Mr. HUBERT. Can you give us any examples of how it did?
Captain KING. Well, the hallways were full--actually with men and
officers. I was out on occasion in the hallway and officers tried
to keep an aisle or pathway cleared in the hall so people who had
business in the other bureaus on that end of the floor and people who
were working out of the homicide and robbery bureau could get in and
out, and this was a constant battle because of the number of newsmen
who were there. They would move back into the aisleway that had been
cleared. They interfered with the movement of people who had to be
there.
The door from the elevator, the jail elevator--the ones used for the
transportation of prisoners--is south of the doorway of the homicide
and robbery bureau where the interrogations were conducted, and
whenever Oswald was brought down from the jail or taken back from
homicide and robbery to the jail, he had to pass through this area.
There was noise out there--a considerable amount of noise out there,
and I think this must have been a disquieting thing.
Mr. HUBERT. And you mentioned that your general policy about the
cooperation of the press had an exception, and that is, when it would
interfere with an investigation, and you have, I think, demonstrated
now that in your opinion there was interference with the investigation?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know of any effort made by anyone to invoke the
exception to the general rule?
Captain KING. I think no effort was made. I think that the decision was
made without ever having been stated, actually, that this was certainly
not a normal circumstance; that the newsmen should be allowed to remain
in there.
The news cameramen first arrived--I don’t recall the time it was--it
was a short time after the death of the President or the shooting, and
Chief Lunday, as I recall, is our traffic division chief. He was the
only chief officer in the department who had returned. We checked--they
wanted to bring their cameras up to the third floor, and we checked
with Chief Lunday to see if it was permissible, and I was told it would
be.
Mr. HUBERT. You did that yourself?
Captain KING. Yes. I am thinking it was Chief Lunday--it was either
Chief Lunday or Chief Lumpkin, and did receive permission for them
to bring their cables through the windows. Of course, the number of
newsmen in the beginning was less than it later became, and more and
more came in.
Mr. HUBERT. At the time you checked the matter with Chief Lunday or
perhaps it was Lumpkin, your thought was that at that time the presence
of the press would not constitute interference?
Captain KING. We didn’t--I didn’t have any idea at that time that we
would have the number that we had.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, did it occur to you at any later time that the number
had increased to the point that something ought to be done about it?
Captain KING. The obvious answer is “yes”, but it didn’t actually. The
newsmen out there, I guess you become accustomed to them out there,
or accustomed to the idea of them being out there, once you have
decided that they are going to be permitted to be there, and it was
the obvious policy of the department at that time that they would be
permitted to be there and so far as my ever mentioning to anyone else
or recommending to anyone else or suggesting to anyone else that they
should be removed--I did not.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you hear anyone else suggest that the situation was
getting out of hand, if it was, in fact, sir?
Captain KING. I don’t recall having done so.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, of course, a large part of that was due, I take it,
to the fact that Oswald was being interrogated on the third floor in
Captain Fritz’ office, which is the normal place where a person charged
with murder would be interrogated?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. But, do you know if anyone thought of removing Oswald to
another place and thus avoid the press in the room?
Captain KING. That, I do not know, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You had not heard that discussed?
Captain KING. I don’t recall having heard it discussed.
Mr. HUBERT. Did it occur to you that that might be one way to get
around this situation which you found?
Captain KING. No; actually it did not.
Mr. HUBERT. Were there other places available so it could actually have
been done?
Captain KING. I am sure that some place could have been found--I don’t
know whether a place could have been found that would have solved more
problems than it raised or not--I don’t know.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, in what way?
Captain KING. Well, because this is the normal--this is the place where
these homicide officers are assigned. This is the place where their
equipment is, this is the place where they normally work and this is
something that had not even occurred to me--moving him to some other
location and moving the interrogation or the investigation of him to
some other place--this is something again in which I was not involved
in and in which I was not in.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, I have read the transcript of the speech that you
made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington,
which I will introduce into this deposition in a little while.
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And I gather from it that to a considerable extent the
police department was influenced to tolerate this condition to a large
extent by the fact that this was an extraordinary case and that any
effort to run the press away might be misconstrued in some manner.
