have raised, that is, "Given sounds on a tape which may or may not be gunshot, can you identify what it was, and if so, can you tell where the gun was fired from or where the microphone was listening?," I don't know if that question had ever been raised before Kent State, and for that matter how many times it has been raised since then. Mr. FITHIAN. I realize criminalistics and so forth is .not your profession, but as far as you know this is the first application of the principles of acoustics to ascertain the precise origin of a gunshot? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Congressman, if I may give you an analogy to that, it is almost like taking a wheel and putting it either bicycle, or on something newer than that, on a car. It is the same wheel. Principles of a pneumatic wheel of a tire, are the same for both, and they are basically simple and basically straightforward and incontrovertible, those principles, and yet there was one appli- cation before, and now you have, another application which is new; but the results of the game are the same. Mr. FITHIAN. Now I want to clarify in my own mind the distinction between your work and Dr. Barger's, and I have some additional questions on that which will come a little later; but if I understand you correctly, you did not, in fact, analyze the nature of the impulses, that is, you weren't working with filtering systems and the like to get rid of the extra noise. You were only working with the output of Dr. Barger's work in that area; is that correct? Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Is the gentleman seeking additional time? Mr. FITHIAN. I seek additional recognition for two additional minutes. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two additional minutes. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Congressman, our input to this process were two tapes, basically, the tape of the test shots in Dallas in August and the other one was a high quality copy of the Dallas police tape recording in its pristine, natural form, without any filtering whatsoever, and that is what you actually see on that exhibit. That from the Dallas police tape recording. Mr. FITHIAN. To refine my question somewhat, as I understand Dr. Weiss, the only additional analysis you made other than the mathematical computations with measurements and moving those around until you got a match was the possibility of sound alteration by the windshield of the bicycle or the motorbike? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. FITHIAN. So that that was the limited area of your of the impulse or impulses on the Dallas P.D. tape; is that Mr. WEISS. That is right, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Chairman, I think my other questions can grouped together a little later. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 595 Mr. Chairman, before I begin my questioning I would like to simply state that the questions that I am about to ask have been shaped and assisted by several people who have come and attempted to help me with this. The first is Dr. Arthur Lord, who is sitting behind me, who is a professor at Drexel University and has extensive background in ultrasonics and acoustics. And also in the audience we have Dr. Francis Davis, who is the dean of science at Drexel University, and a fellow in the American Meteorological Society; and also Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, who is a criminologist and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. These three gentlemen, at my request, came and reviewed the testimony which you gave a week ago, as well as the testimony that was presented to the committee back in September by Dr. Barger; and they have assisted me in asking, I think, some questions that are a little bit more technical and perhaps different from the questions previously asked; and they start with the whole question of temperature. When asked about this previously this morning, you had indicated, I believe, that you received the temperature data that you took into consideration from the committee staff; is that correct? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. EDGAR. Did you feel that the use of temperature was not that important to the findings of this particular study? Mr. WEISS. No; it was important to know approximately what the temperature was. The precise knowledge is not that important because the effect is not that great. We, for example, took into account the temperature of Dealey Plaza at the time that Dr. Barger's experiment was being performed and particularly at the time the shot was fired from the grassy knoll that was recorded by microphone 4, and that was known to be about 90(deg)F. at that time. It was very near at the end of his tests and they had been noticing what the temperature was as the tests progressed. Now at that temperature the velocity of sound in air is about 1,150 feet per second. By contrast, the temperature on November 22, 1963, was given to me as 65(deg), and the velocity of sound in air corresponding to that temperature is 1,123 feet per second; therefore, there is approximately a 27-feet-per-second increment over a roughly 25(deg)F. change, or approximately 1 foot per second per degree. Had there been a, say, 5(deg) or so difference from the 65(deg) I was quoted, it would have affected the calculations slightly, but not seriously, and certainly not affected them significantly for the earliest arriving or the earlier arriving set of echoes, but only for the really late echoes. Mr. EDGAR. The temperature that you determined in November of 1963, you said was Mr. WEISS. That is what I was told, yes. Mr. EDGAR. Do you know where they determined that temperature? Mr. WEISS. No, sir; I do not. Mr. EDGAR. So there really was no accurate way of determining the exact temperature in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, other than statements that were given to you; is that correct? 596 Mr. WEISS. That is correct. I would again, however, assume that: if the temperature were quoted as 65(deg), measured at one place, then it would not be likely to be more than, say, 5 higher at another place in the immediate vicinity. Mr. EDGAR. Well, let's make the assumption that they called the Weather Bureau and asked what s the exact weather on that particular day; the Weather Bureau presumably would have taken look at their records, taken at a temperature gauge somewhere near the airport where their findings would have been taken, and if we just have that as an average temperature for the city of Dallas at that time, you drew on the map with your string and pins straight lines from the point of the presumed shot to the point of the microphone, and also straight lines to the point of the echoes. That was assuming that at the muzzleblast sound, concentric circles went out similar to throwing a rock or a pebble into a creek or pond, and those ripples went out in even circles. Couldn't temperature have affected the time it took for the sound to have in fact reached the microphone or to have in fact hit the corner of a building and bounced back to the microphone where it was being received? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Well, as we mentioned earlier, Congressman, we had received this temperature of 65(deg) from the committee staff. We assumed that they had done their homework as to getting the temperature that was actually measured on that day. However, as Professor Weiss also just pointed out, is that the difference temperature--it does, of course--it does affect, because we see on the day of the experiment the temperature was 90(deg), and at the. day of--on November 22, 1963--was 65(deg), and the tables give you two different speeds for the velocity of sound, one 1,123 at the lower temperature, and 1,150. If we just take a linear extrapolation between those two numbers and we say that instead of being 65(deg) on November 22, maybe close to 70(deg), so instead of 1,123, we have measured 1,128 feet per second Now what does that mean? A change of 5 over 1,100 mately, a change of a half a percent. Now half a percent would not affect our measurements because we did not accuracy of the map that we have. Was it accurate to half percent? As a matter of fact, we discovered in looking at graphs and looking at the map that some of the details there actually not correct. So this is why we assumed that the 65(deg) was a good, reasonable ballpark figure, since, No. 1, it was given by the committee staff, and No. 2, distances over which we were measuring echoes, the distances are not miles; the distances are only hundreds of feet and in 100 feet, half a percent of error is hardly measurable in terms of our measurement; and this is basically the thought processes that we followed. Mr. EDGAR. In the first part of your comment you said it affected the later echoes; is that correct? Mr. ASCHKENASY. It may have affected the later echoes, but the measurement of those later echoes is not that much later in tion to the earlier echoes. Everything occurs here within mately three-tenths of a second, the whole echo pattern. 597 Mr. EDGAR. But how would that have affected your 95 percent certainty that you have just talked about? Mr. ASCHKENASY. We said 95 percent or better; so it would have made the "better" a little bit smaller. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman, I will not ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes if it is understood that we are going to a second and a third round of questions at this time. Chairman STOKES. We will continue as long as the committee has questions. Mr. EDGAR. I will come back to this question. Chairman STOKES. Professor Weiss, let me ask you this: The bullet from the grassy knoll, do we know where it went? Mr. WEISS. No, sir, we do not. Chairman STOKES. And do we know the speed of the bullet? Mr. WEISS. No, we do not know that either. Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us, then, why we do not know those things about the bullet from grassy knoll? Mr. WEISS. Well, because the data won't permit us to determine it. All we know from the data is that there appears to be a shockwave impulse that precedes a muzzle blast sound by some number of milliseconds. I believe the number is actually 24 milliseconds. Now if you knew--you have to know two things in order to find a third in this sort of situation--you have to know the direction in which the bullet was fired, and you need to know the muzzle velocity in order to be able to determine where the bullet's flight terminated. Alternatively, if you knew where it terminated and knew where it was aimed, you could determine its velocity. Or, if you knew where it terminated and you knew what its velocity was, you could then determine where it was aimed. But, you see, there are three unknowns that we are dealing with, and we only have one fact, and there is simply no way to be able to resolve the ambiguity here. Chairman STOKES. So, for our purposes, we would be in the position of not knowing whether the bullet was fired straight up in the air or toward the limousine, or back away from. Mr. WEISS. That is not quite correct, sir. We can say that the bullet was not fired straight up in the air because had it been, you would not have received a shockwave impulse at that microphone position; and, indeed, if it had been fired in a direction reverse to that of the limousine, you also would not have received a shockwave impulse. Chairman STOKES. Then you are able to say, then, that the bullet would have been fired in the vicinity of the limousine? Mr. WEISS. Well, one could say it was fired in the general direction of it. That could mean something well in front of it and something well behind it, as well as right at it. Chairman STOKES. What happened to it after that we have no way of knowing? Mr. WEISS. No, sir, we do not. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. 598 Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along the lines that Mr. Edgar was questioning you assumptions that may have been made about the scene and they may affect your calculations, you mentioned when you discussing the original assumptions you made that the tape er on the Dallas police vehicle was 5 percent slow. I wonder if could discuss that a little bit and tell us, one, how do you know it was 5 percent slow, and, two, how important is it, what difference does it make, that we be accurate about that? Mr. WEISS. As a matter of fact, we know that it is 5 percent or approximately 5 percent slow from the time analysis done by Barger, these data having been presented to the committee the open hearing in September when he discussed this factor did this by extrapolating a straight line to fit the time ments made by the dispatcher on channel 1, which is the on which these data were recorded, and found that its slope was about 5 percent or something in that vicinity. Now this affects measurements in the following way: If the tape was, in fact, recorded slowly, then it would be played back--and we played it back on equipment that we believe plays at true speed as indicated--then if it was recorded slowly, events occurring, let us say, 1 second apart, when you play it back on a machine that plays a tape more quickly, will occur in an interval of less than 1 second. If you then make a measurement and forget that the tape may not have been recorded at the correct speed, you i are in error; so you have to adjust the observed spacing between! events, the events being impulses, for example, that you correct them to determine what they really should be or in fact were at the time that the recording was made. Now this adjustment of 5 percent is only an approximate one. In fact, it was altered slightly during our analyses as we found it necessary to alter it, so that the data fell in a little bit better and a little bit more meaningfully. We checked with Dr. Barger on the validity of doing this, and his opinion was there is absolutely no reason that it could not have been done that way, that in fact the fit that he had was over an average of a number of minutes, and that the Dictabelt itself was not notorious for holding constant, speed, so that its speed could have been varying by a minute amount during this period of time, so a small upward or downward adjustment was perfectly valid. It therefore was necessary to make such an adjustment in order to find what the correct interval spacing was, or our best guess at what it was. Mr. PREYER. I get the impression that the fit, the match, determined the tape speed, rather than the tape speed having much effect or influence on the match? Mr. WEISS. No, because the adjustment that is necessary is only a small one. If it were a matter of saying, well, I have to slow this tape, or I have to speed this tape up, by, say, 20 percent, or slow it down by 25 percent, then it would have been a situation of that sort. The trim was a very small amount around the estimate that had been made by Dr. Barger in the first place. For that matter-- 599 actually, the adjustment was--instead of using 5 percent, we used 4.3 percent. Mr. PREYER. If I might just ask one other question, Mr. Chair- man, in another area. You mentioned that this involves a new application of old and incontrovertible principles, and that the Kent State was the first application of the new techniques; and I gather it was the first application of the new technique which would rule out low level sound so that you would be able to hear the higher level sound? Mr. WEISS. Not in the work that we did. We did not actually use any technique for suppressing low-level sounds. We just took the tape exactly as it had been recorded and analyzed it that way. Mr. PREYER- My question that I wanted to get at was: Was your analysis, or any acoustic analysis from experts, admitted into evidence at any of the Kent State hearings or trials? Mr. WEISS. I'm not sure what the results of that analysis were. I think Dr. Barger would be better able to answer that question. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Weiss, I don't know how closely related are the science of acoustics and ballistics, but wouldn't it be a fact that muzzle velocity from a rifle would exceed the speed of sound? Mr. WEISS. For most rifle bullets I believe that is true, yes. Mr. DEVINE. Therefore, the bullet or the projectile would probably arrive at the target before the sound would be heard by people at the target area? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. Mr. DEVINE. Therefore, in order to coordinate the Zapruder film with the dispatcher's tape of the broadcast on the motorcycle and the Dr. Barger acoustics studies, you would have to take into consideration the sound-impact lag, would it not? Mr. WEISS. That is correct. It would depend entirely upon what you were trying to relate. If you wish to relate the moment at which an impact might have occurred, you might get one set of relationships or adjustments- If you wanted to, however, synchronize-if that is the idea--sound and film to what would have been heard in the automobile, then you might get a slightly different, but only a slightly different, set of synchronizations- Mr. DEVINE. Of course, the picking up of the sound from differ- ent areas would be different than at the target area itself?. Mr. WEISS. That is correct, absolutely correct. Mr. DEVINE. Let me just finally comment that I have had some experience with expert witnesses in the medical field and psychiatric field and the ballistics field and the fingerprint field and so forth. Wouldn't you agree, those of you that are engaged in expert opinion testimony, that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions from the same set of facts? Mr. WEISS. Well, if the facts can bear alternative interpretations, yes, that would be true, they can.. The only question, I think, would be relating to the premises on which the facts may have been based. Mr. DEVINE. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. 600 The gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Weiss, you have on several occasions indicated that there was, in fact, no new electronic equipment utilized you to establish these facts? Mr. WEISS. That is fundamentally true; yes, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. Therefore, we need not look for an analysis of how reliable the new equipment you used is, because you didn't, any? : Mr. WEISS. That is correct, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question, and question is of staff; therefore, I would like staff to tell us the of the 65-degree temperature determination which was the team here. Chairman STOKES. Professor Blakey, do you want to that? Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, I obviously would be corrected: the record and if my memory today is like it is normally, probably in error. My memory is that we got it from the Weather Bureau, which, of course, keeps relatively accurate and they differentiated the temperature in various areas, and we took the one that was the closest to Dealey Plaza. If that is wrong, I will stand corrected and bring it attention of the committee as soon as possible and insert it record. I might add just a comment, and perhaps I could do it form of a question so that I am not in the position of something in the record: Professor Weiss, if you would comment on the following hypothetical: If you knew where the gun was, if you knew the velocity of the gun, and you knew where it hit, and you had recording, could you determine the temperature of the air? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Yes, sir. Mr. BLAKEY. If it is true from extrinsic data, apart acoustic study, that we know those factors about, one, shot, the second shot and the fourth shot, then the temperture in the air at Dealey Plaza could be determined by the known that had been related by the medical and ballistics neutron tion analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald's gun, couldn't we? It possibility; is that correct? Mr. ASCHKENASY. That is correct, except that you have to re- member that when you hypothesize you are hypothesizing labora- tory-ideal conditions which do not exist in the real world. Mr. BLAKEY. Did you gentlemen make that determination? Mr. WEISS. No, sir, we did not. Mr. BLAKEY. How difficult would it be to do so? Mr. WEISS. From the data that are available, I don't know. Mr. BLAKEY. I wonder if you could supplement your testimony at this point with a letter telling us what math perature of the air had to have been at Dealey Plaza analysis of shots one, two, and four? Mr. WEISS. That would require, for example, locations of the echo-generating surfaces for the position from the 601 sixth floor window of the depository building, and that will take some time to do. Mr. ASCHKENASY. It isn't easy. Mr. BLAKEY. But it is a mechanical possibility? Mr. WEISS. It is a doable thing. Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you. Mr. FAUNTROY Mr Chairman, I want to be sure that I under- stand the answer to counsel's question. We know that the second shot struck President Kennedy somewhere behind the sign on the film. You can determine the distance roughly between the middle of that sign and the sixth floor window, can you not? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Those who are expert at doing that sort of thing can. Mr. FAUNTROY. You drew me a line a minute ago. Mr. WEISS. One can determine the distance, yes. Mr. FAUNTROY. The question, therefore, is, if you know where the shot emanated and where it struck, if you took the time, could you determine the temperature? And the answer is? Mr. WEISS. Yes, you could. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Mr. WEISS. I was going to add another comment apropos of the precision of knowing the temperature. Since the effect of a variation in the temperature is slight, is that its only primary effect in fact in this set of calculations, will be to move the position, the initial position, of the motorcycle at the start of, relative to the point at which it is now, too, so that it might be either a little bit closer or a little bit further from the rifle at the time it first receives the muzzleblast sound? For example, if the temperature is, say, 5 degrees warmer, then as Mr. Aschkenasy pointed out, the effect will be a one-half of 1 percent adjustment. In fact, that adjustment can be applied quite easily to the position of the motorcycle. The motorcycle in that estimation is something like 200 feet away from the grassy knoll area, which would mean moving it by 1 additional foot forward or backward, whichever way. Mr. EDGAR. Would the gentleman yield? Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EDGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have 1 additional minute. Mr. FAUNTROY. I ask it, too, and I yield that minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman may have 1 additional minute. Mr. EDGAR. What is the statistical evidence that atmospherically your temperature is not off by more than 5? Mr. WEISS. I have no idea, sir. Mr. EDGAR. If it is off by 10 percent, doesn't that affect-- Mr. WEISS. Then there would be a net l-percent change in the velocity of sound, and I have to move the motorcycle not by 1 foot but by 2 feet to compensate. That is the total effect, sir. Mr. EDGAR. But doesn't that affect the number of millisecond signals that you use? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. It simply means that the starting position of motorcycle has been moved. If I had to move him 10 feet 602 forward, then I probably could not get a decent match anymore But that would probably be a 100-percent error in the temperature Mr. EDGAR. Are you 95 percent sure that the temperature was within the 5- to 10-percent difference that we are talking about 5 to 10-degree difference? Mr. ASCHKENASY. We had no reason to doubt the committee staff in getting the correct answer to the question that we put to them. We explained to them that it was important to know what the temperature was on November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza. This is the number that they came back with. Now whether there was any error intentional or unintentional on their part, right now we have to make the statement that it was never taken into consideration that there may be an error in that number Mr. EDGAR. I yield back. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following up on this point because, as I understood it, you made adjustments not just for temperature but you made them as well for the location of the receiver, the location of the alleged fire of the gun. Apparently, and I may have misheard you, but you also discovered some incorrect location in the map, itself, that apparently you had to make some adjustments for as well; is that correct? Mr. ASCHKENASY. We did not make any adjustments. We just noticed that the map was not an exact survey. For example the vertical, as is shown there in the lower right-hand corner in the photograph, shows evenly spaced columns. The map we were given by committee staff did not show evenly spaced columns. Columns could be echo sources. In this case they were not, but this came to our attention. We want to point out it was not perfect. Mr. DODD. What I'm getting at is this. Assuming that any error that may have existed in temperature would be minimal, do you believe that a reenactment of it, of what occurred in Dealey Plaza placing a person firing a rifle at exactly the location that you adjusted for, having a tape recorder going at exactly the same speed that the recorder was allegedly going on November 22, 1963 and exactly accounting for the adjustments that were made in the motorcycle, do you think that would in any way possibly narrow your prediction down even further? Would it be worthwhile, in other words? Mr. WEISS. No; I believe all that would happen if you trotted a motorcycle down the street with a microphone receiving the sounds, that you would, in fact, come up with a set of echoes that would very closely match the set that has been predicted. Mr. DODD. With regard to the placement of the firing person on the grassy knoll, to what degree of error do you allow? We have discussed this before in executive session, and I tried to recall your response. It seems to me you talked about 5 feet, a radius of 5 feet Mr. WEISS. Yes. Mr. DODD. Are you suggesting that if we, one, move that firer by 10 feet or more from where you placed him, that that would throw off the pattern significantly, that the probability that you have arrived at here would diminish significantly? 603 Mr. WEISS. Depending upon how you moved the shooter, you would affect one of another or several of the predicted echoes and, of course, depending upon how far you moved him. Now, if the movement is a small amount, let s say 5 feet along the line of the fence, then you can compensate for that adequately by moving the motorcycle a little bit and still get a pattern that will match. It may not match as close as plus or minus one one-thousandth of a second- It might be 1 1/2 thousandths of a second. If you start moving the shooter significantly greater distances-- Mr. DODD. What do you mean by significantly? Mr. WEISS. Ten to 20 feet from where I have it now; then the likelihood is that one after another of these echoes will fail to be matched by any reasonable pattern. Mr. DODD. Mr. Blakey, do we have a graph of the grassy knoll at all? Do we have any evidence that blows that up at all? Could you explain on the blackboard and draw a little picture of the area in which we placed the fireman, the rifleman, in the grassy knoll? Mr. WEISS. You mean in terms of what you would see if you were Standing there, actually a photograph sort of thing? Mr. BLAKEY. I didn't understand the question. There is an exhibit already in the record. I believe it is No. 155 that shows the fence from the ground level. He would be able to indicate from there. Mr. DODD. Is it from behind the fence? Mr. BLAKEY. In front of the fence. Mr. DODD. Maybe the blackboard would be better, it might be more graphic, and you can place it more clearly. Could you draw the fence as you would perceive it, looking out onto Dealey Plaza, and then place the rifleman in a spot where you think he would have had to fire from? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Just to refer you to this map here, here is what is shown as the 5-foot high wooden fence. It runs in this direction approximately north-south and approximately east-west. I will just reproduce it larger. Mr. DODD. That would be helpful. Mr. ASCHKENASY. This is what I pointed out before, and we show, if we take a scale of 1 inch--let's say this is 10 feet--l inch equals 10 feet. This piece of chalk equals 10 feet, and we originally placed him here, 8 feet from the corner. Mr. DODD. Going along the fence. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Running along the fence, since this represents 8 feet, we say we could move him within 5 feet of this location, from here to here, and get a reasonable match, still. Mr. DODD. Where would be the direction of the highway or the motorcade? Mr. ASCHKENASY. The motorcade is coming down here on Elm Street, right here. Mr. DODD. And your margin of error would be anything beyond 10 feet you start having difficulties? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Yes; then you put him already on the other side of the crux and the position begins to change, or you put him further out here. We certainly would have to exclude this region here because he would not want to be visible. If we put him too far back here, he would not be able to see down to the limousine, which is below his level. 604 Mr. DODD. I am talking just from an acoustical assessment you would have difficulty with the degree of probability? Mr. ASCHKENASY. That is right Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. I was about to ask chief counsel or one of the members of the staff, as I recall way back when we had a photo graph that the photographic panel was working with and there a linear object behind the wall. I was wondering if, though that is not very conclusive evidence, if that linear object and that unde- fined object is roughly what we are talking about here. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Fithian, again the record will correct me if my memory is wrong--we analyzed two places, photographed to determine if something could be seen. The photographic panel indicated that the area on the fence, which was one possible one, was not profitable. We could not get anything out of it. Consequently, additional work was not done on it. The photograph we analyzed in some detail in the hearing was of a possible person and a-linear object behind the concrete abutment and not behind the picket fence. I might ask, Mr. Chairman, that exhibit F-155 be displayed at this point, and this is just moments before the assassination, and I would direct the committee's attention to the arrow pointing at the President's head. If the committee would look up and to the left, you will see the cement colored area and above it you will see the outlines of the picket fence. This is the concrete abutment, and this is the approximate area where an analysis was made previously. This is the line of the wooden picket fence, it extends in this direction back, and this is the area that is shown from the other side if we would refer again to the larger aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza; this is the picket fence coming this way and back over; and the line of fire, assuming a shot did occur from the grassy knoll, would be down in this direction. As situation, it would be down in this direction, coming from the picket fence down toward the car. So this could give you a visual image of what happened. Mr. FITHIAN. The picket fence is some feet behind the concrete wall? Mr. BLAKEY. That is correct. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. Dr. Weiss, I want to pursue in this particular round of questioning the nature of the receiver and its ability to determine and therefore turn out the kind of shape that you worked with. If I remember Dr. Barger's testimony correctly before the committee in September, I was just going back through the documents, and I can find several references to it which I could read to you if you would like, but basically what he said was that given the limited nature or capacity of the motorcycle radio, that it did not indeed transmit the full picture of a very, very loud sound that is, it attenuated or modified that sound simply because it could not accommodate that much of an impulse. Are you familiar with that particular problem that we ran into? Mr. WEISS. Yes, I am. 605 Mr. FITHIAN. Now, does that problem pose any significance for you in the kind of mathematical extension that you made on shot No. 3? Mr. WEISS. No, it does not affect the time at which an impulse will occur, only the amplitude or strength with which it is observed. Mr. FITHIAN. Well, then, let me ask it another way. You were concerned about the alteration of the nature of the impulse by the windshield of the motorcycle? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, only insofar as it is another means of observing a consistency between what is seen in the pattern and what is expected to be seen based upon both theory and experiment, that is, that the leading edge is much smaller than the cycle that immediately follows it. In reality, when a muzzle blast occurs, that leading edge is very much larger than the cycle that will follow it. There are two things that are reducing it as we observe it here. The first is the effect of the windshield, and the second is the effect of the compression caused by limiting action in the microphone and transmitter and almost certainly in the receiver and recorder as well. Mr. FITHIAN. Does that in any way call into question the identification of the sound, itself, as that which reflects a gunshot from a rifle? Mr. WEISS. Not seriously. Well, in effect, actually, rather than contradicting it, in a sense it supports it because all we see is all explainable and consistent with what we should expect to see if we take into account all the factors of the situation. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. One other area that I am concerned about, as I was concerned in September in my own questioning of Dr. Barger, and that had to do with what he called false alarms. Is that term familiar to you? Mr. WEISS. Yes, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. As I understand it, to go back again and find some indications of this in Dr. Barger's testimony, but as I understand it, the reason he could not come up with a greater probability that there was a fourth shot was in part, at least, due to the possibility of false alarms being generated in the various noises. I guess what I am curious to know is how you eliminated those false alarms that were reducing Dr. Barger's probability estimate? Mr. WEISS. The elimination, in fact, is a byproduct of the ability to narrow the window down from 12 milliseconds wide to only 2 milliseconds wide. By so doing, it is possible to now predict that the probability of a noise occurrence matching this closely is significantly reduced and indeed reduced below the 5 percent level that I have mentioned. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FITHIAN. Let me just for the record, Mr. Chairman, well perhaps more properly pursue this with Dr. Barger, but on page 6869 of the transcript, Dr. Barger answers in part: Therefore it would not be unreasonable to expect that approximately 5 of the remaining 10 correlations were also false alarms. That would indicate that about one-half of the detections that I did not previously indicate to be false alarms, about one-half of the remaining 10, are false alarms. This would indicate that the probability that each one is a correct detection is about one-half. 606 From that he went on to the 50-50 probability. Now, do I under- stand you correctly in that you are saying that simply by narrow- ing down the window, as you use the term, narrowing down the area-- Mr. ASCHKENASY. It is the uncertainty window. Mr. FITHIAN. The uncertainty window to a very narrow space in numbers of feet and whatever other uncertainties you went into, that it is in that process that you reduce the probability of false alarm? Mr. WEISS. That is correct, sir. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for a. moment, I would like to go back to one of your previous answers in reference to the temperature. You had indicated that if the temperature was off by 10(deg), that that would necessitate your simply moving the motorcycle plus or minus 2 feet; is that correct? Mr. WEISS. I believe so. I really would want to do the calculation before answering that firmly, but it is probably correct. Mr. EDGAR. Isn't that somewhat of an oversimplification of the process? Wouldn't you also have to go back and redo the calculations of all the echoes that are coming off of the buildings? Mr. WEISS. That is correct; for a l-foot movement it would shift the other echoes, but, remember, it would also shift the time of the travel of sound from the source to those points. For example, supposing that the temperature was warmer by some number of degrees, which means the sound would travel faster and all sounds would be received at the microphone sooner, well, the echoes would come in sooner, for sure, but so would the direct muzzle blast come in sooner. This is a kind of self-compensating process. It doesn't compensate exactly and in order to find the correct compensation you have to move the motorcycle a little bit. Remember, we are dealing with a difference in time of arrival between the direct muzzle blast and the echo, not the absolute time of arrival of these events. This difference becomes somewhat less sensitive to temperatures than each of the events, themselves. Mr. EDAR. I have been given a piece of paper that indicates that on November 22, 1963, at the tower of the Texas Book Depository, they actually had a temperature of 68(deg) signaled at the top of Evidently this is backed up by some pictures. It has not been determined where that particular temperature had been derived from or determined in order to put it up on the tower. It also does; not take into account the differing temperatures that might occur at the ground level or toward the tree area as opposed to next to building where temperatures could vary. Is it your experience in situations like this that temperature just doesn't vary much? Mr. WEISS. If we are dealing with a temperature variation only 3(deg), for example, from what I have reported, the effect on the calculations would be negligible. As far as experience of temperature variations of a grassy area as opposed to a building, I have no experience there. But if we are dealing with temperature variations that are not of a large range, then the chances are it would have negligible effect. The sound goes to the building and then 607 comes away from the building again, so it is affected only as it approaches the building closely and as it leaves the building closely. Once it's out in the street, if we are out of the building range, in a normal temperature range it's going to be, in the main, near the average temperature of the area. Mr. EDGAR. As I listened to your testimony this morning, it occurs to me that what you are sharing with us is a very well done analysis that is, in a sense, done in a test tube; that is, your calculations are made with basic science tools, basic skills that have been known for a long period of time. You were given by Dr. Barger the set of parameters around which you were to look, and that namely the third shot, and you have been able to calculate in an office, apart from Dealey Plaza, the echo pattern off of buildings that you had some approximate knowledge of where they were. You don't have the exact knowledge of the exact angle at .which "the echoes are leaving the building; is that correct? Mr. WEISS. If one makes an assumption as to where the motorcycle is, you have an exact knowledge of what the angle is, if you can believe the topographic survey map. You can easily calculate the angle, if that is necessary, but the angle is not an important consideration because it does not affect the time of travel of sound. It will affect, to some degree, the strength of the echo as we see at a particular point, but not its time of travel. Mr. EDGAR. But essentially you were using a test-tube setting in order to come up with the calculations. While temperature was important, it was not that important. I would assume that you would say while wind might be a factor, it was not that important. Aren't there a number of variables like wind, temperature, number of people, number of cars, number of objects in Dealey Plaza that might have some effect on your calculations? Mr. WEISS. In answering that, I would like to start with a quote that we have pasted to the wall in our office to the effect that the only difference between theory and practice is that in practice you can ignore nothing, you can leave out nothing. This is what we very strenuously tried to do in performing this calculation, recognizing that one could easily get into a test-tube situation by forgetting effects or by not estimating what these effects are going to be or can be. This is why we did take the trouble of taking into account the temperature, as a matter of fact, and to be concerned about other effects as well. It is our belief that we have, in fact, accounted for all of the things that can really significantly--and by significantly, I mean can affect the accuracy of the prediction, by significantly, I mean prevent us from finding a pattern that matches it within the kind of window we are talking about. As far as the effect of other people are concerned, and there certainly were plenty of people in the street at the time, they are not going to particularly affect the time of arrival of echoes received from the hard surfaces in the environment there. The walls of the building will still receive and reflect sounds. The people there can perhaps affect the strength of some of these sounds, but they are not going to greatly alter the time of arrival. Now, this understanding is not only ours. We, in fact, corroborated it by talking with other acoustics experts, and they agreed on this. 608 Mr. EDGAR. It is my understanding that due to the short interval between shot No. 3 and shot No. 4, approximately 0.5 to 0.7 seconds, the possibility of an acoustical mirage should be considered as a possible explanation. Perhaps the most common illustration of the effect of an acoustical mirage is the optical mirage we see riding along a highway, and we look on the distance and see wet pavement, and when we get to the spot, we find it is not wet pavement, but a trick on our eyes. The phenomenon of an acoustical mirage, which I believe is called refraction or bending, is it possible that the closeness of the two shots, No. 3 and No. 4, could have, in fact, come from the same muzzle blast and could, in fact, be an acoustical mirage, a reflection, a bending off of the sound patterns, or a different approach of the sound to the microphone? Mr. WEISS. No, sir; because in order for that to be true, you would have to, in effect, have had the sound of the muzzle blast transported by some means to the location of the grassy knoll area, and there emitted as if it had originated from that point. Since every echo that was predicted corresponded to an echo arising from a sound rising from that location, what you would have requiredis that echoes otherwise generated from a shot fired, say, from the depository window, would each have had its own peculiar distortion, transmission, characteristics such that by some marveloUs process it occurred at the microphone, intact, and at the correct position. Second: As far as I understand acoustical ducting, which is what you are referring to, these things occur over very greater distances than a few hundred feet as we are observing here. So I don't think that sort of phenomenon could have accounted for these two shots. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Are there further members seeking further recognition? The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Weiss, when you performed the test on the Harley Davidson with the New York Police Department, did you discover any char- acteristics that might help us understand why the officer inadvert- ently had the microphone on? Mr. WEISS. Yes. I think Mr. Aschkenasy can answer. Mr. ASCHKENASY. I am certainly glad you asked that question. At the time we conducted those tests, there was an officer who had been a member of the motorcycle police force in New York City for quite awhile. Once he saw we were playing around with the micro- phone and radio, and he was assisting in turning on the motorcycle and turning it off at our directions, he let on as to how many times that stupid microphone would go on every time he pulled the brake cable because the brake cable passed within a half inch of the microphone button that activates the microphone button, enabling it to transmit. That was a totally voluntary comment on his part which indicated to us that indeed it is possible inadvertently for a microphone to transmit without the rider being aware of it. Mr. FITHIAN. The second question: Were there any changes in Dealey Plaza between 1963 and 1978 which altered the echo pattern? 609 Mr. WEISS. Not that I know of. We compared photographs and maps, aerial photographs, land maps, et cetera. All of the surfaces that we have considered are intact since 1963. Mr. FITHIAN. The reason I ask the question is that if I remember Dr. Barger's testimony, they had to move one of the targets a bit because of the new freeway sign that does appear very, very close---- Mr. WEISS. That is correct, but in fact none of the echoes---well, insofar as that overhead sign, since it was not there m 1963, it could not have caused an echo in 1963. Mr. FITHIAN. What I was getting at was, did you get some extra echoes that you could not account for? found echoes in Dr Barger's Mr. WEISS. As a matter of fact, we experiment not from the overhead sign for microphone position No. 4, but actually from the supporting columns that hold the overhead sign up, these cylindrical columns about 14 or so feet high. There were some very small echoes that bounced off there and could be related to those posts, but they were very weak compared to the other echoes. Mr. DODD. If you will yield, it has been asked in the past and I think you responded to it already, but the construction of the Hyatt Hotel is a rather significant addition in the vicinity. Did that make any difference whatsoever? Mr. WEISS. No; because echoes from that structure would have come in much, much beyond the three-tenths of 1 second or half second that we have been considering. Mr. DODD. Thank you. Mr. FITHIAN. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman yields back the balance of his tithe gentleman from pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Weiss, are you aware of the phenomenon that exists out on the open sea when ships are trying to locate the port and they hear a foghorn in the distance? Are you aware of the phenomenon that occasionally the sound from that foghorn directs the ship in a false direction, as opposed to the accurate direction of seeking a safe harbor, and, in fact, in some instances those ships wind up on the rocks and go in exactly the opposite direction of where they should go? Mr. WEISS. No, sir; I am not. Mr. EDGAR. I would like to congratulate you for what I think is a refreshingly good answer. Let me ask you if you are aware of the fact that on radar scopes, sometimes the blips that occur on radar scopes are not accurate? Mr. WEISS. That I am not aware of. I have some knowledge of radar, and I am not sure of quite what you mean by not accurate in this instance. If you could define the condition that might produce the inaccuracy, I could respond to it, but I have some knowledge of radar, having spent some years working with it. Mr. EDGAR. How do you know that the squiggly lines you are looking at are really supersonic? Mr. WEISS. We do not know it at all. Mr. ASCHKENASY. They are not supersonic. Those are sound waves. Those are presentations of sound waves. The question, what 610 you might want to ask, is about whether we can tell a bullet was there, namely, was it creating a supersonic shock wave. That is what you are questioning. And those are not supersonic sound waves. Those are sound waves as recorded by a microphone, and put into electrical form by the equipment. that was used to trans- mit it and record it, and there is nothing supersonic in those squiggles that we have up there on that board. Mr. EDGAR. Would you answer the question I wanted to ask? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Well, because you have a bullet that travels faster than sound, it will get to someplace faster than the sound reaching that same point. We are talking about two, components; the bullet and the muzzle blast. The bullet files, let's just pick a number, at 2,220 feet per second, so that it travels at twice the? speed of sound for this particular example, when you fire the And it flies, let's say for 200 feet. It will get at the target 200 feet away in a certain period of time. Just like a boat pushes the water ahead of it creating the V-shape wake behind the boat, that is similar to what you see in a shock wave from a bullet. And that shock wave is what is recorded by the microphone that is right next to the target. Sometime later, finally the sound catches up to it and gets to the target, and the muzzle blast is recorded. That interval of time is fixed, by the fact that you have a certain muzzle velocity and you have a certain distance, they occur in a fixed time relationship. We have also the first, it's covered by the photograph--could somebody remove that photograph, please. If I may point something out there. Mr. EDGAR. Yes. Mr. ASCHKENASY. I can point out here also these first impulses before the muzzle blast, those are the shock waves, and if you look carefully--l am sure you cannot look that carefully at that distance--but if you look at these graphs, because these microphones are located at different positions on the street, the relationship between the shock wave and the muzzle blast changes, and it changes in a predictable manner because the manner m which you expect them to change is related to where the observer, or the microphone is picking up both the shock waves and the muzzle blast. Now, you measure here about on the average of about 14 milli- seconds, 14 thousandths of a second delay between the shock wave and the muzzle blast. We go now here to the police tape and the measurement that we found was around 24 milliseconds here. It is now reasonable to assume because of the measured time interval that the impulse may have attributes of a shock wave. If you expand the experiment tape and take an even better look, at it, you find there is a little shock wave echo right in between shock wave and the muzzle blast, and if you expand the police properly, you find similar patterns, implying to us that this im- pulse has the qualities, attributes of a shock wave. Mr. EDGAR. Two further questions relating to that. Your length of little squiggly lines which represent this particular shot does that impinge on the next shot? Mr. ASCHKENASY No no; this point right here in time is approximately seven tenths of a second before the beginning of the next 611 shot, and this whole display here is approximately three-tenths of a second. Mr. EDGAR. I know this was not part of your scientific work, but when you look at the whole tape played out, how many muzzle blasts did you see? Mr. ASCHKENASY. We did not look at the whole tape as you describe it, laid out. We saw, we examined this one in very great detail, and we examined the other candidates that we had been asked when we reviewed the first approach and before the experiment that Dr. Barger performed. Mr. EDGAR. But would it be your expert opinion that Dr. Barger would be able to have described and looked at the number of muzzle blasts? Mr. ASCHKENASY. I am sure that he 10oked--I don't understand what you mean. When, muzzle blast relating to the Dallas police tape? Mr. EDGAR. It seems to me if you have large lines indicating when the muzzle blast occurred, that if you looked at the total tape played out across the room, that we would see four things that would look like four muzzle blasts. Mr. ASCHKENASY. However, they will not look the same, because at the locations where they were picked up the motorcycle was in different orientation relative to the sound source, and as was discussed earlier, the windshield has an effect, the position of the microphone, which we suspect was on the left side of the motorcycle, those all would affect the quality, if I can call it that you know, the shape of the received muzzle blast. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Chairman, I have just one question of Mr. Aschkenasy before he steps down. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Fithian is recognized. Mr. FITHIAN. I did not quite understand what you said. Would the shock wave produce the same echo pattern as the muzzle blast? Mr. ASCHKENASY. No, no; the shock wave produces its own echo pattern. I do not know exactly what it is, but this sure does look like one. It is a qualitative statement rather than a quantitative statement. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman, I just have one additional question and that is the question of probability. The thing we have been reading about in the newspaper and what you have testified this morning is you are 95 percent sure that what we are seeing is a fourth shot. And if I understand the use of the word probability, it is based on some history. I wonder if you could describe the history around which your 95-percent probability is based. Mr. WEISS. Well, the probability we are talking about here is simply that sort of calculation that says well, look, let us not talk in terms of echoes and so forth. We have a range here of about 300 milliseconds, and let us divide it up into 2-millisecond intervals, giving 150 intervals. Now suppose that we are dealing with a deck of 150 cards, and I tell you that in this deck there are only 12 spades. All right, if I give you 14 chances to deal cards from the deck, what are the chances that you are going to deal out 10 612 spades? The probability of that is less than 5 percent. In other words, the probability of something happening by a random proc- ess, that would have generated, in fact, a set of data that closely matches a known set of events, that is to say a predicted set of echoes, they are the knowns, the chances of that occurring is less than 5 percent. Mr. EDGAR. So what you are saying is if we would go back to Dallas, and have a gunman perched on top of the railroad overpass shooting at a target, that there would be only a 5 percent Mr. WEISS. No; that is different situation entirely. That is random event. That is a systematical one. You are describing specific process. Mr. EDGAR. What I am suggesting is 100 different locations-in Dealey Plaza where you could shoot a rifle and get echo patterns Mr. WEISS. No; again we are dealing with generative processes, not one of them will match exactly, unless he is merely within a few feet. If you pick the microphone where it was and move it at the right rate, and now we have all of these people spread all over Dealey Plaza shooting wherever they want, then not one of them is going to match as well as this does here. If, however, you have a radio receiving signals, and everybody has heard radios that receive signals, there is a lot of static, and a lot of crackling noises going on, and some of those noises are people turning microphones on and off. These are random events, there is nothing systematic about it. It can occur at any time. There nothing which forces a crackle to occur at any one particular time. That is the sort of thing we are talking about. Is this noise, or is this something that occurred through a systematic process? The chances of this being noise is less than 5 percent. Mr. EDGAR. But, what experience do we base that on? Mr. WEISS. Oh, long theoretical experience in probability studies of exactly this sort. This has been proven time and time and time again over many years, this sort of analysis. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. Just going a step further, as I understood your response to Mr. Edgar's question and, in fact, your response earlier to the chairman's question with regard to the degree of probability," you are 95 percent sure that there was a noise emanating from the grassy knoll. To what extent are you sure, based on your responses. to questions I raised with you, with like sounds that could create that pattern, to what degree are you sure that this was a rifle that was fired from the grassy knoll? Mr. WEISS. Well, I never, I have not done any kind of consideration of certainty there. I cannot, in fact, say I am sure at all, all I can again do is point to the evidence of a shock wave preceding the muzzle blast, and, in fact, as Mr. Aschkenasy pointed out, there even a kind of early shock wave echo. Mr. DODD. But you were fairly, in response to my questions about similar things that could occur that would create a sound, you said to me that you did not know of anything else that could pattern such as we have seen here other than a rifle. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Well, the question that you posed to us just a few seconds ago is what kind of a probability did we assign to the question of whether there was a rifle there or not; correct? 613 Mr. DODD. Correct. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Now, how we did the analysis was to locate the source and the receiver, namely, the motorcycle. And the detail of analysis that we applied to that process was not applied to the question of whether it was a rifle or not. To us, we were satisfied enough that there were indications of a rifle, but we did not proceed to the extent that we did with locating the source and in locating the motorcycle. The question of whether it was a rifle or not is equally important and must be addressed with the same degree of refinement that we applied to that one. Mr. DODD. Are there acoustical tests that could be performed that would provide us with some degree of probability as to whether or not that, in fact, was a rifle? Mr. ASCHKENASY. I would take 10 minutes to think it. Mr. DODD. I am sorry? Mr. ASCHKENASY. I would need 10 minutes to think some tests tip. Mr. DODD. But there are tests-- Mr. ASCHKENASY. Oh, sure. Mr. DODD. That could be performed? Mr. ASCHKENASY. Oh, sure. Mr. WEISS. By the way, for clarification of those listening who may be wondering what a shock wave is, that is the well-known crack sound that you hear when a rifle is fired that precedes the muzzle blast. It is normally almost simultaneous with the bang or muzzle blast, itself. It is similar to the sort of thing you hear when someone cracks a whip and, of course, a very louder and deeper toned example is the sound you hear when an airplane goes by overhead at a greater speed than the speed of sound. It is a sharp, very brief, but very intense sound. Mr. DODD. May I address this to Mr. Blakey. I am curious as to why we did not ask for an acoustical analysis of that which created the sound in addition to its location. Mr. BLAKEY. We began with oral testimony, an eyewitness testimony that heard rifle fire from that direction. We began with oral testimony of people seeing smoke from that direction. And the question was, was there scientific corroboration for what the people heard and saw in Dealey Plaza: That is, gunmen shooting from different directions. When we asked Dr. Barger to determine whether he could detect gunfire on the tape, we asked him literally to do that. He did, and what he found on the tape apparently was gunfire that we had substantial corroboration for on shots 1, 2, and 4 from the depository in the ballistic and neutron activation analysis, and in the other areas. The material that they looked at for a possible shot from the grassy knoll on 3 looked like the other patterns, and the question that was asked of us was not did a rifle fire from that direction, but did a shot fire from that direction. And consequently what we have, what we were concerned with was the direction of the shot. Mr. DODD. We made an assumption that it was a shot? Mr. BLAKEY. No; I think that the match between the known shot in Barger's test and the possible shot in the 1963 tape was sufficiently clear on a 50-50 probability that it was 50-50 that it was 614 rifle. Now, the next question was, c. ou. Id we carry that direction further, and we did. I don't know if it is fair to say we assumed it was a rifle. But what it corresponded to was a rifle shot. To the degree that it had a supersonic wave preceeding it, one would suppose it was a rifle. In the original test shots it ought to be appropriate to note that we fired a pistol from the grassy knoll and we did not assume that it was either a rifle or a pistol on it. We fired both and the correspondence was to the rifle, not the pistol. Mr. DODD. You fired both the pistol and rifle? Mr. BLAKEY. We fired both a pistol and rifle from the grassy knoll, and the correspondence was to the rifle. Mr. Cornwell has something to add to that, Mr. Dodd. Mr. CORNWELL. I might note just for the committee's interest that marksmen with the Dallas Police Department that fired the pistol hit in an area after several shots, I did not check it all the way to the end, but after several shots you could cover all of their pistol shots with a quarter, so even though they were obviously excellent shots, the distances involved are not lengthy, so that, roughly speaking, the ability to hit a target at those distances would be somewhat comparable whether you used a pistol or a rifle. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. That raises the question in my mind as to wheth- er in fact, there were at that time pistols that could create the impulse of a rifle in terms of the speed of the muzzle blast, and I have the feeling that we do not have that information available to us now. In short, you recall my question earlier. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Fauntroy, I think we may. Mr. FAUNTROY. I would like to know about the pistols fired Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Cornwell is looking at a Gun Digest that may have that data in it. Mr. FAUNTROY. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I will yield at this point. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, the Gun Digest which we have previously admitted as JFK exhibit F-673 does reflect that there were pistols available on the market in 1963 which fired ammuni- tion supersonically, above the speed of sound. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Any members seeking further recognition. Mr. Cornwell, do you have a further request of the Chair? Mr. CORNWELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I might request that you consider asking Mr. Aschkenasy and Professor Weiss if they could provide us in some written form a supplement for this record which would correspond to the diagrams they previously drew on." the blackboard and, of course, which we lost in the process :of erasing and creating subsequent diagrams. Mr. WEISS. Yes, we can. Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, may I make an additional request. We are going to have Dr. Barger on this afternoon, and I think it would be highly appropriate if we had both of our present wit- nesses with him at the time so that if there are questions that would be asked of Dr. Barger that he may want to refer to either 615 Dr. Weiss or Dr. Aschkenasy, they would be right there so we would have some consistency in the questioning. Chairman STOKES. As long as the gentlemen can be available to us, the committee would appreciate it. Professor Weiss, Mr. Aschkenasy, at the conclusion of witnesses testimony before our committee--- Mr. BLAKEY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would note Mr. Aschkenasy has a religious obligation that will prevent him from being here this afternoon. And I think Mr. Weiss could make it. Mr. WEISS. Yes. Chairman STOKES. Professor Weiss, Mr. Aschkenasy, at the conClusion of a witness testimony before our committee, the witness has 5 minutes during which time they may in any way explain or amplify their testimony before this committee. I would extend to 'the two of you at this time 5 minutes for that purpose, if you so desire. Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take very much time at all. I simply would like to take this opportunity, as I did in the executive session, to put on the record my appreciation for the great work of the committee staff in getting information to us that we had requested that was important in our analysis. I also would like to express my deep appreciation for the fine cooperation of the New York City Police Department in arranging for and performing for us the various experiments that were con- ducted at their firing range and that really greatly helped us to understand better what we were looking at. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Well, thank you, and on behalf of the commit- tee I certainly want to thank both of you for the time you expended, the cooperation you have given to both the staff and this committee, and for the testimony that you have rendered here in this hearing room today. We are indebted to both of you and thank you very much. Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASCHKENASY. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you will recall, the time span between the shots allegedly fired by Oswald from the Texas School Book Depository itself potentially raises the specter of a conspiracy. FBI expert testimony to the Warren Commission indicated that Oswald's rifle could not be aimed and fired in less than 2.25 to 2.3 seconds. Consequently, for the Commission to conclude that Oswald fired two or more shots, there had to be at least that time interval between them. The acoustics project has now made available to the committee evidence indicating that shots 1 and 2 from the depository were 1.59 seconds apart. If the FBI expert testimony is correct, Oswald could not have been firing alone from the Texas School Book Depository building--there had to be another gunman. As you will also recall, Mr. Chairman, I reported to the committee on September 11 the results of preliminary tests Conducted by the staff at the Metropolitan Police Department firing range in Lorton, Va, under the general supervision of Sgt. Cecil Kirk. Those tests established that a Mannlicher-Carcano could be operated ac- 616 curately in considerably less time than had been indicated by the FBI. I indicated in September that these were preliminary tests and that more refined tests would be subsequently performed. They had been scheduled for the early part of December. Unfortunately, Sergeant Kirk had to undergo surgery, delaying the test results. Delayed test results are, therefore, not expected until the first of the year. Nevertheless, the preliminary tests are sufficient to cast into serious doubt the previously established FBI time intervals. The difference between the two sets of tests may be accounted for by the simple fact that a telescopic sight was used by the FBI while the open iron sights of the Mannlicher-Carcano were used by committee staff marksmen It is the view of the committee's expert firearms panel that the open sights on Oswald's Mannlicher-Car- cano would have been preferred given the conditions in Dealey Plaza in 1963. It is worth noting that in firing tests for the commit- tee in Dealey Plaza in August 1978, Dallas Police Department marksmen, using open iron sights, had no difficulty hitting their targets. The results of the acoustics project not only led the committee to reexamine the FBI firing data, it also led the committee to look for a policeman on a motorcycle. The acoustics experts had predicted that the motorcycle with the stuck microphone was located in an area where neither they nor the committee had seen a motorcycle. If it could be proved that no motorcycle was in the predicted location at the time of the shots, then serious doubt would be raised about the reliability of the acoustics project. Similarly, when Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy later told the committee that their analysis of the waveforms indicated that the microphone was. probably located on the left side of the motorcycle, no one knew the identity of the officer, or if, in fact, his microphone was mount- ed on the left. The committee then began a review of the available documentation and film coverage of the motorcade to see if the acoustics predictions could be verified. It was a classic, scientific experiment. Our first efforts were disappointing. We found a picture of a DPD motorcycle parked in front of the Texas School Book Depository, showing its microphone mounted on the right side, not the left, and we could not find a motorcycle that appeared to be in the right location in Dealey Plaza. Nevertheless, the investigation continued. The initial plans of the Dallas Police Department specified that the motorcade would be led by five motorcycles, followed closely by the lead car containing Chief Curry, and then the Presidential limousine. Eight motorcycles were to flank the Presidential limousine, four to its left and four to the right rear side. Motion pictures of the actual motorcade reflect that the initial plans were altered slightly on the morning of November 22, and only four motorcycles remained close to the Presidential limousine during the motorcade two on each side. The other four, ridden by Officers McLain and Courson on the left and Baker and Haygood on the right, were spaced throughout the parade route at varying distances, but generally several car lengths separated them and they were behind the Presidential limousine. 617 Ultimately, the committee found film coverage, however, of the motorcycle in Dealey Plaza showing a bikeman on Houston Street several car lengths behind the Presidential limousine as it turned in front of the Texas School Book Depository from Houston onto Elm, the place that the acoustics project suggested it would be. The officer riding that motorcycle has been identified as Officer H. B. McLain. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Officer McLain. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Officer McLain. Mr. McLain, may I ask you to raise your right hand, please, and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. McLAIN. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel, Gary Cornwell. TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER H. B. McLAIN, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX. Mr. CORNWELL.. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McLain, what is your present occupation? Mr. McLAIN. Police officer, city of Dallas. Mr. CORNWELL. How long have you been so employed? Mr. McLAIN. I am working on my 26th year. Mr. CORNWELL. What is the nature of your present assignment with the Dallas Police Department? Mr. McLAIN. At the present, an accident investigator. Chairman STOKES. Would the witness please pull the microphone a little closer to him? Mr. CORNWELL. Directing your attention to 1963, what was the nature of your assignment during that year? Mr. McLAIN. I was assigned to ride a solo motorcycle. Mr. CORNWELL. And how long had you been riding a solo motorcycle? Mr. McLAIN. Approximately 8 years. Mr. CORNWELL. If I could direct your attention to November 22, 1963, the day that President Kennedy came to Dallas, were you part of the motorcade escort for the motorcade on that day? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, may I have marked and admitted as JFK exhibit F-679, a memorandum of the Dallas Police Department, dated November 21, 1963? Chairman STOKES. Without objection. [The information follows:] 618 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 619 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 cont. 620 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 cont. 621 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 cont. 622 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 cont. 623 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 cont. 624 JFK EXHIBIT F-679 cont. 625 Mr. CORNWELL. Officer McLain, the exhibit which we just marked for identification and which I showed you last night reflects that there were five motorcycles assigned to ride as the lead in the motorcade in front of Chief Curry's car, and then there were four motorcycles initially contemplated on November 21, the day before the motorcade, to escort the President's car on the left rear side, and another four motorcycles on the right rear side. Would it be consistent with your memory that those initial plans were altered somewhat on the actual day of the motorcade, and that in fact only two motorcycles flanked the President's car on the left and right in close proximity to it? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir; that's the way it was. Mr. CORNWELL. In the initial plan for the escort dated the day before, you were listed as being assigned to ride the left side of the President's car. We have reviewed film coverage of the motorcade, and I would ask you if it would be consistent with your memory that you rode several car lengths back, but still on the left side of the motorcade from the President's car? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir; I rode in the general vicinity of Vice President Johnson's car. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you happen to recall who would have been riding to your rear on the same side of the motorcade? Mr. McLAIN. I believe that was COurson. Mr. CORNWELL. That is Officer J.W. Courson? Mr. MCLAIN. J.W., yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you happen to recall who would be riding in approximately the same position as you on the right side of the motorcade? Mr. McLAIN. That would be M.L. Baker. Mr. CORNWELL. As the motorcade progressed from Love Field through downtown and ultimately into Dealey Plaza, would the positions, say, of yourself and the other motorcycles have been constant with respect to any particular car or, on the other hand, would it have fluctuated within the general area of the motorcade? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, it would vary from, say, the Vice President's car back to the bus, some four or five car-lengths, I would say. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask you another question: The motorcade would also--the spacing of it, would that be constant, or would that have varied? Mr. McLAIN. No, that varies, too. Generally, it is pretty close to the same, but on turns and stuff they'll jam up and then they'll spread out. Mr. CORNWELL. OK. So both the motorcycles and the motorcade would slow up and jam up at turns, and then speed up and spread out a little bit during the stretch areas; is that correct? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Now I would like to show you, if I might, Mr. Chairman, and have marked as exhibits and admitted as exhibits No.'s JFK F-668, F-669, F-670 and F-671, which are photographs of various parts of the motorcade. May we have those admitted as exhibits? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 626 JFK EXHIBIT F-668 JFK EXHIBIT F-669 627 JFK EXHIBIT F-670 JFK EXHIBIT F-671 628 Mr. CORNWELL. And simply because the clarity might be we have a consolidation of those in a smaller scale, which has marked for identification as exhibit F-681. May we also have admitted into the record? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into record. [The information follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-681 Mr. CORNWELL. I might explain that each of these large 30 inch blowups were taken from a single frame of a motion You have, of course, had an opportunity to review such pictures yesterday; is that correct, Officer? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. The first exhibit, JFK F-668, on the left, reflects the motorcade from its left side. There is an officer a short distance ahead of the cameraman, a number of cars, and then further down the motorcade, also on the left side, two motorcycles. Do you recognize the street that that was taken on? Mr. McLAIN. That looks like it was taken on Houston. Mr. CORNWELL. Approaching Houston? Mr. McLAIN. No; on Main Street, approaching Houston: Mr. CORNWELL. So then, Houston Street would be where buildings break apart and you see a lot of sky toward the end the street; is that correct? ' Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. 629 Mr. CORNWELL. Where Houston crosses Main? Mr. McLAIN. The tree that you see there will be on the opposite side of Houston. Mr. CORNWELL. In Dealey Plaza? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. You will turn between the tree and the building on Houston. Mr. CORNWELL. Can you tell us whether or not the motorcycle officer in the foreground of that picture--the one closest to the cameraman--was you? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Then directing your attention to the next exhibit, F-669, would it be fair to state that that is a photograph taken down Houston Street from approximately the location of the intersection of Main and Houston, looking toward the Texas School Book Depository? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. I might state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that in frames just prior to the ones which have been blown up here, it is clear that the cars at the extreme portion of the photograph, away from the photographer, consist of the Presidential limousine, flanked by two motorcycles, and the Secret Service followup car; but you can still see with some clarity in the photograph the Secret Service followup car and the two motorcycles. In other words, the Presidential limousine is right at the corner and turning from Houston onto Elm, and from the School Book Depository. The next two photographs have been placed on the easels out of sequence. May we have those altered just so that they could be viewed with more clarity? The last two--we need to just switch their location. Exhibit F-670 would be several frames after exhibit F-669, also looking down Houston Street, showing essentially the same portion of the motorcade. And then the following exhibit, F-671, would be, again, a few frames later. When viewing the entire film intact, you can then see that within a matter of seconds after the Presidential limousine turns in front of the depository, a police officer riding a motorcycle enters right in front of the photographer--and that is exhibit 671--right onto Houston Street from Main. Can you tell us, Officer McLain, would that have been you? Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a memory of hearing any shots while you were in Dealey Plaza? Mr. McLAIN. I only remember hearing one. Mr. CORNWELL. And approximately where were you when you heard that shot? Mr. McLAIN. I was approximately halfway between Main and Elm Streets on Houston. Mr. CORNWELL. So you would have heard it sometime after the picture was taken in exhibit F-671, the last one on the right? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. And before you got to the corner and turned the corner from Houston onto Elm; is that correct? Mr. McLAIN. That's correct. 630 Mr. CORNWELL. When you heard the shot, what, if anything, did you look at or what did you do? Mr. McLAIN. I Just looked up the street and the only thing was a bunch of pigeons flew out behind the school book depository. Mr. CORNWELL. So you heard the shot, your memory was, looking up, seeing the school book depository in front of you, and the pigeons fly off? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. After you heard this shot, would it be accurate to state that you continued on motorbike, made the corner from Houston onto Elm, and started down Elm Street? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. At some point thereafter did you hear anything with respect to what was going on? Did you hear any radio broad- cast? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. The chief came on across the radio and said head back for Parkland Hospital. Mr. CORNWELL. Now had you personally had any occasion on that day, to your memory, to use your radio, to talk through it? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a distinct memory of what channel your radio was set on? Mr. McLAIN. It's normally set on channel 1. Mr. CORNWELL. And do you remember anything differently on that day? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. The answer is no? Mr. McLAIN. Nope. Mr. CORNWELL. Then it would be fair to state that since you neither have a distinct memory nor, in fact, recall using your radio, we simply can't determine from your memory which of the two channels your radio may have been on at the time of the motorcade; correct? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. That's correct. I would like to ask you next, what happened after you heard the broadcast from Chief Curry about proceeding to Parkland Memorial Hospital? Mr. McLAIN. Well, everybody broke and headed for the hospital. Mr. CORNWELL. At the time that this occurred, you said "proceed- ing." I take it that means that you revved your engine up and started up at high speed to go toward the hospital? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a memory of where the Presidential or Vice Presidential limousines were roughly at the time that you caught up with them after hearing Chief Curry's radio signal? Mr. McLAIN. They were approximately--well, in front of what is now, where they have the Hyatt House, would be the overpass over Continental. Mr. CORNWELL. So, in other words, although you speeded up your motorcycle and attempted to catch up to the Presidential and Vice Presidential limousines, it took you until some point up on Stemmons Freeway before you could catch them; is that right? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. 631 Mr. CORNWELL. The motorcycles that were in use in Dallas by the police department at that time, were they in any way unique? Can you identify one from another? Mr. McLAIN. Well, some of them you can; some of the officers put their own personal stuff on them that would be different from other people's; some of them would mount them different. Mr. CORNWELL. So you could both tell by the way they rode them and by sometimes distinct characteristics of the motorcycles, who owned them? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Did your motorcycle have any unique characteristics? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir; it did. For one thing, it had a chrome disk on the right side of the front wheel. Mr. CORNWELL. As I looked at some of the pictures with you last night, it appeared that you could see a chrome breakdrum from the left side on all the motorcycles, correct? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. But the unique feature was on yours it had a similar appearing chrome disk when viewed from the right? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Were there any other unique characteristics of yours? Mr. McLAIN. Well, one thing, my flashlight holder was set up different from the rest of them. Mr. CORNWELL. How was it mounted? Mr. McLAIN. It was mounted crossways of the handlebars, instead of up and down. Mr. CORNWELL. Anything else? Mr. McLAIN. I also had two clip holders up on the windshield that I kept my paperwork in. Mr. CORNWELL. All right. Where was your microphone mounted? Mr. McLAIN. It was mounted onto the left, between the center and the left handlebar. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, you had an opportunity to view a very large number of photographs taken both during the motorcade and in Parkland Hospital yesterday evening; is that correct? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to have admitted into the record exhibits F-675, F-674, F-676, F-677, and F-678, and ask, if I might, that they be shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be so marked and shown to the witness. [The information follows:] 632 JFK EXHIBIT F-675 633 JFK EXHIBIT F-674 JFK EXHIBIT F-676 634 JFK EXHIBIT F-677 JFK EXHIBIT F-678 635 Mr. CORNWELL. Did you choose those photographs as both representing in the first instance, in F-675, yourself riding down Elm Street--the number is on the back, incidentally--and in the other cases as representing a motorcycle at the hospital, which at least had the general physical characteristics of yours, particularly unique characteristics that you described? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Here is one here with the clip holders on the wind shield, and it's got the same kind of bag that I had on mine, that I carry my books and stuff in. Chairman STOKES. Will you tell us the number on the back of them? Can you give us the number? Mr. McLAIN. It's F-674. Chairman SToKEs. Thank you. Mr McLAIN. And F-676, you can see the little chrome disc on the right front wheel sittin out behind the emergency room; and position, behind the emergency room; F-678 also shows a little closer view of it, sitting in the same position, behind the emergency room; 677 shows the general view of the crowd and the other cars that are parked out there, and the "No Parking" sign; and the bus is also shown on F-674. Mr. CoRNWELL. And with respect to F-675, did you identify that as representing you and another officer on Elm Street? Mr. McLAIN. Yes; that's myself and Sergeant Courson. Well, he is now sergeant; he was J.W. Courson at the time. Mr. CORNWELL. So that last picture we just described, F-675, you identified as appearing to you to represent yourself and Officer Courson, and Courson was at an earlier point in the motorcade, riding behind you, also on the lefthand side? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Now, was it possible while riding in the motor- cade for you to hear the broadcast from the speaker of a fellow officer who, for instance, was riding on the opposite side of the motorcade from you? Mr. McLAIN. If he had his radio turned up, yes. Mr. CORNWELL. All right. Looking again at F-675, that shows you and Officer Courson on Elm Street in approximately the vicinity of the grassy knoll, riding somewhat side by side. At that distance, would it have been possible for you to hear the speaker of Officer Courson's radio if it was broadcasting? Mr. McLAIN. Very possible. Mr. CORNWELL. And at the point in time that you heard Chief Curry state that he was going to Parkland Hospital, would it have then been possible that what you heard was the transmission from the speaker of Officer Courson and not in fact your own? Mr. McLAIN. It could be possible. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that at least temporarily the committee may wish to consider the photographs, particularly F-674, F-676, F-677, and F-678, before the Parkland Hospital, for a very limited purpose. They do, as the officer has described, apparently contain the characteristics which were relatively unique to his motorcycle. And, incidentally, I might clarify, you did park your motorcycle at the Parkland Hospital after arriving there with the motorcade; is that correct? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. 636 Mr. CORNWELL. However, Mr. Chairman, the staff has not yet had an opportunity to check the number which we can see in one of the photographs with perhaps available-- I don't know if they even are available--records of the Dallas Police Department. The records that we do have reflect Officer McLain's call number, which he used in transmitting, but we do not have records that we have yet been able to locate showing what his bike number was, and until we have had an opportunity to check that out, we might tentatively say we are not sure that those pictures do in fact represent Officer McLain's motorcycle at Parkland Hospital; but at least they represent the characteristics of it, and we might suggest that the committee may wish to consider them only for that limited purpose. Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to you that in one of the photographs taken at Parkland Hospital it can be interpreted as having the microphone button--or at least it can to novices such as your staff--can possibly be interpreted as having its button pushed to the left. However, we have not had any photographic expertise applied to that, and the distortion in the picture, or the angle from which it was taken, may lead us to an erroneous conclusion, so we would again--- Chairman STOKES. Is the witness able to offer any assistance on that? Mr. CORNWELL. Well, I believe, Officer, you do have a memory of which direction you believe would be channel 1 and channel 2 on the switch; is that correct? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. And what is that? Mr. McLAIN. Channel 1 would be to the left; channel 2 would be to the right. Mr. CORNWELL. So, Mr. Chairman, if our view of it were proven to be correct, if it is in fact tilted to the left, it would be on channel 1. On the other hand, if the angle from which it was taken distorts that, then it would be the opposite, on channel 2. Another reason I would like to suggest we might be cautious in evaluating that is that the significance of it may not be overly great. Chairman STOKES. You have not been moving for admission of these exhibits into the record? Mr. CORNWELL. I am simply suggesting the committee may wish to consider them for a limited purpose until we have had time to do further analysis on them, namely, being representations of the type of motorcycle that Officer McLain drove and possibly being identical with his. Officer McLain, are you able to tell us with any certainty which channel your motorcycle was set to during that motorcade? Mr. McLAIN. I don't know for sure which way it was set. Mr. CORNWELL. And are you also able to tell us whether or not it may have been changed, whatever it was initially set to, at some point, either during the motorcade or after arriving at Parkland Hospital? Mr. McLAIN. It could have been. Mr. CORNWELL. So then, Mr. Chairman, again we might simply note that whatever the ultimate photographic interpretation is of 637 the way that button is set, it may not be determinative, because it could have been changed at some point prior to the time the photograph was taken. Did you, to your memory, have a stuck microphone on that day? Mr. McLAIN. Not that I know of. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you know whether or not it would have been possible for your microphone to have been stuck in the open position without your knowledge? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir; it has been before. Mr. CORNWELL. Under how many different circumstances in your particular case? Mr. McLAIN. I'm scared to say. Mr. CORNWELL. We have been told--and I want to ask you if this is at all consistent with your experience--that it is possible that in fact some gasket material in the mike, if it were worn or old, might cause the button once depressed not to return to its open position. Do you know whether that is possible? Mr. McLAIN. That's possible. It is also possible that the points in that relay in there will stick when you push it in. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. Let me ask counsel if counsel was able to establish the chain of evidence as it relates to the tape from the witness' motorcycle? Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, as I am sure you will recall--and it is appropriate to repeat it at this time, since those who may be watching our hearings to date will not recall--that in September we introduced the police officer from whom the tape was obtained. I might summarize for the record what his testimony was: He was--and I think his name is Paul McCaghren--he was an officer in the Dallas Police Department, and he had custody of a large number of records relating to the Kennedy assassination, and he retained that custody in a large trunk, and when the material was turned over to one of our investigators, Jack Moriarty, it was taken from that same trunk. I might also indicate that an effort was made to match the transcript that we have of channels 1 and 2 to the material appearing on both the Dictabelt and the tape belt that we have. Consequently, the authenticity of the tape appears to be adequate, appears to have been adequately established. Chairman STOKES. But for purposes of my question, in terms of the chain of evidence, we have no record or testimony that transfers back to the motorcycle of the witness appearing in this room? Mr. BLAKEY. The tape was taken at the police department of a radio transmission from the bike to the police department, and the tapes were kept at the central office of the police department. The recorder that the officer had was a radio transmitter and not a recorder on his bike. Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, would you yield at that point? Chairman STOKES. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. DODD. Just to pursue this line of questioning, for instance, was any effort made by the staff to compare the brand of the tape disc--and I am led to believe it was--with the type of disc's that the Dallas Police Department were using at that time? 638 Mr. BLAKEY. The Dallas Police Department at that time were recording--again, my memory is going to correct me if I am wrong--were not recording on tape; they were recording on Dictabelt. Mr. DODD. That is what I mean, a Dictabelt. Mr. BLAKEY. And the Dictabelt that was found among this material is the same kind of Dictabelt that the Dallas Police Department was using at that time. Mr. DODD. Second, were there any other transmissions on the tape that would correspond to activity that would have lodged in' the Dallas Police Department that day? Mr. BLAKEY. Oh, yes, that is what I tried to indicate before, Dodd. What appears on the Dictabelt and the tape recording of the Dictabelt are indeed the same sounds, the same information that we have based on the transcripts that we had of channel 1 and channel 2 that go back to 1963-64. Mr. DODD. Was any effort made to identify other voices on the tape, to confirm that? Mr. BLAKEY. No. I'm sorry. Mr. Cornwell, you wanted to add something? Mr. CORNWELL. The transmissions on the tapes do correspond with the Warren Commission testimony of various officers who described doing certain things and then reporting it over the radio, and therefore there is substantial corroboration of that nature, that the kinds of transmissions we have on these tapes were of the events that were actually happening on November 22. Mr. DODD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Chairman STOKES. Certainly. Are there other members of the committee seeking recognition? Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, if I may. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Officer McLain, when your microphone is open, inadvertently even, are you able to receive broadcasts? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. DEVINE. That would preclude anyone from broadcasting into your receiver, is that right? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. Then the message you heard about going to Parkland Hospital, you say it is possible you heard that from the other motorbike? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. It is also possible that Chief Curry put it out on both channels at the same time. Mr. DEVINE. If your mike was open, would that receive it on the other channel? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir; I would not hear that. Mr. DEVINE. What kind of a bike were you riding, a Harley Davidson? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. A 'Harley Davidson. Do you recall during the time you were in the motorcade of monitoring any broadcasts from headquarters or other officers on your receiver? Mr. McLAIN. Not offhand, but quite often we do do that. 639 Mr. DEVINE. But if your mike was locked open, you couldn't, could you? Mr. McLAIN. No. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Edgar? Mr. EDGAR. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Officer, in riding in a parade situation, where you are doing not only ceremonial duty but protective responsibilities, would it have been common for you not to have wanted to listen to the commands of the chief or other officers along the route? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. We need to listen to them to know in case something does happen what alternative route to take. Mr. EDGAR. While you were riding along, let's just suppose for a moment that your switch was not on transmit, but was on receive, listening to what you would normally listen to over that radio, wouldn't you hear static? Mr. McLAIN. No, not necessarily. Mr. EDGAR. Not necessarily. So that you were riding your motorcycle and you would not necessarily be aware whether or not you were on receive or transmit? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. It would be dead to you. The radio would be dead to you. You would not hear anything. Mr. EDGAR. Whether or not you were transmitting or receiving? What I am saying is that suppose you were receiving but no one was talking; OK, you are receiving from the chief of the Dallas Police Department. If you were on receive, you would hear that sound, you would hear his voice. Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. EDGAR. Suppose he is not talking, and no one else is talking, but your radio is still on receive. Are you indicating that there would be no sound at all? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir, there would be no sound. There is a knob on the control up there that you can turn your squelch up or down. If you turn it off, then it makes no sound. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Chairman, I must clarify one thing here. Officer, you said that as far as your memory is concerned, you only heard one shot? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir, that is all that I can recall. It was a loud one but that was the only one. Mr. FITHIAN. You were on Houston Street at that time? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir, somewhere between Main and Elm Street. Mr. FITHIAN. Then it is your testimony that after you turned on Elm Street, you heard no further shots? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Did you see anything in the area of the grassy knoll up and to the right which would be of any interest to this committee? Mr. McLAIN. I did see Officer Hargis going up the grassy knoll. Mr. FITHIAN. Going up the grassy knoll toward the fence, toward the clearing? Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 640 Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. I just wanted to get clarification on these and your identification. In the first photograph here on you identified the motorcycle closest to us in the picture as your motorcycle, and you are on it. How do you identify' there? Mr. MCLAIN. The way I am sitting on it. Just the way I ride it. Mr. DODD. When was the last time you saw yourself sitting on a motorcycle? Mr. McLAIN. It has been a while .... Mr. DODD. But is there anything that distinguishes you bike, itself, that you are able to identify? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. Will the gentleman yield? How do you ride? mean when you say by the way you ride, do you ride off side? What is it about the picture that distinguishes you? Mr. McLAIN. I don't know how to explain that. It's just the am sitting on it. Mr. FAUNTROY. Look at the last picture, if the continue to yield, how do you know that is you? Mr. McLAIN. Just the way that I am sitting. Mr. FAUNTROY. I wonder if you would care to describe how are sitting? Mr. McLAIN. It just comes natural to you. Mr. DODD. As only it should, I think. You don't identify any other mark on that last photograph being yourself, either, on the motorcycle? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir, I can't tell. Mr. DODD. Let me ask you this: I had asked the acoustical people earlier, you may have heard the question with regard to the ability for a receiver at the police department to accept transmittals from two or more motorcycles or transmitters at the same time. Is that your understanding as well? In other words if you were in the Dallas Police Department receiving calls, if one person were on that channel transmitting, would it be possible for other people to transmit on that same channel at the same time be received by the headquarters? Mr. McLAIN. Yes. Mr. DODD. That would accept on the same channel more one transmittal? Mr. McLAIN. It would be hard to determine what they. were saying because they would be overlapping, but the voice would come through. A lot of times we have the dispatcher come and say there is too man of ou talking at one time. Mr DODD. Were you ever familiar with any carillon bells or church bells in the vicinity of Dealey Plaza? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. DODD. Has there ever been, to your knowledge, any kind of sound or noise? Mr. McLAIN. No, sir. Mr. DODD. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 641 Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Are there any other members seeking recognition? Mr. Cornwell? Mr. CORNWELL. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a clarifying question with respect to one which one of the committee members just asked. Officer McLain, when you were asked by the committee a moment ago about how you identify yourself in those two photographs, directing your attention first to the last photograph, F-668, would it be fair to state that the motorcycle you identified as yourself is the first one behind the two that were right next to the Presidential limousine? ' Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. And was that the position in which you were riding in the motorcade? Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Then I direct your attention to JFK F-671 on the right, when you entered Dealey Plaza from Main onto Houston Street, did you look up ahead to see where the Presidential and Vice Presidential limousines were? Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. What did you see? Mr. McLAIN. They were just turning the corner onto Elm Street as I came around the corner off Main Street. Mr. CORNWELL. So if the photographs here show that the officer in the photograph enters Houston Street from Main at the time the Presidential limousine is turning from Main onto Elm, that again would be you, because of the position in the motorcade? Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you. No further questions. Chairman STOKES. Officer McLain, at the conclusion of the witnesses testimony before this committee, the witness is entitled to 5 minutes. During the 5-minute period he can explain or amplify or in any way comment in any way upon his testimony before this committee. I would extend to you 5 minutes for that purpose if you so desire. Mr. McLAIN. No, sir, I believe he pretty well covered most of it. Chairman STOKES. On behalf of the committee we certainly want to thank you for both your cooperation with the staff and with this committee and for the testimony you have given us here today. Thank you very much. You are excused. In light of the fact that there are several additional witnesses to be heard from by the committee, the Chair suggests that we recess for lunch until 2:30 p.m., and we will begin promptly at that time. Accordingly, we will recess until 2:30 p.m. [Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p.m.] AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, I might initially note for the record that the temperature that was employed in the acoustics project was obtained from the Environmental Data and Information Service at the National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C. The tempera- 642 ture at Love Field, Dallas, Tex., on November 22, 1963, was 63 degrees at noon and 67 degrees at 1 p.m. The skies were clear. This is, of course, the weather service data which would be the most accurate. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have marked as JFK exhibit F-683 and F-682 two photographs taken in Dealey Plaza. JFK exhibit F-683 is a photograph that includes the Texas Book Depository, which had on the top of it a time and temperature sign and the time shown on the sign is 12:40. You can see from the picture, itself, that JFK exhibit F-682 was taken moments thereafter. The same people are in the picture. That indicates that the temperature in Dealey Plaza at approximately 12:40 was 66. It was in this context that the staff recommended to the acoustics people that they take the temperature of 65, which would seem to be approximately within the range of what would be appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that JFK exhibits F-682 and F-683 be incorporated in the record at this point. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 643 JFK EXHIBIT F-682 644 JFK EXHIBIT F-683 Mr. BLAKEY. As previously noted, the committee originally retained the services of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman to conduct its acoustics project. Dr. James Barger, the firm's chief scientist, and a man in charge of acoustical analysis at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, conducted the tests for the committee. Dr. Barger received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1957, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Connecticut in 1960, and an A.M. in applied physics from Harvard University in 1962. In 1964, he received a Ph.D. in applied physics from Harvard University. He has been a sonar project officer at the U.S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, a research assistant at Harvard University's Acoustics Research Laboratory, and senior scientist and director of the physical science division at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. Dr. Barger is the author of many scientific papers. He has lectured in the field of applied acoustics in the United States and Canada, and he is currently a lecturer on sound scattering and reverberations with Bolt, Beranek and Newman's antisubmarine warfare course. He has been a National Science Foundation fellow, and he currently is a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America. He is also a member of the U.S. Navy Advisory Board for Underwater Sound Reference Services. In recent years, Dr. Barger has worked as an analyst of sound recordings in two quite celebrated cases--the shooting episode at Kent State University, for which he studied recorded sounds of gunfire, and the White House tapes in the Watergate case. He helped analyze the mysterious 18-minute gap as a member of the 645 panel headed by Dr. Richard Bolt, who is, himself, the head of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to recall Dr. Barger. Chairman STOKES. The committee recalls Dr. Barger. FURTHER TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES BARGER Chairman STOKES. Doctor, you have previously been sworn in these hearings, and I would at this time admonish you that you are still under that oath. You understand that, of course. Dr. BARGER. Yes, I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. The Chair recognizes counsel for the committee, Mr. Jim Wolf. Mr. WOLF. Welcome back, Dr. Barger. You last testified in great detail before this committee in public session on September 11, 1978. Today, I would like to review briefly some of the points you made during that testimony and then ask you to comment upon the testimony that we heard this morning from Professors Weiss and Aschkenasy. Prior to that, however, in reference to the work that you did on the Kent State tapes that Professor Blakey made reference to in his narration, is it correct that in your work on that tape recording you determined both the location of the shooters and the timing of the shots from an acoustical analysis and that your determination of both location of the shooters and timing of the shots was subsequently stipulated by the defense to be correct and admitted into evidence in a court case? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. WOLF. When were you first approached by this committee with the Dallas Police dispatch tape? Dr. BARGER. I believe it was in May of 1978. Mr. WOLF. Am I correct that after a review of that tape, filtering of the tape, and your performance of a series of tests upon that tape, you eventually recommended to the committee that it conduct a reenactment in Dallas which would entail shooting at target locations while you recorded those sounds on microphones? Dr. BARGER. Yes, that is correct. Mr. WOLF. When was that reenactment conducted for the committee? Dr. BARGER. August 20. Mr. WOLF. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that JFK exhibit F-337 be displayed and inserted into the record at this time. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The information follows:] 646 JFK EXHIBIT F-337 Mr. WOLF. This exhibit is a diagram of Dealey Plaza and the microphone locations that were used during the reenactment test. Dr. Barger, I will ask you to briefly explain what the No.'s 1, 2, 3, and 4 are on that exhibit. 647 Dr. BARGER. Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which appear in the box here, represent the location of the sandbag targets that were placed on the street as targets for the gunfire. Mr. WOLF. What do the numbers 1 through 12 that appear on the street represent? I believe there are three sequences of them. Dr. BARGER. Yes; there are three sequences 1 through 12. Each of these sequences represents the position of 12 microphones that were placed in those three groups of 12 to receive the sounds of the gunfire that were fired. Mr. WOLF. During that test firing, what were the two locations used to fire weapons from? Dr. BARGER. Weapons were fired from the sixth floor, corner window, southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository and from behind the fence on the knoll at this point. Mr. WOLF. Were weapons fired from each location at each of the targets? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Rifles from the Texas School Book Depository were fired at each of the four targets. A rifle from the knoll was fired at each of the four targets. I am sorry; at targets 2, 3, and 5. We did not fire at target one for safety reasons. In addition, a pistol was fired from the knoll position here at target location No. 3. Mr. WOLF. During those test firings you recorded through those microphones the sounds of those test firings? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like JFK exhibit F-367 to be displayed and inserted into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The information follows:] 648 JFK EXHIBIT F-367 Mr. WOLF. Does this exhibit represent those recordings made during the reenactment which matched the original Dallas Police dispatch tape with a correlation coefficient of at least 5? Dr. BARGER. Yes, they do. I wish at this time I could say a few words about the stark simplicity of the matching procedure that was used. Mr. WOLF. Surely. Dr. BARGER. If I may briefly, to clarify this exhibit, since it came after three hours of explanation the last time, there were obtained at each of these microphones the series of echoes that were received by them when each of these rifles was fired, and it was suggested the last time that I spoke that these might be likened to fingerprints. That is not just a bad idea. There is a pattern of sounds that emanate from each microphone when each rifle is fired that is unique and that pattern is as much a fingerprint that identifies two things uniquely, the location of the rifle and the location of the receiver. Now obtained on the Dallas Police recording that we discussed this morning were the sounds of impulses, segments of impulses that look like fingerprints, too. 649 They were badly smudged by the presence of noise. We sought to match the fingerprints we measured in the reconstruction with the fingerprints that had been recorded, perhaps by Officer McLain in 1963. We did that matching. We did it in a numerical way. The numerical procedure allowed us to score each match. Now we had 432 different combinations of rifle shots and microphones, so we had 432 fingerprints, as from 432 individuals, and we wished to see if any one of those individuals were on the tape recording as recorded by Officer McLain, perhaps. So we matched each of the 432 fingerprints with each of the microphones, that is, with each of six patterns of impulses that were on the Dallas tape to see if any of them matched at all. We had a scoring procedure. Every time the match was so good that the score was higher than .5, we said that is a very likely match. That individual may exist at that place on the tape. Now, I can explain what this is. Mr. WOLF. When was that matching process completed? Dr. BARGER. It turned out there were 2,592 matches to achieve, and each one was somewhat difficult because of the smudging of the fingerprints, and since the fingerprints were only obtained on the 20th of August, it was not until the 6th of September that each of the 2,592 comparisons had been made. Now, that was 4 days before the hearing, given that it takes 1 day to prepare for 1 day's testimony; we had 3 days to wrestle with the fact that there were, in fact, four possible matches of fingerprints identified in the Dallas tape. And at the time that I spoke on the 20th of August, I indicated that of the six segments on the Dallas police recording that contained any impulse patterns at all, in other words, potential fingerprints, the first one began at this time. We found no scores matching with any of these test shots higher than .5. However, a short time later, about a second and a half later, there was a series of sound impulses on the Dallas tape which, in fact, scored above my threshold of .5 to be considered as a potential fingerprint. We found when the rifle was located in the Texas School Book Depository which is here and fired at the target 1, which is here, we passed our threshold, and we got a score, a matching fingerprint score that was higher than .5 for the microphone located in the second array, microphone 5, that one right there. Mr. WOLF. Dr. Barger, on JFK exhibit F-337, I believe when you testified on September 11, you marked in colored pencil with blue, red, green, and black, the approximate correlations between the location of the microphone that picked up the impulse and the location of the motorcycle, if it were traveling in the motorcade. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Yes; that is correct. Mr. WOLF. How precise are your locations for the motorcycle as represented by those blue, green, red, and black dots? Dr. BARGER. I will try not to belabor this point, but at the time that this experiment was designed, we did not know whether the motorcycle was in Dealey Plaza, and we didn't certainly know where along this entire path it was. So it was necessary to sample for fingerprints, as it were, at every 18-foot interval. The process thus designed turned out to be capable of locating, in fact, shots by the fingerprint method that I have been describing. However, it 650 could not do it in space any more accurately than the distance between two adjacent microphones. In other words, I could only locate the possible location of that motorcycle. at each time the fingerprint was found on the Dallas tape to within 18 feet. Mr. WOLF. So, for example, it is possible that that blue dot be on the other side of the location of that microphone? Dr. BARGER. The blue dot I put to show the approximate of the motorcycle at the time on the Dallas tape that the first possible match was determined, I placed between microphones 5, and 6. It could equally have been placed between microphones, 4 and 5, which would put it there. Mr. WOLF. Those four groupings that you have are the four impulses on the Dallas Police dispatch tape that you identified during the hearing in September as possibly representative of' gun fire in Dealey Plaza; is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. I subsequently indicated there were. four other times on the Dallas Police tape at which our matching, process indicated the possibility of a shot; in other words, a match between the test shots and the impulses on the tape by the finger print process. The location of the microphone that was picking up these sounds on the Dallas Police tape, in other words, the location of presumably Officer McLain's motorcycle, could be positioned. then, as being within 18 feet of the microphone that indicated that, is where the match occurred, and, of course, since the subsequent shots were fired later on in time, I was able to indicate that the motorcycle was approximately here at the time of the first i shot and here at the time of the second, and here at the time of the third, if, in fact, it were to be proved to be a shot, and here at the time of the fourth. Mr. WOLF. Does your prediction of the locations of the motorcycle correspond to the testimony given by Officer McLain this morning? Dr. BARGER. Yes. In my judgment it certainly does. The officer was able to remember--I was very pleased to hear--that when he was around the corner from Main onto Houston, he could see the Presidential limousine disappearing around the corner here from Houston onto Elm. That distance would be on the order of 180 feet, So he would then be somewhere around 180 feet, perhaps a little less, from the Presidential limousine at that time. Now, the dis- tance from where we think that he was at the time of the first shot, which is here, to the distance where the Presidential limou- sine was at the time of the first shot is about somewhere between 120 and 138 feet. Again, there is an 18-foot uncertainty. I just said that we have located with our acoustic analysis the result that the motorcycle was 120 to 138 feet behind the limousine at the time of the first shot, which is right about here. Officer McLain remembers having been about 160 to 180 feet behind at this time. He would have, therefore, had to close a little gap, had to gain a bit on the Presidential limousine as he came down Houston. Mr. WOLF. That, I assume, should be expected if the limousine {was slowing as it went around the turn. Dr. BARGER. Yes; that would happen in the accordion procedure he described, as the Presidential limousine went around here, he would catch up. One of the first points I made as we were analyzing the tape was that the speed remained high until just before the 651 first shot was detected, and, of course, he would have to slow at that point to negotiate that corner. Mr. WOLF. Thank you. You may return to the witness table, Dr. Barger. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we mark as Exhibit F-680" a report that has been submitted to the committee by Mr Anthony Pellicano Mr Pellicano is an independent investi gator who submitted a report to the committee after Dr. Barger's testimony in September. Mr. Pellicano has never worked for the committee or been affiliated with the committee in any capacity. [JFK exhibit F-680 was marked for identification and follows:] 652 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS RE: THE DALLAS POLICE TAPES ET AL RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3380 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX 2 WASHINGTON, DC. G. ROBERT BLAKEY, Chief Counsel and Director LOUIS STOKES, OHIO, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C. SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO HALTER E. FAUNTROY, D.C. STEWART B. McKINNEY, CONN. YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. CHARLES THONE, NEBR. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN. HAROLD S. SAWYER, MICH. HAROLD E. FORD, TENN. FLOYD J. FITHIAN, IND. ROBERT H. EDGAR, PA. 653 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. December 13, 1978 Mr. Gary Cornwell, et al Select Committee on Assassinations U.S. House of Representatives 5369 House Office Building, Annex 2 Washington, D.C. 20515 RE: ACOUSTICAL STUDY OF DALLAS POLICE TAPES BACKGROUND In the course of its investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Select Committee on Assassinations has determined that during a period of approximately five minutes on November 22, 1963 a Dallas, Texas, police motorcycle transmitter, operating on police Channel #1, had its transmitter keyed continuously on; that this five minute period was probably a coincident with the time of the assassination; and that Channel #1 transmissions were continuously recorded on a dictabelt at Dallas police headquarters. The possiblity was considered that this motorcycle may have been part of the presidential motorcade and, if so, it may have transmitted the sounds of the shots, thereby allowing a resolution of the conflicting testimony concerning the number of shots which were fired. 654 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. It should be noted, however, that the motorcade was operating on Channel #2, which channel was implimented specifically for the motorcade on associated police vehicles. Channel was maintained for normal Dallas police communications traffic. While it would appear unlikely that a vehicle that was a part of the motorcade would be on other than the motorcade channel, the possiblity of an error in channel selection,, apparently was sufficient to warrant further investigation. 655 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. BASIS FOR MY INVESTIGATION Upon learning by means of the news media of the possiblity that the shots were recorded, I was desirous of determining at the earliest possible moment whether there had, in fact, been more than three shots, since I had never been completely satisfied with the Warren Commission Report in this regard. My company, Voice Interpretation & Analysis, Ltd., is equipped with the instrumentation and equipment which would probably have been required for such a determination- The following is a description of the equipment used: A Hewlett-Packard 9845A Computer interfaced to the following electronic equipment: An Analogic Computer Data Conversion System (analog to digital converter). A Nicolet Scientific Corporation 444A Mini- ubiquitous FFT Computing Spectrum Analyzer. A 9872A Digital Plotter. (Software for adaptive filtering, FFT, and additional necessary algorithms also programmed.) 5587 Bruel and Kjaer Frequency Spectrum Shaper Type 5587 (analog). A Rockwell International Automatic Digital Audio Pro- cessor (Digital Adaptive Predictive Deconvolver and Adaptive Filter). A Voice Identification Incorporated Series 700 Analog Frequency Spectrograph. Along with a laboratory filled with additional supportive electronic, optical scientific testing equipment, and magnetic tape recording equipment, which can be additionally listed if necessary. 656 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. PREDICATION I obtained from Mary Ferrell of Dallas, Texas, a taped copy of the Channel #1 dictabelt (which was formerly in the hands of The Committee and subsequently returned to Mary Ferrell). My initial approach was similar to that being followed by Bolt, Beranek & Newman (BB&N).in their initial test, in that I subjected the tape to various combinations of adapted filtering, analog filtering, and fast fourier transform spectrum analysis to attempt to detect events which could have been shots. This approach was unsuccessful. (This, apparently was unremarkable, since BB&N subsequently reported that they were unable to detect such events from this taped copy, although the), report the presence of events which could be shots on another taped copy.) My second approach was that of studying the taped contents for the purpose of applying deduction analysis. This approach ultimately involved investigation in addition to the analysis of this tape. ANALYSIS The first significant finding involved the sound of the motorcade sirens on the Channel #1 tape. If the motorcycle with the open microphone had been with the motorcade, it would be expected that the sirens' sound would have started at full volume and, if the motorcycle had continued with the motorcade, would have continued for the trip to 657 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. Parkland Hospital. On the other hand, if the motorcycle had remained at Dealey Plaza, the sounds would have started at full volume and the volume would have decreased as the motorcade pulled away. The sounds of the sirens on the tape, however, seem to increase, peak, and decrease, as if they were approaching, passing, and leaving the open microphone position. While this observation is admittedly somewhat subjective, if true it would indicate that the motorcycle was not with the motorcade, but was at some point along or near the route taken by the motorcade on its way to the Parkland Hospital. The second significant finding also involved the sound of the sirens. In this case, the important factor was when they occurred. While it becomes obvious that the time designations provided by the Channel #1 dispatcher may not be completely accurate, an analysis of these time designations puts the beginning of the sounds of the sirens somewhere in the vicinity of 12:55; i.e., 2 or 5 minutes after the presumed time of the shots. Since it would be expected that the sirens would have been turned on as the motorcade began to rush away from the Dealey Plaza, or, in other words, a few seconds after the shots, the earliest acquisition of the siren sounds by the open microphone, two to three minutes later, again indicate that the motorcycle was along the route to Parkland Hospital, rather than a part of the motorcade. 658 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. In order to resolve the question of when the sirens were turned on, I contacted Chief Curry, who was the senior police officier in charge of the motorcade. Chief Curry informed me that immediately after the shots were fired, transmitted (on Channel #2, motorcade channel) the statement that they were preceding to the hospital and that the sirens were turned on immediately. While there seems to be little reason to doubt Chief Curry's recollection, since it could be opined that in the excitment of the moment, none of the vehicles proceding to Parkland Hospital had their sirens turned on until later, I procured the tape of the Channel broadcasts to determine if the sirens could be heard during any of the motorcade broadcasts. From this tape it was determined that Chief Curry broadcasted twice that they were proceding to the hospital. The first transmission did not identify the hospital. A few seconds after the first transmission he rebroadcasted, identifying the hospital as Parkland. The sirens can be heard in both broadcasts and can be heard in subsequent broadcasts. The sirens are more clearly discernable at the beginning of the the first broadcast. For this transmission Chief Curry keyed his microphone and paused for a moment before he talked. This allowed the sounds of the sirens to come through with significant volume. When he yelled into the microphone, the relative level of his voice 659 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. was higher at the microphone than was the sound of the sirens. The automatic gain control circuit in the transmitter then adjusted the audio gain in the accordance with the highest sound level received and, thereby, reduced the preceived level of the sirens. In the second transmission, the sirens are faint because Chief Curry vocalized immediately, after keying the transmitter.) At this point, I had determined that the sound of the sirens had begun within a few seconds of the shots, as stated by Chief Curry and confirmed by the sounds from the Channel #2 tape. If the motorcycle with the open microphone had been a part of the motorcade it would have transmitted the sounds of the sirens immediately. I had determined, further, that the sounds of the sirens were first audible in the open microphone transmission 2 or 3 minutes later than the presumed time of the shots, meaning, if the presumption of the time of the shots is correct, that the motorcycle with the open microphone on Channel #1 was located at or near the point where the motorcycle would be approximately 2 minutes after they had departed Dealey Plaza for Parkland Hospital. It is now necessary to deal with the presumption of the time the shots occurred. From previous testimony, it has been established that the Channel #1 dispatcher read from one clock; that the Channel #2 dispatcher read from a second clock; that the clocks were analog (i.e., time is displayed by continous 660 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. movement of hour and minute hands); that they are synchronized once a month; and that the two clocks may differ by as much as a minute. Channel #1 taping was continuous; Channel #2 taping was initiated by an incoming or outgoing transmission and terminated following the end of the transmission. Thus, events which are not timed designated can be timed from a timed designation on Channel #1, but similar undesignated events on Channel #2 cannot be timed from a timed designated event, unless it can be shown that the transmissions are sufficiently, continuous that the recorder remains in continuous operation. Additionally it must be considered that different dispatchers may use a slightly different system for determining the minutes which will be designated. For example, one dispatcher may consider that 12:20 will not be called until the minute hand has reached 20 and at all times will be designated 12:20 until the minute hand reaches 21. Another dispatcher may consider that when the half minute has arrived, the call will be for the next whole minute. In this case the dispatcher would designate 12:20 from 12:19 and 30 seconds until 12:20 and 30 seconds. In attempting to identify the relationship between the time of the shots and other significant events, it is necessary to determine the time of the events on Channel #1 by, Channel #1 time, the time of the events on Channel #2 by Channel #2 time, and the correlation between Channel #1 661 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. time and Channel #2 time, since there are no events on Channel #1 which pin point the time of the shots. The most significant event on Channel #2 is Chief Currys' call that they are preceding to the hospital, since this is known to have occurred a few seconds after the shots. The beginning of the sounds of sirens on Channel #1 is a significant event, as previously discussed. Also significant is the sound of a carillon type bell on Channel #1, since this allows determination of the time interval between the 10 second period considered by BB&N to contain the impluses which may represent the sound of the shots and the beginning of the sound of the sirens. In order to establish a base time for Channel #1, time designations by Channel #1 dispatcher of 12:26, 12:27, a second 12:27, and 12:28 are used. Considering the two approaches, previously discussed, to designating the time and the intervals between the calls, the following matrix results: SEE THE CHART DISPLAYED IN FIGURE 1 ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. The dispatcher reported time is designated on lines 1 through 4. The interval is at interval timed from the tape between the dispatcher reported times. Columns A and B assume that the dispatcher changes his designation on the half minute and columns C and D assume that the dispatcher changes his designation on the even minute. Starting with line #1, the dispatchers called designation is 12:26. This causes column A to be 12:25::30 and 662 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. 663 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. and column B to be 12:26::29. For the designation change on the minute, column C is 12:26::00 and column D is 12:26::59. The subsequent entries in columns A through D are arrived at by adding the measured interval to the line one times. Thus, if the dispatcher called 12:26 at 12:25::30, as designated in column A as the earliest Channel #1 clock time when the designation could have been made, then the line #2 time, occurring 20 measured seconds later must be 12:25::50 and line #3, 18 seconds later, must be 12:26::08, and so forth. In examining to see whether the three designated times could have been called times indicated in the four lettered columns, we can exclude column A times, since 12:27 (line #2 would not have been called at 12:25::50; 12:27 (line #3 would not have been called at 12:26::08; and 12:28 (line #4) would not have been called at 12:26::30. Column B is marginally acceptable. 12:26::49 would be called 12:27 (line #2); 12:27::07 would be called 12:27 (line #3); and 12:27::29 could be called 12:28 (line #4). Column C is not acceptable, since, under the system represented by column C and D, 12:26::20 would not be called 12:27 (line #2); 12:26::38 would not be called 12:27 (line #3) and 12:27::00 would not be called 12:28 (line #4) Column D is marginally acceptable under this system, since 12:27::19 would be called 12:27 (line #2); 12:27::37 would be called 12:27 (line #3); and 12:27::59 could be 664 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. called 12:28 (line #4). We can now locate either of these times within a 30 second period to Channel #1 clock time and can, and therefore, measure the time intervals from either of these 4 events to any other event on the Channel #1 tape and, thereby, locate these other events within 30 seconds of the Channel #1 clock time. Using the 12:26 designation, we have determined that. the transmission occurred between 12:26::29 and 12:26::59. The measured time for this event to the bell is 4 minutes and 15 seconds and to the beginning of the sirens and 2 seconds. According to BB&N, the first impluse, which they considered may represent a shot, occurred 16 seconds before the sound of the bell and the last impluse, which they sidered may represent a shot, occurred 6 seconds before the sound of the bell. The chart in Figure 2 on the following page lists these events in the time period in which they occurred. It is interesting to note that BB&N, using Least Square Analysis, a refined averaging process, computed the time of the first possible shot impluse as occurring at 12:30::47, Channel #1 clock time. My range for the same point is 12:30::38 to 12:31::08, with a mean (average) of 665 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. 666 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. 12:30::53. Since we differ by only 6 seconds for our averages, our results are mutually supportive. An interim conclusion may be made at this point: a. If the motorcycle with the open microphone were a part of the motorcade, it would have picked up the sounds of the sirens as soon as they began. b. The sirens began a few seconds after the shooting. c. The open microphone produced the taped sound of the siren at approximately 12:32::46 (plus or minus iS seconds), Channel #1 clock time. d. Therefore, if the motorcycle were in the motorcade, the shots occurred a few seconds before 12:32::46. Since BB&N analyzed the 10 second section starting at approximately 12:30::$3, Channel #1 clock time, almost 2 minutes before the shots would have been fired, it may be stated definitively that any impluses detected during that 10 second period were not the result of shots recorded by the open microphone. Of course, if the motorcycle were not within the motorcade, it did not record shots at any time. I will return now to the primary problem of determining if the motorcycle open microphone could have transmitted the sound of the shots at any time (i.e., if the motorcycle were with the motorcade when it was in Dealey Plaza). BB&N has determined by Least Square Analysis of transmissions giving time designations on Channel #2 that the approximate time of the assassination was 12:30 and 12 seconds, Channel #2 time. Since this conclusion was arrived at based upon essentially continuous running of the Channel #2 recorder, it would seem to be a reasonably accurate 667 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. estimate. Accepting it, for the moment, as accurate and allowing a worst side error between Channel #l and Channel #2 of l minute in either direction, the time of the assassination by the Channel #1 clock would be between 12:29:12 and 12:31::12. Allowing 10 seconds between the time of the assassination and the time the sirens were turned on and Chief Curry made his call, the latest the sirens could have started, by Channel #1 clock time would have been 12:31::22. If the motorcycle with the open microphone were with the motorcade, we would hear the sound of the sirens on the Channel #1 tape at that time, instead of between 12:32::31 and 12:33::01. In other words, the Channel #1 and Channel #2 clocks would have to be a full minute apart and the Least Square Analysis would have to be a minute to a minute and a half in error over a 6 minute analysis, and both events cumulative (in the same direction). Since this seems inconceivable, it is concluded that there is almost no possiblity that the motorcycle was with the motorcade. Since this conclusion cannot be stated quite as decisively, based upon the time elements, as the previous interim conclusion, the following supportive evidence is provided. a. The open microphone was on Channel #1, the normal police channel. The motorcade vehicles were on Channel #2, the special motorcade channel. If the motorcycle with the open microphone were with the motorcade, the transmission should have been on Channel #2. 668 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. b. The sound of the sirens on the Channel tape increases in volume and then fades out as would be expected if the motorcade were approaching, passing, and leaving the location of the open microphone. c. The sound of the bell on the Channel tape requires that a bell be located with an acoustical range of the open microphone. There was no such bell in or near Dealey Plaza. While it has not been identified as the same bell, there was a bell in the tower of the Lucas Baptist Church, 4435 Rosewood (near the intersection of Lucas and Rosewood), Dallas, Texas, located 0.6 miles from the position of the designation of a three wheel motorcycle on traffic control duty on the Stemmons overpass over Industrial Boulevard. d. Several three wheel motorcycles were positioned in or around the Trade Mart and specifically in the area of the Stemmons Expressway and Industrial. One motorcycle officer has stated to me unequivocally that he was assigned and was specifically at the Stemmons and Industrial overpass and saw the motorcade traveling towards him, and away from him, going towards Hines Boulevard, as they were heading towards Parkland Hospital. He also stated to me that it is quite possible that it could have been his microphone keyed as he had several problems with his radio of the same nature in the past. e. The following transcript is of a transmission I located on Channel #2 and recorded on the tape recording included with this report for your review. 669 JFK EXHIBIT F-680 cont. DISPATCH: 15 CAR 2: 15 CAR 2: 15 Car 2: DISPATCH: There is a motorcycle officer up on Stemmons with his mike stuck open on Channel #1. Could you send someone up there to tell him to shut it off? 15 CAR 2: 10-4 DISPATCH: 12:34 670 CONCLUSION A. It is concluded that the noise impluses detected during the period immediately preceding the sound of the bell were not shots. B. It is concluded that the motorcycle with the open microphone on Channel #1 was not a part of the motorcade, but was in fact, located along the route of the motorcade from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital. Additional information regarding my acoustical analysis, my investigative analysis,' and my further investigation as to the location and identity of the keyed open microphone and spectrum analysis of the bell located at the Lucas Baptist Church, and questions for Dr. Barger (regarding his analysis et al), would be supplied upon an additional request. Respectfully submitted to The Select Committee on Assassinations, Anthony J. Pellicano President AJP/jd 671 Mr. WOLF. Dr. Burger, have you had an opportunity to review the report submitted by Mr. Pellicano? Dr. BARGER. I have read it. ' Mr. WOLF. I would like to read parts of this report to you and ask you to comment on it. Mr. Pellicano characterizes his work as a deduction from your testimony, in addition to some independent investigation of his own. The first portion I would like to read is on page 4. I will read the paragraph and ask you to comment. It says: The first significant finding involved the sound of the motorcade sirens on the channel 1 tape. If the motorcycle with the open microphone had been with the motorcade, it would be expected that the sirens' sound would have started at full volume and, if the motorcycle had continued with the motorcade, would have continued for the trip to Parkland Hospital. On the other hand, if the motorcycle had remained at Dealey Plaza, the sounds would have started at full volume and the volume would have decreased as the motorcade pulled away. The sounds of the siren on the tape, however, seem to increase, peak, and decrease, as if they were approaching, passing, and leaving the open microphone position. While this observation is admittedly somewhat subjective, if true it could indicate that the motorcycle was not with the motorcade, but was at some point along or near the route taken by the motorcade on its way to Parkland Hospital. Can you comment on that, please? Dr. BARGER. I can't remember all that, but while I was still focusing on what you were saying, the statement was made that it would be expected that the motorcycle radio that we have placed in the motorcade would pick up the sounds of the siren on the chiefs car that would presumably have been turned on just after the shooting. I think I heard that. Is that it? Mr. WOLF. That is correct. Dr. BARGER. The chiefs car was in front of the Presidential limousine and would have been at this time at the underpass, or just beyond, a distance of at least 300 feet from the position of the motorcycle as we have placed it. Now the sound of a siren 300 feet away from a running motorcycle with as much background noise as there was in the Plaza at that time would not have been audible. In other words, I would disagree with the assumption that it could be heard. A little simple arithmetic indicates since the source level of sirens is around 120 decibels and the transmission loss from that particular chief of police car to the motorcycle would have to be at least 40 decibels, the sound pressure level of the siren at the position of the motorcycle could not have exceeded about 80 decibels, but we have seen that insensitive direction of the motorcycle microphone, it being a directional microphone and not sensitive to sounds from the front, was pointed at the chiefs car. So that received sound level of 80 decibels would be considerably less than the ambient noise level in the microphone at that time, which was 90 decibels, and also would have been coming in on the insensitive access of the microphone. So I don't believe that that assumption that you would hear this siren is true. That was not a very short answer. Mr. WOLF. So, therefore, you would also disagree with Mr. Pellicano's deduction that since the sound of the sirens occurred somewhere in the vicinity of 12:33, 2 or 3 minutes after the presumed shots, the motorcycle could not have been in Dealey Plaza? Dr. BARGER. Yes. 672 Mr. WOLF. I would like now to read from page 14 of the submission to the committee and ask you to comment upon this statement. It concerns a question I believe. Congressman Dodd in part addressed this morning about the ringing of a bell that appears on the tape. The report states: The sound of the bell on the channel 1 tape requires that a bell belocated within an acoustical range of the open microphone. There was no such bell in or near Dealey Plaza. While it has not been identified as the same bell, there was a bell in the tower of the Lucas Baptist Church, 4435 Rosewood (near the intersection of Lucas and Rosewood), Dallas, Tex. located 0.6 miles from the position of the designation of a three-wheel motorcycle on traffic control duty on the Stemmons overpass over Industrial Boulevard. Can you comment on that passage? Dr. BARGER. The sound of the bell occurred a few seconds after the time of the fourth shot. I don't remember exactly when. It indicates that there was a transmitter on a motorcycle or perhaps in a squad car or possibly also a walkie-talkie, but a transmitter that was transmitting a little after the fourth shot that was within sound range, audible range, of a bell. I agree completely with Officer McLain's statement that more than one transmitter can share a receiver at one time. This is true whenever the strength of the carriers of all of the radios in question are within the capture ratio of the receiver in their intensity. Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Dr. Barger. I would now like to address the testimony Professors Weiss and Aschkenasy gave this morning. Have you had an opportunity to review the work of Professors Weiss and Aschkenasy? Dr. BARGER. Yes; I have. Mr. WOLF. What did you do to review independently their work that was done for this committee? Dr. BARGER. In the first place, shortly after my testimony at the previous hearing, I met with Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy and members of the committee staff, to discuss how best we might reduce the uncertainty in the results that we had obtained at that time, in particular relating to the possibility of a third shot, which is listed in green in that exhibit. We contributed in that discussion to the concept of an analytical extension of our work, which is, in fact, the analytical extension that they carried out. So we were familiar with the parameters that they would need to know and also with the procedure that they intended to follow. I asked them what parameters they were using and found in each case that I agreed with them. In other words, we checked their procedures and the parameters that they used. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, at the stage where they had finished with all their strings--as they were illustrating this morning--and had identified the echo-producing objects in the plaza that caused the echoes at positions near microphone 4 there, where we found the shot may have occurred and where it may have been received, we looked at those echo-producing objects for that location that they found with their very accurate and diligent procedure and made a judgment about each one as to whether it would be able to produce an echo of sufficient strength to be heard in the motorcycle microphone, considering the direction from which it had to arrive at the motorcycle microphone, considering 673 what we now know the direction the microphone is pointing at that time. We found that the echo-producing objects that they identified were reasonable and would, in fact, produce echoes of sufficient strength to be seen, or heard, I should say. Mr. WOLF. In your testimony on September 11, addressing particularly the third impulse in the Dallas Police dispatch tape, you stated that the probability of this being a shot from the grassy knoll was 50-50. Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy, today, whose testimony you heard, stated that the probability of this being a shot from the grassy knoll was 95 percent or better. You have reviewed the work of Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy. Do you agree with their assessment? Dr. BARGER: Yes; once we checked their procedures, their parameters and their echo-producing objects, we received from them the results of their match. Drs. Kalikow, Rhyne, and Mr. Schmidt and I, at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, reviewed their results, and we concluded that they had successfully achieved a match having a correlation coefficient of 77, and you remember that was the number of goodness of match. We also found that they had done this with only a plus or minus one one-thousandth of a second error for each match, whereas we had used a plus or minus six one-thousandths of second error, if you will, or acceptance window as Professor Weiss called it in order to achieve matches. Now, the reason that we used the large acceptance window of six one-thousandths of a second was because we didn't know, as I said, exactly where the motorcycle was. The reason they were able to lower theirs to one-thousandth of a second was because they found exactly where is was by the procedure they described this morning. The effect of reducing this acceptance window is to greatly reduce the likelihood that noise bursts that occur could mimic the fingerprint of a shot from any place and received at the microphone. It reduces it very substantially. In other words, in the terminology last time to achieve this match within plus or minus one one-thousandth of 1 second reduces the false alarm rate substantially. In other words, we had a large false alarm rate because we didn't know exactly where the motorcycle was. That gave us a large false alarm rate. They corrected that problem by lowering the acceptance window. There is another feature of that score besides the acceptance window. That is important. That is the value of the correlation coefficient achieved. As I said, we would accept as a potential match any correlation coefficent that was less than one-half. But we didn't require it to be one, either, which is what it would be if there was no noise. Noise is the thing that causes the correlation coeffecient to be less than one. Noise is on the Dallas Police recording. Professors Weiss and Aschkenasy did nothing to reduce the noise, so I would not have expected they would have increased the coefficent. In fact, they would have increased the the correlation coefficient. In fact, they accepted more noise than we did, and that could have affected the correlation coefficient, which should have gone down. So their correlation coefficient, while high, was not unity. On the other, the false alarm rate one would expect from their match, which was so tight, this would make the likelihood of random noise 674 bursts to fit all 10 of those to within plus or minus one one thousandth very small. I think I forgot the question. Mr. WOLF. Your ability to state with 95-percent certainty, now, what was only a 50-50-percent probability in September was, in essence, due to the narrowing of the match time from six one-thousandths of a second to one one-thousandth of a second. Is that, in essence, correct? Dr. BARGER. Yes, sir. After looking at what they had done, and the fact they had maintained a high correlation coefficient while reducing the acceptance window, resulted in our independent calculation of the expectancy that they could have achieved the match they got only 5 percent of the time by random if it had just been noise on the tape and not a gunshot from that place. That is why we stated independently, although their number was quite similar to ours, that we felt that the likelihood of there having been a gun shot from that knoll and received at that point now to be about 95 percent or possibly better. Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much, Dr. Barger. I have no further questions. Mr. PREYER [presiding]. Dr. Barger, we appreciate your being here again. I was interested in Mr. Wolf's questions to you at the outset about the Kent State hearings and your work there. There has been a lot of discussion of the acoustics technique as a relatively new technique applying old principles and that the Kent State case was perhaps the first in which it was applied. Now, I understood you to say that in that case your analysis of the timing and location of the shots was stipulated as being correct and was admitted into evidence. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. PREYER. Was that a criminal case? What was the nature of the case? Dr. BARGER. I should know the answer to that, of course; however, I am a physicist. It was an indictment brought by a Federal court, I believe. You know you might, if you would, ask that question of the Chief Counsel of this committee. He might be able to answer that better. Mr. BLAKEY. I think Dr. Barger is correct. The matter was considered both in the State and Federal level. My memory is that there was a Federal indictment returned under the Civil Rights Act, and I think ultimately the jury found the guardsmen not guilty. The case has also been tried at the civil level in the State, and it is presently in litigation now. Dr. BARGER. This was not the civil case. Mr. PREYER. What I was getting at was how your acoustics testimony was used. Could you briefly outline to us what it showed? Were you able to locate individuals who could have fired shots from your acoustic study? Dr. BARGER. What we did was locate the physical positions where rifles were fired from, where the first one was fired from, the second one, the third, and the fourth. Then it was quite a fusillade, and it got indistinct. But we located the physical positions and someone else with photographic evidence made the connections between individuals and physical locations. Exactly how they did that and in what way that was used, I don't know. 675 Mr. PREYER. Do you recall, and perhaps this is unfair to ask a scientist rather than a lawyer, but do you recall in what form the judge charged the jury concerning that acoustics testimony, as to how they could consider it? Dr. BARGER. Well, in fact, Judge Pryer--I was there, assuming that I would be testifying. I had written my results into a record which had been examined by both sides. When it was time to call me, the defense stipulated the information in the report. So I went home. However, as I recall, I don't know what the judge said. I went home at that point. Mr. PREYER. Well, it sounds as if your acoustics testimony actually located the direction of the shot and then the photographs simply put the name of the person located there. Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. PREYER. In other words, that was--your testimony was key, I would think. Mr. DEVINE. Will you yield? Mr. PREYER. I will be glad to. Mr. DEVINE. Dr. Barger, was the stipulation that your testimony would be so-and-so if you testified, or was the stipulation as to the accuracy of your testimony? There are two different kinds of stipulations. One would be if Dr. Barger testified, he would say thus and so. Another stipulation is one by agreement that it is agreed that your testimony which was supplied was accurate. Dr. BARGER. I just don't feel that I can answer that question. I don't know that for sure. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Devine. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Dr. Barger, you found the fingerprints of four outbursts that you believe to have been supersonic shots, is that so? Dr. BARGER. No; let me--that is a good question. These echo patterns that I called, suggested might be called fingerprints, can contain a precursor which is an end wave or a shock wave caused by a supersonic bullet, and if the trajectory of the bullet was at an angle from the receiver that was less than about 80 degrees, you would see that precursor, the end wave, the shock wave caused by the supersonic bullet. If the microphone, in effect, was behind the rifleman and the trajectory was away from the microphone, you would not see that precursor, even though it was a supersonic bullet. Mr. Fauntroy. All right. On the charts which Dr. Weiss set before us we saw the indication of a burst preceded by-- Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FAUNTROY [continuing]. What was described to us as shock waves. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FAUNTROY. Could those lines have been produced by noise other than that of shock waves? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. FAUNTROY. What indication do you have from the patterns that you noticed in the four shots that would lead you to suggest to 676 us that in all probability those waves were shock waves or those lines were produced by shock waves? Dr. BARGER. Yes; well, your question is right at the heart of the matter. In the fourth shot our findings indicate that that is in all probability a shot from the sixth floor of the Texas depository at the vicinity of the limousine, near frame 313. Now, we know the muzzle velocity of that rifle, and so now we can look at our fingerprint smudged on the Dallas police tape, and we can see the indication of a shock wave that precurses those impulses, and we can calculate when, you know, when it should occur because we know everything about it, we know all of the geometry and the speed of the bullet and it calculates out just right. So we know what a shock wave looks like on that Dallas police tape recording, because we are virtually certain that we see it on the fourth shot, as we should. Now, the precursor that Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy were looking at this morning looks just like that, looks like it could be, it looks like a shock wave. It occurs at a time before what appears to be a muzzle blast that is consistent with reasonable trajectories and muzzle velocities, so it is entirely consistent with the shock wave, with the impulse made by a supersonic bullet fired from a rifle. Mr. FAUNTROY. So in short, your answer is that the shock waves which we have identified on the shots that we know about resemble sufficiently the shot No. 3 to conclude that that, too, was in all probability a shock wave? Dr. BARGER. Yes. That is just what I said. You asked the question a little differently the first time. Mr. FAUNTROY. I know it. Dr. BARGER. And let me answer that, also. You asked if there is anything else that could resemble the shock wave of a supersonic bullet, and my answer would have to be yes, it is possible that a burst of static would occur of that amplitude and at that time. And, therefore, it is conceivable that although that is consistent with being a shock wave in any way, It iS conceivable also that that is a noise burst. Having said all of that, I feel compelled to answer your next question, which is how likely is that to be a noise burst. Well, the best I can do here, and I think it is the best anyone could do, is to look at the record to find what is called the marking rate, in other words, the average number of such noise bursts that occur in a unit period of time. In other words, how many of those per second occur anyway? Well, you answer that question by looking at someplace on the tape where there may be a few impulses, but they are clearly not the fingerprints of gunshots, and so you look there and you say how rapidly do things like this occur that resemble end waves. Well, I have done this, as this was going to be your next question, and I had to have an answer for it. It appears in a very conservative way that these are happening, you have this amplitude that Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy showed on that exhibit. In fact, it probably would not hurt to have that exhibit up. I have no idea what the number is, but it is the one with all the wiggly lines, not to suggest that they only had one exhibit with 677 wiggly lines. But in any case, the precursor that we are talking about only, a similar precursor when they are obviously noise bursts certainly occur no more often than about every 120 one-thousandths of a second. Now, the total time span over which a noise burst could mimic a shock wave, given any reasonable muzzle velocity and direction of the fire, is on the order of 25 to 30 one-thousandths of a second. And so by a fairly straightforward chain of logic, the odds that a noise burst of those characteristics falling into that time span so they could mimic a shock wave are less than one in foru, probably one in five, and I get that simply from observing the marking rate or the rate at which random noise bursts occur. That is the one that might conceivable mimic a shock wave. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time has expired. Mr. PREYER. Thank you. Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. I just have a couple of short questions. Doctor, when you had your reenactment on August 20, do you recall what the temperature was? Dr. BARGER. It was very hot. It varied. At the beginning of the day when we were testing in the microphone right down near Main Street it was about 73(deg), I recall, the first time I looked. At the time we finished, we were over on Elm Street, it was noon, and it was 90(deg) the last time I looked. Mr DEVINE. There was a lot of fuss made this morning about what the temperature was on November 22, and they concluded it was roughly 65(deg)? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. In your reenactment, would that make any difference in your conclusion, the fact that the temperature is measurably different? Dr. BARGER. Yes; the speed of sound is important to my process, and, therefore, it has to be computed correctly. new, of course, the relevant choice in this, what is the precision that one needs in order to achieve the purpose that we have set out to achieve? In the case of the reconstruction, as used by Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy, they needed to have that temperature accurate enough so that when they swung their strings around they would hit something at all, because the only thing that they used my data for other than the fact that I told them about where the motorcycle was, you know, within 18 feet, was what that one echo pattern looked like, that one fingerprint from microphone 4, and if they did, if I had known that it was 90(deg) when I fired that shot, but told them it was 65(deg), their string would have come up short, and it would have missed that building, and so it was necessary to get it approximately correct. Now, the question really is how correct does it have to be, how accurate? Now, it is easy to show, since the speed of sound goes like the square root of the absolute temperature, that if you make a 5(deg) error in the temperature, then your error in speed of sound will be one half of 1 percent. Now, Professor blakey correctly described the process by which I determined that it was 65(deg) during the assassination. Supposing 678 it were 70 degrees. I think 5 degrees is the outside of our uncertainty. Then the error in the sound speed would be one-half of 1 percent. Now, since my uncertainty in location was 18 feet, and since the difference in travel distance of sound over the paths we are talking about at the level of one-half of 1 percent is only 2 1/2 inches, I cared not one whit about one-half-of-l-percent errors in the sound speed. On the other hand, the whole purpose of Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy's procedure was to add precision to the procedure that we developed, analytically to compute with great precision and in very narrow time windows where these echoes must fall if, in fact, fingerprint comparison is to be declared a valid match. And they achieved, as I recall, a location accuracy of something like plus or minus 6 to 10 inches. So the 2- or 3-inch error that could be induced by a 5 degree uncertainty is scarcely noticeable, even to them. Mr. DEVINE. In another vein, Dr. Barger, I think the testimony originally was that Officer McLain was putting along at 11 or 12 miles an hour in the motorcade. After the shot was fired they took off for Parkland Hospital when it was necessary for them to rev up and had trouble catching the limousine. Did I understand you to say that even with the open mike that there was no measurable difference in motorcycle noise, that the decibels were such that it wouldn't make any difference if we are talking about that motorcycle having the open mike on it? It would seem to me as a layman that there would be considerably more motorcycle noise when he took off for Parkland Hospital. Dr. BARGER. Well, there definitely was. I believe in my previous testimony I did not focus on what the motorcycle may or may not have done after the shooting on the basis of the sound that it made. On the other hand, you have just focused me on that. The noise level of the motorcycle as perceived through the radio was rather high up until about 2, about 3 seconds before the first shot was fired. In other words, the motorcycles have greatly reduced speed 3 seconds before the first shot was fired, which was a very fortunate thing in the sense that it made it easier to see these smudged fingerprints of gunfire, because otherwise they would have been more obscured by the noise. Now, that motorcycle noise stayed down in this reduced level, it did not go off, it stayed down, but it stayed down at this reduced level, and it was reduced by about 10 decibels, which we measured-the noise level was reduced by 10--decibels, and it stayed that way for about 30 seconds, 30 or 40 seconds, and then it rose again to as loud a level as it had previously been and even greater, and stayed that way for several minutes. In other words, the motorcycle stayed at a low speed for less than a minute, certainly, about a half a minute, after the shots, and then it speeded up again and it went even faster than it had before, and it continued to do that for at least 2 minutes. Mr. DEVINE. Well, you do not have any trouble then in identifying Officer McLain's motorcycle as the one on which the open mike existed. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Well, I have no way of knowing from the sounds that came through the radio what motorcycle it was that was making that noise, that is correct. 679 Mr. DEVINE. But you were here when Dr. Weiss testified this morning. Did you agree with his conclusions on that? Dr. BARGER- I think I would be safe if 1 asked you to remind me what his conclusions were on that. My attention may have wandered. Mr. DEVINE. If my recollection is correct, I think he said it was logical to assume that the motorcycle was in the position where Detective McLain was or Officer McLain was to show the results that appeared on their charts and findings. At least that is my assumption from having listened to him. Dr. BARGER. I am sorry. I am not certain enough that I understand that question that I should attempt to answer it. Mr. DEVINE. Well, the bottom line is this: we have established without much question that there was an open mike on a motorcycle someplace. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. And it is important to identify what open mike was recording the shots from 1, 2 and 4 as well as the No. 3 shot which is alleged to have come from the grassy knoll. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. Now, that is the receiver that mike is the receiver. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. It is important to identify it, and apparently Dr. Weiss and his colleague are satisfied that it was the motorcycle behind the limousine on the left side, and I was wondering if your findings would follow that same logic. Dr. BARGER. Yes, yes, yes. I thought that was what your question was. I just wanted to make sure. The position that we had originally found for the motorcycle as a function of time, we do not feel our estimate of the motorcycle position, I do not believe is modified by Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy's testimony. I find that his memory of where he was relative to the time of the shooting does, in fact, correspond with the position where we found the motorcycle, and since he did not know any, he did not report a motorcycle within 5 or 10 feet of him, it must have been him. Mr. DEVINE. Right. Thank you very much. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was tempted to ask you you now to translate everything you have just said for the last 20 minutes in layman's terms. I noticed your definition of a correlation coefficient is the number of echoes matched with impluses over the square root of the number of echoes times the number of impluses. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DODD. I though that was what your answer would be. Dr. BARGER. Oh. Mr. DODD. I wanted to give you a chance to sound positive. One is the perfect match, that is when you would have between the Dallas Police Department tape and the predicted tape, if they matched absolutely exactly, you would end up with 1. 680 Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DODD. So we are talking 0.7's, 0.8's, 0.6's and 0.5's we are coming within that percentage of a perfect match. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DODD. OK. I would like to take first of all, if I could, on the very first shock wave that you record, there is no muzzle velocity that appears, or is it the shock wave. that I am distinguishing? Anyway, there is on that first strong impulse that you identified originally as coming from the Texas School Book Depository, it lacks that shock wave. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DODD. You explained that as being the fact that the receiver, in this case the motorcycle, was probably not in proper enough position to pick up the cone. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DODD. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. DODD. How can you explain it within 1.6 seconds immediate- ly thereafter we get that kind of an impulse? Dr. BARGER. May I walk over there and---- Mr. DODD. Sure. Dr. BARGER. The position that we estimate as the motorcycle position at the time of the first shot is about here. The first, the trajectory of the first shot would be about as indicated by this pointer because the limousine was over here at about, oh, in the vicinity somewhere around 160, I believe. Now, this angle from the trajectory to the microphone, if it is greater than, in fact, 60 degrees for a Mach 2 bullet, you will not hear it, and that angle is just slightly greater. So you are right on the edge of hearing that shock wave. It would be very weak, since you are on the edge, so you undoubtedly would not see it. After the 1.6 seconds that you have described, at a speed of 11 miles an hour, I believe that is---- Mr. DODD. Now he is slowing down, he is coming around the curve now. Dr. BARGER. Correct, correct, and he has, according to our matching procedure, achieved a position somewhere between 2.6 and 2.10; 2.10 is over here, and 2.6 is here. So he has moved to somewhere around here where I indicated on the red dot. That is still, is just on the edge of the 60 degree angle, and so you would not expect to see it, and you do not. The first two do not show a precursor that could be considered to be an end wave from a supersonic trajectory. Now, on the third one, however, the motorcycle had achieved a position which, in my--well, I mislabeled that last time. l should have been right here between 4 and 5, near 4, this is where the motorcycle was at the time of the third shot. That one appears to have emanated from here, and that is well within that angle, in other words that shock wave will come right back by and hit it. The fourth, by the time the fourth shot was fired, the motorcycle is here, and the shot came from the depository here, and you are almost right underneath the flight path of the bullet, and boy, and that you would hear, and it is observed in the data. Mr. DODD. All right. Unless you want to stay there, l do not know any reason why you have to, but let me ask you what I asked 681 Dr. Weiss this morning about the availability 15 years ago of the expertise that you have used to arrive at the conclusion you did in September and again today. Could the Warren Commission have conducted similar tests then with the available information they had in 1963-64 and have arrived at a similar conclusion that you and Dr. Weiss have arrived at? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. DODD. There has not been any significant improvement in the science that would have prohibited them from utilizing this kind of testing? Dr. BARGER. No. Mr. DODD. OK. We have heard and we keep on repeating it ourselves, and I asked the question of Dr. WEISS, and I will ask it again of you, we have talked about the probability of the third impluse, in fact, all four impluses that were talked about, but the third impulse particulary today, is a loud noise from the grassy knoll, and that is 95 percent sure, and I do not think I got an answer this morning, I may not have pursued it far enough, what is the probability that, that our noise from the grassy knoll was, in fact, a rifle shot? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Well, Congressman Fauntroy was working on that one, too. Our independent estimate of the probability that an impulsive sound behind the fence on that knoll of loudness as great as that from a rifle that was, in fact, discharged and received where we have indicated, is 95 percent or better. Now I did not say a rifle, I said an impulse that is as loud as one. And now, you know that maybe--- Mr. DODD. We have kept on talking about 95-percent probability that a rifle shot is being fire. I am assuming the rifle shot, and I am wondering whether or not we can assume the same to be a probability. Dr. BARGER. I am not sure I said that. Mr. DODD. We have been, at least. Dr. BARGER. We find that the liklihood that an impulsive noise came from that location and was received where we indicated or actually where Weiss and Aschkenasy indicated, you know, which is 5 feet away from where we had estimated, and that is as loud as a rifle, is 95 percent or better. Now, I am not prepared to tell you how many cherry bombs in series it takes to simulate a rifle, because I have not experimented with those since the days of my youth. But the fact is it is conceivable that one could generate such a noise. However, those cherry bombs would not emanate a supersonic trajectory which would cause a shock wave, which is indicated in the data. So when I asked Congressman Fauntroy's question about the likelihood that that impluse that seems to be a shock wave might, in fact, be a noise burst that's masquerading as a shock wave, I made an estimate of how likely that would be, and I came out about one chance in five, or an 80-percent probability that that is caused by a muzzle blast and only a 20-percent probability that it was caused by noise. So, to answer your question, I think there is a 95-percent probability that a loud impulsive sound emanated from that point. But, 682 I have to multiply that by the probability that given there was a noise, it was also a rifle. The only evidence I have that it was likely to be is the presence of the shock wave. Mr. DODD. All right, but now---- Dr. BARGER. And that is a point approximately, if I may perform that multiplication, I get something like 78 percent, so to answer your question literally, I have to say my estimate is about 78 percent likely to be a rifle. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DODD. May I proceed for an additional 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 2 additional minutes. Mr. DODD. We have no end wave in 1 and 2. Dr. BARGER. Right. Mr. DODD. What does that do to the probability of that being a rifle? Dr. BARGER. Nothing. We do not expect an end wave in 1 or 2 because the receiver is in the wrong position to hear it. Mr. DODD. OK. But does that not increase the probability that there could be a like noise that would have created the same impulse, since there was no recorded end wave? Dr. BARGER. If anything, it decreases it, because there was not any like noise that popped up and masqueraded as a shock wave in 1 and 2. If there had I would have said, would have said no, no, no, it should not be there, because the geometry is wrong. So if it was there I would have said this is a noise burst masquerading as a shock wave, but none did. Mr. DODD. Let me try and just wrap up this way with you. The reason we are here today, in effect, is because back on September 11, when we finally got down to this third grouping that pointed to the possibility of a shot coming from the grassy knoll, I forget which member of the committee pursued you on this whole question of probabilities then, but you arrived at the 50-50. Dr. BARGER. I think you took turns. Mr. DODD. Could you now go back for us, if you would, and give us your assessment on all four of these impulses, with the degree of probability again, now including the assessments or reassessments of Dr. Weiss and associate. Dr. BARGER. Yes; the first point is that their refinement of our technique that they applied to the third shot, which has indicated that it in all likelihood was a shot, does not affect materially my estimates of the likelihood on the other three. Now, in case that answer boggles your mind--if it does not, I will not elaborate. Mr. DODD. Oh, elaborate. If it does not mine, I am sure it does somebody's. Dr. BARGER. OK. My reasoning had gone this way: I had achieved 15 correlations over my threshold level of .5, each of which was a potential shot. I do not mean to say that. Each one was a potential match with a test shot, and if several came at one incident time, as they did, they all together were just indicating the same shot. 683 Since I had used the plus or minus 6 millisecond time window-- which might also be called, unelegantly I would say, a fudge factor--it allows the test patterns from two adjacent microphones to resemble one another, and, in fact, you do see that when we get more than one correlation coefficient passing my threshold, that they do tend to be from adjacent microphones- In any case, 15 times our test for matches of fingerprints with smudge fingerprints were successful. Now I went through an argument then with red X's that indicated that 6 of those 15 were certainly false alarms, the word that I use to describe a situation when my matching process indicated a match, when, in fact, it should not have, and I was using independent evidence from pure acoustical evidence in order to make the judgment that those 6 were false alarms, as in fact, you may recall that if one of them had not been a false alarm and in fact had been true, the motorcycle would have had to go 55 miles an hour to get from one place to another in the time that was available, and it clearly did not do that. So using that kind of reasoning, I found that 15 of those 6 of 15, were obviously disjoint and, therefore, clearly false alarms. OK. I had 15, and 6 were obviously false. Therefore, I knew that my system, which was designed to catch motorcycles, had a propensity for false alarms. And what was that propensity, I had to make a judgment. I said of that remaining nine that were not of the six that I was sure were false alarms, some of those, too, must be false. I judged that probably about 3 or 4, which would give me, or 2 or 3, which would have given me 8 or 10 false alarms, and 6 or 7 correct detections. That was a judgment, and so I said it is close enough to be 50-50 that I will judge that the false alarm rate in this experiment is 50 percent. Now, when I had a shot indicated by one single match of my fingerprint with the smudge print on the Dallas tape, the only one I could only put a 50-percent probability on was that one. On the other hand, the first shot had three that were not judged to be false alarms. Mr. DODD. So what percentage would you give to that? Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has again expired. I will permit the answer. Dr. BARGER. He will probably ask for more. Mr. DODD. What percentage, I am just trying to get back, does this change all of the percentages you gave us? Dr. BARGER. This is a long-winded answer, because as indicated it would be, but the answer is no, it does not change it and here is why. I had made the judgment, if my false alarm rate was 50 percent the first time because I had six that I knew were false, and I suspected there were a couple of others in there, and that made it half false, half true, 50 percent. Now, all Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy have done is prove that one of those is not false. That does not materially change that situation, so I still think the false alarm rate is about 50 percent. Now, when, if I make an assumption that each of the 15 events that we see on that board are independent, then I or anyone else can calculate the probabilities that each of those shots did occur. In 684 the case of the first one, where there were three indications of .5 each, that works out 87 1/2 percent likely, and one-eighth unlikely. In the case of the second shot there were likewise three that were not, three correlations that passed the test that were not impeached as obvious false alarms and, therefore, the operative or probability on that one is also 87 percent. In the case of the last one, there were two that were unimpeached, so the probability works out to 75 percent, and in the case of the third one there was only one, so that was 50, it was 50 percent. And did I make a mistake on the second one? OK. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DODD. I am not going to ask for any more time. Chairman STOKES. Gentlemen, we are going to have to try to move along a little faster here. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are sure, you are confident that the sounds, the shapes of the sounds that you measured are gunshots, in plain language, that what you are telling us? Dr. BARGER. Quite confident, yes. Mr. FITHIAN. And that is to the exclusion of any other sounds short of a bunch of cherry bombs that would have set up that kind of impulse, but would still have been missing for shots 3 and 4 the shock wave, is that correct? Dr. BARGER. That is correct. Mr. FITHIAN. Now, I am concerned that we clarify one thing. You recall the Sunday evening preceding your testimony, before we met and went over all this, and I apparently did not explore as much as I should have with you the probability questions that came up the next day. And, therefore, I was a little bit dismayed that we dropped to 50-50. Since we are closing out this investigation now, I do not mean to be harsh, but I want to quote back to you what you told this committee on September 11, and ask if you would like us to take away from here a different impression than what I see in this record. It is late in the day and you are being asked whether or not there is any test that we could take to reduce the uncertainty, because as you know, as you remember, the committee was disturbed with the 50-50 chance that there was a fourth shot. And at that point you had said, it is correct, there was a 50-50 chance that there was a fourth shot. Congressman Edgar than asks you this question: "Is there any test that we could make that could reduce the uncertainty?" To which you replied: "Congressman, the answer to that literally is yes. Now that the position of the motorcycle has been fixed with some confidence, one would not bother with microphones all over other parts of Dealey Plaza, for example." Then you said: "However, I believe that the advantages to be gained from rectifying that problem are very marginal, and I doubt if they could reasonably be expected to improve the level of uncertainty in the test." Now it is of great importance to this committee that we distinguish between a 50-50 probability of a fourth shot and a 95-percent certainty of the fourth shot. Could you clarify for me or harmonize your testimony here today that you agree with the 95-percent 685 probability of the third shot with what you told us in September, which was, in essence, that additional testing and whatever would not increase the marginality of the probability? Dr. BARGER. Yes; first, that answer of mine sounds pretty good to me, if I may tell you why. I perceived that I had been asked if more shooting would be valuable. By that I mean, you know, we were talking about a test and I thought that the question was would more shooting be valuable and I said--I mean I intended to say no to that. Because even though the uncertainty in the location of the motorcycle had been greatly reduced by what we had done then, there was still quite a bit. When I said, "Literally yes," I am glad I said that, because one could always do exactly what Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy did. However, I had not conceived of that analytical extension of what we had done at the time, and when Mr. Edgar asked me that question I did not synthesize that procedure in my mind at that time. However, shortly after discussing it with Professor Weiss, and he did think up, I agree, readily that that was literally possible, but I was not too enthusiastic, because the motorcycle might have been over on near the curve, which would have put it 20 feet away at the least, it could have been as much as almost 30 feet from that microphone, and if he were to undertake his procedure, diligent as he is, and was, and it had, in fact, have been 30 feet away, he might still be looking. Now it turns out it was only 5 feet away. I did not know that at that time. And I did not want to say, oh sure you know, go ahead and try that, because the range of time it would take to succeed could vary between a few days and a few months. However, I do want to acknowledge very clearly that the particular extension of my procedure that Professor Weiss used was his own idea and I think a very good one, and as soon as I heard it I was very, very quick to realize its potential value. But even then I did not know how long it was going to take him to do it. Mr. FITHIAN. Finally, this committee will soon have to decide what we are going to do with this rather startling evidence, and I am sure, given the nature of the world, that we will soon have our critics, within weeks, if not days, and certainly within months and years. Where will those critics be attacking this particular part of our work, that is you, as our consultant, and our conclusions, whatever they may be as a result of this testimony? Dr. BARGER. Well, that is a very good question. I sure would not want to give anybody any ideas. Mr. FITHIAN. Well, if I may just interject, I am just sure that the startling nature of this information will prompt the most careful scrutiny that has been yet applied to the Kennedy assassination. Dr. BARGER. Of course it will, and it should. It will take me a little while to answer this question because I want to, you know, to try to think of the most important items. The reason I have to think is because--this long--is because up till recently I felt that the major shortcoming of our work, and when I say "our," I mean Bolt, Beranek and Newman's and Queens College and the committee staff's in particular, was that there was no evidence that there was a motor vehicle where we had found it to be. And I must say that would have been I thought a very 686 obvious place from which to attack the analysis. I feel now that that particular issue is no longer at the top of my list. I think the most serious problem, the most serious problem we have as analysts is determining these probabilities. There are two kinds of assumptions you can make when you compute the probabilities that we have computed. One is that each event that occurs is statistically independent of all of the others, and the other assumption is quite the opposite, that they are not independent events, but they are all related. And if you make either of those two assumptions, you can get an answer and it is not always the same answer. And determining whether these events, and by events I am talking about the occurrence of noise spikes on the Dallas tape, in determining whether these are statistically dependent, in other words, do they resemble each other here and here and here or do they just come at random, is a question that can be answered mathematically only if you have enough of the data, and we do not have enough. So, the hardest thing for us to do is to give accurate calculations-well, we can give accurate calculations, but we have to make assumptions, and the assumption of statistical independence, randomness in the noise, is an assumption that I have made when I analyzed my own results, and also those of Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy. People have been complaining that we did this. I do not think they can improve on it, because there is not enough data to answer the question. But literally, it is a problem. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Barger, it may be redundant, but you were just talking about the issue of probability. As I understand it, there were 2,592 separate correlations made, that is, there were 432 test shots times six segments of tape, is that correct? There were apparently 15 impulses that reached a correlation coefficient of more than 0.5. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. EDGAR. Ten impulses, impulse matches of the Dallas Police Department tape, and the reconstructed tape are asserted for shot No. 3, is that not correct? Dr. BARGER. I think you are referring to Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy, and in their analytical extension they achieved 10 matches. Is that what you are referring to? Mr. EDGAR. Yes, on shot No. 3. Dr. BARGER. Yes; in that, in their echo pattern which contained 12 echoes, they found that 10 of them matched with 10 of the 14 impulses that they observed in the Dallas tape. Mr. EDGAR. That was different from your 15? Dr. BARGER. Well, if we are--is what I said true? I mean, are you referring to their analysis? Mr. EDGAR. I am referring to their 10 impulses that they found on the Dallas police tape. Dr. BARGER. Yes. Well-- Mr. EDGAR [continuing]. Which matched up for the shot No. 3. 687 Dr. BARGER. Yes; that is correct. Now, when I described our correlations at the last testimony, we had different numbers than that. The number 15 is not related to that issue. The number 15 is the total number of correlation coefficients that exceeded the threshold; the number 10 is the total number of impulses that happen to match with echoes within one match, which, as I recall, they calculated for that a correlation coefficient of 0.77. Mr. EDGAR. OK. We are at least agreed there are a lot of num- bers floating around, and one of the numbers that are so difficult to zero in on is how someone takes a look at all of that data and all of those impulses and all of those shot patterns, and all of those pieces of tape and all of those squiggly lines and say, aha, it is clear to me that there is a 95-percent probability that this is a third shot. And I guess I am just not clear, and I would hope you could clarify for me what it is that you base that 95 percent on. What is the calculation or formula that it is based upon? Dr. BARGER. All right. In the case of professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy's match, which I suspect is the one you are referring to, because the number 15--well, I am not sure. Is that it? Mr. EDGAR. Let us just deal with the 95-percent probability. Dr. BARGER. On the third shot? Mr. EDGAR. That a thirdshot occurred from the grassy knoll. That is all. Throw away all of the other things. Dr. BARGER. OK. Mr. EDGAR. That you just focus in on the 95 percent. You came before us in September and said that possibility was 50-50. We gave your data to Dr. Weiss and his team, and they came back and said, now it is 95-percent chance. As I understand your testimony, you are agreeing with their analysis, that it is now 95 percent? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. EDGAR. Probable. Dr. BARGER. For the third. Mr. EDGAR. The question I am asking basically is for the third shot, what is the bases, the calculation or formula upon which you reached the 95-percent number? Dr. BARGER. OK. That question I understand and I will endeavor to answer it. I used the hypergeometric probability function to calculate the probability that as many matches as he achieved could have occurred by chance, and on any one try. Then I observed that in his search for the correct location of the motorcycle that would be so precise as to give him a plus or minus 1/1,000 of a second error on each, he would have to look across the entire width of the street, which was 40 feet, and 9 feet on either side of the motorcycle was, closest to at that time. I made the judgment that when he moved his mathematical point, and mathematically extended with his echo calculations every 2 feet, he would get an independent pattern. In other words, the echoes would slide out of the bins that they might otherwise have been in, given that the bins were only twenty-one one-thousandths of a second wide. Therefore, I determined that he had the possibility of generating 180 independent patterns by his process. And so I took the probability that he could have achieved a match 688 on one, times the number of independent bins he would in principle have had to search m order to cover the area of uncertainty and I got a value of 5.6 hundredths or approximately 5 percent, and so my estimate in that way was, if a person sat down with a bunch of noise spikes and was calculating new noise spikes by the procedure he used, he could, about 5 times in 100, by chance, find a match to that precision. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask for 2 additional minutes. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 2 additional minutes. Mr. EDGAR. I think I understand a little bit better how you perceived that probability, and I guess it begs the second question, and that is the question of whether or not we should go back into Dealey Plaza and put up 100 sniper's nests shooting at a specific target and test out your probability of 95 percent, and if I understand what you are saying right, we would only have less than a 5-percent chance of duplicating the echo patterns that were found emanating from the grassy knoll. Is that correct? Dr. BARGER. Well, if you shot from the wrong places, if you shot from the right places, I would assume 95 times in 100 you would get the same result. Mr. EDGAR. You are saying if we went back to the--if we went back to the spot that Dr. Weiss says the shot took place--- Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. EDGAR [continuing]. And reenacted that shot today Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. EDGAR [continuing]. We have a 95-percent chance of getting the same echo patterns? Dr. BARGER. Yes. Mr. EDGAR. You indicated that this process is a little bit like fingerprinting, and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that use fingerprinting in the process have a statistically determined base that is based on millions of uses. You have, I think, induced the analogy; it should not be further induced that you have looked at many different physical locations similar to Dealey Plaza and attempted to match up similar fingerprints. Is that correct? . Dr. BARGER. That is correct. In fact, what you are suggesting would be called a statistical validation of the test, and one could conduct this kind of test in other environments that were nominally similar and determine from a repeated set of those tests what the probabilities, in fact, are, and that would be called a statistical validation of the test, and that is a wonderful thing to do. Mr. EDGAR. One final comment, and then I will quit. You were here this morning when I raised the question about the temperatures and the degrees, and we talked at length with Dr. Weiss over lunch about the value of looking at the temperature and the temperature as a factor of determining the echo patterns, and the validity of the data that was presented. I believe that that is one area that could be explored further in the future by some other body, taking a look at your tests in a careful and considered way. Would you agree that temperature and validity factors of factors like temperature and wind might be something that ought to be 689 looked at in evaluating the work you have done and the work Dr. Weiss has done? Dr. BARGER. Yes; it is worth differentiating. The test that I did was insensitive both to the uncertainties that we had in temperature and wind. Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy were getting close to the point where uncertainties in temperature would cause them to, you know, make an error. I do not believe they were there yet, but they were getting close. They were also getting close to the point where wind could have been a problem. In other words, if the Mach number of the wind had achieved a value of .05, wind projected along the line of sight of the sound, then that could have become a problem for them. I doubt very much if it did, because that would represent a projection along the line of sound of about a 40-mile-an-hour wind, and the wind was not, I do not believe, blowing in that direction that day, so it would have taken about an 80-mile-an-hour wind to have a projection in the direction of the sound screen that would have been significant. But in my test, where I have such a large acceptance window, you know, I was really insensitive to those things. I believe they were getting close to where temperature and wind have an effect. I do not believe that it was a detrimental effect. Mr. EDGER. Thank you. I yield back my time. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Any other members of the committee seeking further recognition? Dr. Barger, at the conclusion of a witness' testimony before our committee, the witness is entitled to 5 minutes to either explain or amplify or in any way further comment on his testimony before our committee. I would extend to you at this time 5 minutes for that purpost. Dr. BARGER. Thank you. I found that this particular problem that was brought to us by your committee was a most difficult problem, and it was, it involved the activities of a good deal of people at BBN who brought to this their own special expertise. I could not have come close to knowing enough about all of these meteorological, acoustical, radial, motorcycle, reflections, recording, computing, everything that was reported in that report before, and, therefore, I asked others to do it. And since I have the 5 minutes, I would like to acknowledge the work of the colleagues on my research team at our laboratory in Cambridge. And they are Dr. Jared J. Wolf, Dr. Daniel N. Kalikow, Dr. Theodore L. Rhyne, Mr. Scott Robinson, Mr. Leo A. Sledjeski, Ms. Nancy C. McMahon, Mr. Joseph L. Coloruotolo, Mr. Edward C. Schmidt. I would also like to acknowledge the oral support and the financial support given to me by the division director, Dr. Frank Jackson, and also the help given to me by Dr. Richard Bolt. Finally, I would like to, I believe, it is important to acknowledge that there is a fundamental principle of some importance that we have been dealing with in this hearing. Professor Blakey conceived the strategy to focus on the scientific evaluation of hard evidence as opposed to recapitulation of eyewitness testimony. And your committee implemented that strategy when it contracted with Bolt, Beranek and Newman, and other research labaoratories to conduct these studies. 690 I believe that our finding demonstrate the wisdom of Professor Blakey's strategy, and, furthermore, that they illustrate a potentially useful way to apply scientific procedures in forensic proceedings. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much, Dr. Barger, and I know you spent a great deal of time on this project, and a great deal of time with both the staff and committee, and we appreciate very much your testimony here today. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. FINAL COMMENTS BY PROF. G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate at this time to review for the committee and those who are following our proceedings the results of the committee's various scientific projects, making an effort to relate them to the acoustics results, and seeing what light, taken together, they shed on the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. According to the acoustical analysis conducted by the committee, four shots, over a total period of 7.91 seconds, were fired at the Presidential limousine. The first, second and fourth came from the depository; the third came from the grassy knoll. In evaluating the acoustics project, it is relevant to ask to what degree its results are consistent with data obtained in other scientific analyses. Similarly, other scientific disciplines may be evaluated comparing them with the acoustics results. Following the Warren Commission's analysis that found only three shots, one of which missed, it had been generally assumed that the final shot fired at President Kennedy was the one that is vividly depicted at Zapruder frame 313, although the Commission itself acknowledged that the last shot might have missed. Using frame 312--when the bullet would actually have struck the President--as the point of reference, it can be determined that the four shots would have been heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frames 166, 196, 296, and 312. A review of the Zapruder film indicates that a shot fired in the vicinity of frame 166 did not strike any limousine occupants, so it must have missed. The committee's photographic panel, while unable specifically to conclude that a shot was fired at this point, noted that Governor Connally's hand moved from left to right at a rate of 540(deg )per second during frames 162 through 164 and 166 through 167, followed by a more gradual shift of his torso to the right. The panel concluded these movements may have been a reaction to a severe external stimulus. The panel considered these actions to be particularly significant because they were consistent with the Governor's Warren Commission testimony that he had turned in response to having heard the first shot and was struck almost immediately afterward. It is also consistent, of course, with the Governor's testimony before this committee and with the testimony of eyewitnesses. Some of those statements were incorporated in the record this morning. The relationship between the panel's observations con- 691 cerning Governor Connally and the acoustics analysis is, however, unclear, because Governor Connally appears to have initiated his rapid body movement prior to frame 166, at the time when the acoustics data suggest that the first shot would have been heard in the limousine. The relationship between the film and the recording is, however, only approximate. It reflects the adjusted real-time characteristics of the recording and the average running time of the film--18.3 frames per second. It was possible to determine the real-time characteristics of the recording because of the knowledge that the recorder was powered by a 60-cycle-per-second electrical current. Since prints of this 60-cycle-per-second current actually appear on the tape, the corrected running time can be determined by comparing these prints with a clocking of the running of the tape. The 18.3-frame-per-second average rate of the Zapruder film was, on the other hand, determined by the FBI under laboratory conditions in which the camera was set and run in the manner that Zapruder described he had used it at the time of the assassination. In relating this film to the acoustics results, it is important to understand that given the 18.3-frame-per-second average running speed of the film, a differential, for example, of only six frames is actually a differential of less than a third of a second. For this reason, absolute correlation between the acoustics recording and the film should not be expected. What is significant is that there is an approximate correlation in rough time between the events on the film and the tape. Each, therefore, corroborates or substantiates the other. The photographic panel's observations were also relevant to acoustics data that indicated the second shot both impacted and was heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frame 196. Specifically, the panel noted that at Zapruder frame 192 the President's movements suddenly froze, as his right hand seemed to stop to 202 his head moved rapidly to the left. The sudden interruption of the President's hand-waving motion, coupled with his rapid head movements, was considered by the photographic panel as evidence of President Kennedy's reaction to some "severe external stimulus." Finally, the panel observed that Governor Connally's actions at frame 224, as he is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Mr. Zapruder's view, indicated he was also reacting to some "severe external stimulus." Based upon this observation and within the limousine, the panel concluded that the relative alinement of the two men was consistent with the theory that they had just been struck by the same bullet. The committee's forensic pathology panel based its examination on duly authenticated Kennedy autopsy materials and its personal examination of Governor Connally. It concluded that the first bullet to hit President Kennedy entered his back at approximately 5 centimeters below the shoulder and three centimeters to the right of the midline of the back, and it exited by the front of his neck near the third tracheal cartilage. 