Captain KING. I think that it very definitely might have. I think
probably that these are things that were put into words after the
conditions returned more to normal over there. They were not things
that were actually said. We didn’t sit down, frankly, we didn’t really
have much time to sit down to do anything, but we didn’t just sit down
and say, “We are going to let the press remain here for this reason,
for this reason, or for this reason,” even if they might have been the
reasons that we did in fact.
Mr. HUBERT. There were no staff meetings or anything of that sort to
consider and determine that problem--the problems?
Captain KING. No; there were meetings of the administrators of the
departments, certainly, but these were informal meetings.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, was this problem discussed at any of those meetings,
and by “this problem,” I mean the problem of the press conditions?
Captain KING. To my knowledge--that I remember--no; it probably was--it
would almost have had to have been mentioned over there about the fact
that there were these large number of newsmen there, but any discussion
of their removal or any consideration really, of their removal, I don’t
recall.
Mr. HUBERT. I notice that you mentioned in your speech also that the
press were murmuring, I think, or voicing in some ways some possibly
discrediting remarks as to the Dallas Police Department, and that that
factor influenced somewhat the conditions.
Captain KING. It was my understanding that one of the newsmen--I heard
this, but I don’t know who he was--and I, of my own knowledge, don’t
know that this actually occurred, but that one of them had obtained a
picture of Oswald, that he had a picture of Oswald, and he held it up
before the cameras and said, “This is what the man who assassinated
or who shot President Kennedy looks like or at least this is what he
did look like.” He says, “He has been in the custody of the police
department for an hour and I don’t know what he looks like now.”
Mr. HUBERT. That was heard by you and others----
Captain KING. This was not heard by me. I said I was told this--I did
not hear it--I was not a witness to it.
Mr. HUBERT. But you were told that this occurred shortly after, in
fact, it had occurred or was supposed to have occurred?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, you heard it on the 22d of November?
Captain KING. I don’t remember whether it was on the 22d or the 23d--I
don’t remember when I heard it.
Mr. HUBERT. But it was before Oswald was shot?
Captain KING. I believe that’s correct--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember that on the night of the 22d when Oswald
was brought to the assembly room at which he was displayed, as it were,
to the press?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you present at that time?
Captain KING. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us how that occasion came about, what brought
about this showing of Oswald to the press in the assembly room?
Captain KING. Actually, I was not a part of the discussions to bring
him down there, nor a part of the decision to bring him down there and
I don’t know. I was told--I was directed to go to the assembly room and
I don’t remember exactly what time it was--it was a short time before
he was brought down there.
Mr. HUBERT. Who directed you?
Captain KING. Chief Curry, I believe.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he say what the purpose was?
Captain KING. He said that Oswald was going to be brought down to the
assembly room and the newsmen were going to be down there and he wanted
a policeman down there to maintain order.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he consult with you as to whether or not this was the
proper thing to do?
Captain KING. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Would it have been normal for him to consult with you in
your position as public relations officer?
Captain KING. Probably not--no.
Mr. HUBERT. You did not offer any objection to this proposal?
Captain KING. I did not.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if anyone else did?
Captain KING. No, sir; I don’t--I don’t know.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if there had been any release made by anyone in
the police department to the press that Oswald had not confessed?
Captain KING. No, I don’t. I don’t know whether there was or not--that
he had not confessed?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Captain KING. I think it probably was--I think it was mentioned that
there had not been a statement--I think it was mentioned too, that he
denied knowledge of the murder, so I’m sure the statement along this
line was made to the press.
Mr. HUBERT. Perhaps by inference and implication you have already
answered the following question but I want to ask it now--is it your
thought that in this particular case more information was given to the
press and more latitude was given than would normally be given in a
murder case which did not involve the President of the United States?
Captain KING. Probably--probably more, certainly there were more people
there that were more involved in it than there would have been, I
think, under any other circumstances.
Mr. HUBERT. I would think, then, that this would be considered to be a
wholly abnormal situation, that is to say, physical conditions and the
mass of people--the importance of the case and so forth?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What was the relationship between the police department and
the district attorney’s office in handling the press, was there any
coordination of effort?
Captain KING. Mr. Wade was at the police department most of the time,
or quite a lot of the time. I think Mr. Alexander was there some. There
was discussion made of what would be released to the press whether
there was any discussion with him on the actual physical handling of
the press and permission for them to be there or not, I don’t recall.
Mr. HUBERT. Who discussed with Mr. Wade or any other member of the
district attorney’s office, what would be released to the press?
Captain KING. I did on one occasion, or at least I was present on one
occasion when a discussion was had with Mr. Wade, and this was the only
occasion that I can recall.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us about it, please, sir?
Captain KING. I think it was--I’m not sure which night it was, whether
it was on Saturday night or on Sunday night--I don’t remember whether
it was before or after Oswald was killed--Chief Curry was not there,
but he had said to the press in my presence, and said to me that there
were elements of evidence that he was not going to comment on, and he
told me that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had requested that we
not comment on some of the evidence and that it was not his intention
to do so.
In Chief Curry’s absence there was a meeting in the chief’s office
at which I was present, Captain Fritz was there and Chief Stevenson
was there and I think Chief Lumpkin was there and Chief Batchelor was
there, and there was a discussion with Mr. Wade on the release of
certain information, and I don’t exactly remember what the evidence
was, but there was some evidence that Mr. Wade wanted to release to the
press.
Mr. HUBERT. Was it in relation to the prosecution of Oswald or the
prosecution of Ruby?
Captain KING. I don’t know whether--I don’t recall whether it was in
relation to the prosecution of anyone or not, or whether it was just
evidence--general evidence in the case. I don’t remember what the item
of the evidence was.
Mr. HUBERT. I asked that question in order to assist in fixing the date.
Captain KING. The date--yes; I know, but I do recall that we opposed
the release of the evidence or a statement on the evidence and that Mr.
Wade then sometime thereafter appeared before the newsmen and made some
comment regarding the evidence.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, it was at night, you say?
Captain KING. It was at night--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. It could have been either the night of the 23d or the night
of the 24th?
Captain KING. It could have been and I don’t recall.
Mr. HUBERT. Could it have been the night of the 22d, too?
Captain KING. I don’t think it was, because I think Chief Curry was at
the police station until late on the night of the 22d. I’m thinking it
was the night of the 24th, which was Sunday night, wasn’t it?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Captain KING. I’m thinking it was that night, because I know he was not
there and I think he was there until the small hours of the morning on
actually both Friday and Saturday, and I think that this was Sunday
night, but I can’t say definitely that it was.
Mr. HUBERT. But in any case it was the police department’s opinion that
the evidence should not be released?
Captain KING. It was the opinion of those members who were there that
it should not be released--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And that prevailed?
Captain KING. So far as we were concerned in our release of it--so far
as that was concerned--yes, sir; but the district attorney did make
some comment to the press regarding it.
Mr. HUBERT. And that was over your objection?
Captain KING. Well, actually, I don’t know.
Mr. HUBERT. Let me put it this way: You had decided not to do it?
Captain KING. That’s correct--we did not do it.
Mr. HUBERT. And you expressed your view to him that it should not be
done?
Captain KING. We expressed to him the statement of the chief that the
department was not going to do it. I think the chief had indicated to
the FBI we would not, or at least, this was what he told us at any rate.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if any studies have been made or policies
changed since this incident in the police department with reference to
relations with the press?
Captain KING. There has not been any change in our written policy, only
I know the chief has said--I heard him say on more than one occasion
that if we were faced with the same circumstances again, he would
certainly restrict the presence of the newsmen there and we would act
differently from the manner in which we did this time, but so far as
any change having been made in the written policy of the department, I
don’t know anything about it.
Mr. HUBERT. Of course, it is always easier in retrospect to know what
is the best thing to do, but part of a study after all is to see what
is the best thing to do.
Captain KING. Oh, yes; I think you could probably get an excellent
argument with a lot of points on both sides right now on a discussion
of what the proper treatment of the newsmen would be.
Mr. HUBERT. Given this same situation?