692 The forensic pathological panel, with one member in dissent, stated that the medical evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that this same bullet proceeded to inflict Governor Connally's torso, wrist, and thigh wounds. A trajectory analysis by the committee was based on the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 197, the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally at that point, and the bullet's course as it could be determined from their wounds. When President Kennedy's entry and exit wounds were used as reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 13-foot radius of a point approximately 14 feet west of the building's southeast corner and almost level with the sills of the sixth floor windows. When President Kennedy's exit wound and Governor Connally's entrance wound were used as the reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 7-foot radius of a point approximately 4 feet west of the southeast corner and 12 feet above the sixth floor windowsills. Neutron activation analysis performed by the committee on bullet fragments that had been removed from Governor Connally's wrist indicated a high probability that they were from a bullet that had been recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Committee ballistics tests also indicated that this bullet had been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which had been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In addition, ballistics tests established that three cartridges found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had been fired in Oswald's rifle. In contrast with evidence thus available for evaluating the acoustics data with respect to the first two shots, there is no other scientific evidence for a shot that would have been heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frame 296, that is, no scientific evidence other than the acoustics. There is also no indication on the Zapruder film that a shot struck any of the limousine occupants at this point. As for the shot that struck the President at Zapruder frame 312, there is again scientific evidence that may be used to evaluate the acoustics results. With one panel member dissenting, the forensic pathological panel's view of the autopsy materials established that only one bullet, fired from behind, struck President Kennedy's head, entering near the cowlick portion of his hair part and exiting near the top front area of the right side of his skull. When these wound locations were used as the reference points for a trajectory analysis, given the President's body orientation and the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 312, the trajectory intersected the TSBD within a 23-foot radius of a point 16 feet west of the southeast corner of the building approximately 15 feet above the sixth floor windowsills. In addition, neutron activation analysis indicted a high probability that bullet fragments found on the limousine floor came from the same bullet as fragments that had been removed from President Kennedy's brain. According to neutron activation analysis, these fragments did not match the bullet found on the stretcher at 693 The forensic pathological panel, with one member in dissent, stated that the medical evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that this same bullet proceeded to inflict governor Connally's torso, wrist, and thigh wounds. A trajectory analysis by the committee was based on the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 197, the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally at that point, and the bullet's course as it could be determined from their wounds. When President Kennedy's entry and exit wounds were used as reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 130foot radius of a point approximately 14 feet west of the building's southeast corner and almost level with the sills of the sixth floor windows. When President Kennedy's exit wound and governor connally's entrance wound were used as the reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 7-foot radius of a point approximately 4 feet west of the southeast corner and 12 feet above the sixth floor windowsills. Neutron activation alalysis performed by the committee on bullet fragments that had been removed from Governor Connally's wrist indicated a high probability that they were from a bullet that had been recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Committee ballistics tests also indicated that this bullet had been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carano rifle, which had been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In addition, ballistics tests established that three cartridges found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had been fired in Oswald's rifle. In contrast with evidence thus available for evaluating the acoustics data with respect to the first two shots, there is no other scientific evidence for a shot that would have been heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frame 296, that is, no scientific evidence other than the acoustics. There is also no indication on the Zapruder film that a shot struck any of the limousine occupants at this point. As for the shot that struck the President at Zapruder frame 312, there is again scientific evidence that may be used to evaluate the acoustics results. With one panel member dissenting, the forensic pathological panel's view of the autopsy materials established that only one bullet, fired from behind, struck President Kennedy's head, entering near the cowlick portion of his hair part and exiting near the top front area of the right side of his skull. When these wound locations were used as the reference points for a trajectory analysis, given the President's body orientation and the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 312, the trajectory intersected the TSBD within a 23-foot radius of a point 16 feet above the sixth floor windowsills. In addition, neutron activation analysis indicted a high probability that bullet fragments found on the limousine floor came from the same bullet as fragments that had been removed from President Kennedy's brain. According to neutron activation analysis, these fragments did not match the bullet found on the stretcher at 694 Second, the committee should try to detect the point at which President Kennedy and Governor Connally are hit by the second, bullet and determine if the reactions of each man are visually appropriate in each film or whether one version--the first or the second--seems to be visually more appropriate. Let me repeat, this is not a sound film of the actual assassina- tion. The sound that has been dubbed onto the Zapruder film is the sound that was recorded in August as part of Dr. Barger's record- ing in Dealey Plaza. In the first version of the film, the hit to President Kennedy's head is keyed to the shot from the grassy knoll. Let me repeat, in the first version of the film, the hit to President Kennedy's head is keyed to the shot from the grassy knoll. In the second version of the film, the second one you will see, the hit to the head is keyed to the shot from the Texas School Book Depository. Mr. Chairman, before this film is shown--and I might say the staff considered and discussed with the committee at some length as to whether this film should be shown--I would remind the committee as well as those who are following these proceedings on television or are present in this room that certain segments of this film may be offensive to people of special sensitivity. They are, in fact, offensive to me. Those who might fit in this category might wish not to watch this film. I would also like to indicate that the film was put together by Robert Groden, a consultant to the committee, and his help is gratefully acknowledged. Could I have the lights off, please. [Film presentation.] Mr. BLAKEY. May I have the light please? Mr. Chairman, may we have the film just shown entered as JFK F-666? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the refined acoustics evidence, the committee obviously has weighed the possible implications of a fourth shot fired from the grassy knoll. It goes without saying that this shot would be of particular significance if it could be determined that it inflicted wounds to President Kennedy and contributed to, or actually caused, his death. The committee has available to it this afternoon, for the purpose of lending an expert opinion to this endeavor, the moderator of its forensic pathological panel, Dr. Michael Baden, the Chief Medical Examiner of New York. In light of the time factor, however, I will summarize what his testimony would have been. Dr. Baden reexamined the materials in light of the additional information given to him by the acoustics panel. He went back to the original film, to the original X-rays and to the other materials. His conclusion remains as it was: There is no medical evidence that President Kennedy was hit from the front and to the right. There is no medical evidence to indicate that he was not shot at from the front and to the right. The forensic pathological panel simply says that if he was shot at from the front and to the right, the shot missed. 695 The medical testimony apparently indicated that if the third shot occurred, it did not hit President Kennedy. There is no evidence that anyone else in Dealey Plaza was struck by a bullet from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. Testimony already presented to the committee indicates that one or more persons reported seeing bullets hit in or around the Presidential limousine. In an effort to complete its investigation of where the third shot, assuming it occurred, might have hit, the committee turned to the presidential limousine itself, which is now in the possession of the Ford Motor Co. in Dearborn, Mich. The committee contacted Major Louis Smith of the Michigan State Police and requested that an experienced crime-scene team examine the car to determine if there is any evidence that it was struck by a bullet fired from the picket fence on the grassy knoll. Major Smith expressed a belief that such an examination would prove futile, since extensive refurbishing and rebuilding had been performed on the limousine since the assassination. He did, nonetheless, make his men available to the committee, and an examination was conducted in the past week. The examination was conducted by laboratory specialist James Bergen and laboratory specialist Michael Arrowood. The committee expresses its appreciation to them for their effort. Major Smith reports that there is no evidence that a bullet from the grassy knoll struck the Presidential limousine. To look further at the question of the direction from which the wound-inflicting bullets came, the committee had available to it-- again this afternoon--its engineering analysis and consultant for the head-shot trajectory. The purpose of Mr. Canning's testimony was to determine if any conclusions of the committee's expert consultant might have been changed by the refinement of the acoustical data. He would have addressed this afternoon the ques- tion, Could the fourth shot have occurred at Zapruder frame 327 and have come, as it must have in light of the other evidence, from the depository? His conclusion, based on rough figures, is that it is highly unlikely that a bullet fired from the depository could have struck the President as number four at frame 327. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation of the staff to the committee. At this point I wonder, though, if I might be permitted to make an observation? Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my apprecia- tion, as I have not in a personal way previously, to the committee, on the public record, for the support that it has given this staff in pursuing its investigation. May I be blunt and say that not every congressional committee acts without politics. This one did. This staff appreciates being free from that particular affliction. In addition, let me say that it is not true of every investigation that it goes the last mile. As you may be aware, I went to Notre Dame where I at least learned one thing. Put in terms of football analogy, it would go something like this: When you are ahead, don't let up, and when you are behind, don't give up. Translated 696 into this investigation, it means that we should have made every effort we could as long as we could. I want to thank you, particularly and personally, for extending to this committee staff the opportunity to continue to pursue this investigation for the last yard. As you know, and as I am sure some other people here present know, the staff has over the last several weeks begun going on vacations, well deserved, and to other jobs. Nevertheless, I hope history writes that this staff worked until the last possible minute. Last, I would like to say what I have not said publicly to the staff as a whole, both those who are here now and those who may be watching this on the outside, that I deeply appreciate the professionalism that you showed, and the hard work, far in excess of what I had any reason to expect, that you gave me. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Professor Blakey. I am sure that our entire committee would concur with me that you have done an outstanding job as the director of the staff and as chief counsel for this committee. You have done it with the highest form of professionalism, and we are indebted to you for that. Additionally, we are very proud of the type of a staff that you did assemble--very bright young people, who served this country so well and in such a dedicated way. I might acknowledge also that deputy chief counsel Ken Klein and our senior staff counsel, Michael Goldsmith, were prepared to examine fully the two other witnesses whom we are not going to call on in light of time constraints. At this time I would like to announce the committee will meet in executive session immediately after we have adjourned the full session of this committee, and I have some closing remarks. If anyone wants to be recognized before I give those remarks-- Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise a question that I would have asked of a couple of the witnesses coming, and possibly for the purpose of the record I could direct them to Mr. Blakey, to see if we can't shed some light on them at this point. One has to do with the question, in light of the implications of the acoustical evidence, with regard to a fragment found, a bullet fragment found in the limousine that for some time has not been easily identifiable as a result of neutron activation tests. I wonder, Mr. Blakey, if you might just comment on that. There has been some question raised about that particular fragment and I wonder if there are others as well, or just that one that raised that question? Mr. BLAKEY. I am not really prepared to respond to that, Mr. Dodd, and I probably have done in this record what I should not have on several occasions, and that is, speak from memory. I think perhaps I will have to discuss that with you later, when I can get a briefing on the details of that and not misstate, or misstate myself. Mr. DODD. In light of that, I won't ask the other ones then. I don't want to rely on people's memories. I will reserve the questions until afterward, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman-- Chairman STOKES. Mr. Edgar? 697 Mr. EDGAR. I just wanted to say, on behalf of this member, and I think I speak for the others, how deeply indebted we are to you for taking up the chairmanship of this particular committee over the last year and a half and providing the leadership that this committee so desperately needed. You came on at a tough time, and I think you deserve our deep gratitude for your efforts as chairman. I just want to say thank you. CLOSING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN LOUIS STOKES Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much. It has been for me a great experience. I guess one of the things I am most proud of is that in the 10 years I have been in the Congress I have never seen a congressional committee work as harmoniously, in such a nonpartisan way, as this committee has, and it has been a real honor to have chaired this committee. I am very proud of the type of support I have gotten from the ranking minority member, Mr. Sam Devine of Ohio, who has been staunch in his support of this committee in every respect and has been tireless in his efforts on behalf of this committee, along with the other members of the minority side; and, of course, our two distinguished subcommittee chairmen, Judge Richardson Preyer, who chaired the Kennedy investigation, and Congressman Fauntroy, who chaired the King investigation, and both of whom worked tirelessly, many, many hours in executive session and in the full sessions, and all of you gentlemen--Mr. Dodd, Mr. Edgar, Mr. Fithian--who I know attended those executive sessions and worked long hours while you tried to do your other congressional work, many times at a very personal sacrifice-I think the country is indebted to all of you. Thank you. [Additional material included at the request of Congressman Richardson Preyer:] 698 LAW OFFICES RALPH W. YARBOROUGH 721 BROWN BUILDING. COLORADO AT W. EIGHTH AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 512 478-2573 December 27, 1978 Congressman Richardson Preyer Chairman 291978 House Subcommittee on Assassination of John F. Kennedy 2344 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515 Subject: Investigation of the assass- ination of John F. Kennedy Dear Chairman Preyer: At the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was serving as United States Senator from Texas, and was riding in the car with then Vice President and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson in the Dallas Presidential Motorcade. Having used firearms since I was a small boy, and having qualified, while serving on the staff of the 97th Infantry Division in World War II, with rifle, carbine, pistol and bazooka, and having hunted since with rifles and shotguns, I have some familiarity with the noise made by the firing of such weapons. In the Motorcade in Dallas, the first explosion was so distinct in its nature, that my mental processes immediately registered "rifle shot" - it was an immediate mental reaction without conscious thought process on my part. On many occasions since, I have stated that there were definitely three explosions, or shots (this while the F.B.I. was expounding its two shot theory), but during all of these years I have been troubled by the fact that the two subsequent explosions did not sound like that first clear sound of indisputable rifle fire, clear as a signal. I assumed that the difference might have been caused by the 699 changed position of the car, or other movement. The recent revelations of a possible fourth shot possibly clear up that doubt as to the reason for the difference in sound between the different explosions. When I read of the scientific experiment through firing weapons at different positions in the parade route at Dallas, I attempted to telephone the Chairman of the Full Committee, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the Chief Counsel or Deputy Chief Counsel of the Assassinations Committee and Sub-Committee, but could reach none of you, but was relegated to someone so far down the line that they did not seem to understand my recommendation at that time. I have been on hunting trips a number of times when two hunters, neither knowing that the other hunter was firing, fire simultaneously at game, each thinking that they had killed it, each hearing only one explosion. With those experiences in mind, what I recommended to some one of Committee staff (whom I took from our telephone conversation to know nothing about gunfire) was that firing from the Texas Book Depository window and the grassy knoll be synchonized and be made simultaneously, with proper sensitive listening devices at all proper points, in an effort to see if science, so applied, would throw any light on the doubts which increase with the years, as to the accuracy of the Warren Commission Report. My recommendation may never have gotten past the person on your staff to whom it was given, as that person seemed not to understand it. After the first shot was fired, the Motorcade seemed to momentarily slow down; the resulting close proximity of the principal cars being shown on a photograph which I mailed to the Warren Commission (that Commission having declined to call me as a witness), taken from the Saturday Evening Post, a cropped version of which was printed in the Warren Commission report with my letter of transmittal to that Commission. The Warren Commission report stated that the Motorcade speeded up, and took off, but it did not say when. The 700 Motorcade did not speed up and take off until all the three explosions had occurred. In the interest of history, I request that this letter be printed with your report. If your sub-committee will put aside preconceived ideas, if any, from reading the Warren Commission Report (which I do not charge you have), but pursue truth wherever it leads, you will render a service to history, and build a higher confidence among your countrymen for the integrity of public institutions. Respectfully yours, Ralph W. Yarborough RWY/bc Chairman STOKES. I would like at this time to make some additional closing remarks: This concludes the public hearings of the Select Committee on Assassinations. As I previously noted, the committee will meet in executive session this evening, to discuss and vote on its ultimate findings and recommendations, which will be submitted on January 3, 1979, to the Clerk of the House. It will also be made public at that time. The final report of the committee is now being edited for security declassification, and publication. The final report, a transcript of our public hearings and various appendices will be sent to the Government Printing Office by March 30. They will also be made public at that time. As January 3 is the termination date of the select committee, all work on the editing of the report, the public hearings and other documents will be done under the auspices of the Clerk of the House. It seems appropriate now, therefore, to reflect on some of the implications of what this committee has done. The committee has presented evidence clearly pointing to the identity of the assassins in both cases. The committee has developed evidence of the outlines of a likely conspiracy in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and if it is accepted, the evidence heard by the committee today could point to a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. The committee has also carefully assessed the performance of the various Federal agencies and looked into each of the assassinations. The committee has also looked at what recommendations should be made for the future. The question, nonetheless, arises: What course of action should our society now take with the work of the select committee having come to an end? 701 As I have said repeatedly, this committee is not a judicial body. In its legislative hearings the committee has looked to the past in a search for facts that might enable it to make recommendations for the future. I emphasize what not all have realized: The committee did not set out to prove or disprove any theory; it did not set out to prove or disprove the existence of a conspiracy in either investigation. Throughout the investigations of both assassinations, the committee addressed four questions: . Who was or were the assassin or assassins? Was there a conspiracy? How well did the Federal agencies perform their protective and investigative duties? And what, if any, recommendations should the committee make for the future? Our legislative work is now done. For the committee to proceed to investigate the issue of individual responsibility in either assassination would be unnecessary and inappropriate, unnecessary because the committee has learned what it needs to know to recommend legislative and administrative reform, inappropriate because fact-finding for the purposes of making recommendations, not an assessment of individual responsibility, is and has been the committee's only mandate. The assessment of personal guilt is something that the Constitution has rightfully allocated to the Executive branch to investigate and for the judicial process to weigh. Now I recognize, of course, that there are still loose ends in both of these investigations that I had hoped our work might have tied down. I regret that these matters are still outstanding. As I have observed before, life itself has loose ends. It may well be that those who continue the investigations also will not be able to resolve all of the troubling issues that this committee has exposed. It has been, after all, many years since these assassinations occurred. I wish them well and hope that they will assess our work and make use of it, just as this committee has assessed and made use of the results of the investigations that preceded it. We have not been perfect, but we have tried to be conscientious and candid in our work. If history records we at least did that, I then will be satisfied. There is at least one lesson that our society ought to draw from this committee's work, and I would like to leave that with you this afternoon: Never again should our society respond as it did in the aftermath of the deaths of these two great patriots. We did not give these men the type of investigations in death which were commensurate with the dignity of their lives. We cannot, of course, rewrite history. We cannot bring back President John F. Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The past can be a die for the future. We can and we must promise ourselves that this history will never be again repeated in this Nation. I thank you. If there is nothing further at this time, the committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 702 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MR. ROBERT GRODEN The following letter, with accompanying photographs and captions, was received by the committee from Robert Groden .after the termination of the public hearings, and after the committee had voted upon its findings and recommendations. Therefore the committee was not able to evaluate, and did not rely upon, the letter or its attachments, in reaching any conclusion m connection with its investigation. The materials, however, are set forth here for the benefit of those who may continue to study these subjects. The captions are those of Mr. Groden, and not the committee. 703 Robert J. Groden 385 Florida Grove Road Hopelawn, N.J. 08861 Rep. Louis Stokes, Chairman House Select Committee on Assassinations Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Stokes, As photographic Consultant to the Committee, I've been exposed to a question of central importance relating to the results of the acoustics tests that I feel I can shed some light upon. The question is 'was the open transmitter button that received the sounds of the gunshots, in the plaza'. Professors Weiss and Aschkenasy have proven scientifically that the "stuck mike' was in Dealey Plaza and further, that the motorcycle with the open microphone was 120 feet behind the President's car at the moment of the impact on the President's head. I am enclosing several photographic exhibits which are the best evidence to corroborate the analysis by the acoustics panel. The motorcycle seen in the enclosed photographs is Officer H. B. McLain's. This determination was made by the House Committee and was confirmed by McLain himself in his public testimony' in December, 1978. Officer McLain was riding on the left side of the motorcade at the level of the convertible press cars. This is where the police tape analysis places the open microphone. Robert J. Groden Photographic Consultant, House Select Committee on Assassinations 704 In connection with Groden exhibit No. 1 above, which portrays a motorcycle riding on the left side of the motorcade as it approaches Dealey Plaza from Main Street, the committee secured, through the cooperation of the Dallas Police Department, a copy of the daily solo motorcycle assignment log sheet for the week of November 22, 1963. The log sheet reflects that during that week officer McLain was assigned to ride motorcycle No. 352, as Mr. Groden states his exhibit No. 1 reflects. GRODEN EXHIBIT # 1 705 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 2 706 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1A 707 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1B 708 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1C 709 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1D 710 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1E 711 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2A 712 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2B 713 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2C 714 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2D 715 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2E 716 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2F 717 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2G 718 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2H 719 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 4 720 GRODEN EXHIBIT # 5 721 DAILY ASSIGNMENT MOTORCYCLE RECORD Friday November 22, 1963 722 Finally, the following memorandum describes the process of correlating the acoustics analysis with the Zapruder film: MEMORANDUM 723 MEMORANDUM cont. 724 MEMORANDUM cont.