Captain KING. Given this same situation--yes; with the benefit of
hindsight and with the benefit of the experience you had--I think you
could raise many points--good points on both sides.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I have handed you previously two statements of
interviews with you by the FBI. I am marking a statement which is dated
January 25, 1964, by putting in the right margin the following: “May
28, 1964, Dallas, Tex., Exhibit No. 1, deposition of Capt. Glen D.
King, Leon D. Hubert, Jr.,” and then my signature, and I ask you if you
have read that report of the interview of you by FBI Agents Clements
and Sayres, and if you consider that to be a correct and proper report
of the interview?
Captain KING. Yes; sir.
Mr. HUBERT. I have also marked for identification an earlier interview
of you by FBI Agent Leo Robertson on December 9 and December 10, 1963,
and for the purpose of identification, I have marked that document as
follows: “May 28, 1964, Dallas, Tex., Exhibit No. 2, deposition of
Capt. Glen D. King,” and I have signed my name, and since it consists
of 2 pages, I have put my initials in the lower right-hand corner. I
think you have read that document, and I ask you if it is a correct and
fair statement of your interview with FBI Agent Robertson?
Captain KING. I think there is nothing in that that is incorrect. I
believe I told Agent Robertson at that time that I had in my memory
seen Jack Ruby one time prior. I had known him since 1955 or 1956, I
believe, and I think my statement to him was that I had first met him
at that time when I was in the vice squad, and I had seen him one time
since then and I had heard the name.
Mr. HUBERT. You did not see him at any time in the Dallas Police
Department building from November 22 until the shooting?
Captain KING. Not until the shooting--no, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, there is a third document which is a letter dated
December 2, 1963, addressed to Chief Curry and apparently the original
was signed by you, and I have marked it for identification as follows:
to wit: “Dallas, Tex., May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 3, deposition of Capt.
Glen D. King,” and I have signed my name under that, all of which
appears in the right hand margin of the first page, and since that
document contains 2 pages, I have put my initials at the bottom on the
right hand corner of the first page, and I ask you if that is a correct
statement of the facts as you saw them and as you reported them?
Captain KING. Yes; sir.
Mr. HUBERT. With reference to the letter addressed to Chief Curry,
dated December 2, which I have just marked for identification as
Exhibit No. 3, with reference to the second paragraph, I invite your
attention to this paragraph and ask you if you know why the press had
congregated in the basement?
Captain KING. Yes; sir. On the evening of November 23, I don’t
recall the time, but on the evening of November 23, Chief Curry had
appeared before the newsmen and had told the newsmen--they had asked
him something about--I think--if they might be able to leave and get
something to eat or get some rest and not miss anything that was there,
and Chief Curry had told them that the transfer would not be made prior
to 10 o’clock the next morning--that was Sunday morning.
Mr. HUBERT. But was any announcement made as to what route would be
used to take him out of the building?
Captain KING. Not to my knowledge--no.
Mr. HUBERT. In fact, there were several other routes by which he could
be taken?
Captain KING. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Have you heard whether anyone told them that the route
would be via the basement?
Captain KING. I don’t know whether anyone--I don’t recall whether
anyone did or not.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know why they all assembled there instead of in some
other spot?
Captain KING. No--in my thinking on it; and I don’t even know why I
thought it was going to be from the basement, but this was the only
thing that had occurred to me. There might have been something that I
heard and don’t recall, but my impression was that it was going to be
from the basement and out, and maybe because this is our normal method
of transfer, our normal way we transfer. We bring them down into the
jail office and out through the jail office and this might be why I was
thinking this about it, but this was the way I thought about it.
Mr. HUBERT. In this second paragraph of Exhibit No. 3 you say you went
to the basement because of the number of newsmen who were assembled
there. Do you mean by that that that was a matter of some concern to
you?
Captain KING. Actually no--not a matter particularly of concern--there
was not anything happening there that I thought was unusual or anything
that I was particularly concerned about. There were more newsmen going
down in there than there were up on the third floor and I went down
there actually to be available more than anything else.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, the way that the letter reads--the way that
sentence reads--the fact that newsmen were there was what motivated you
to go there?
Captain KING. That’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. Because otherwise you had no connection with the transfer?
Captain KING. That’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. And you thought it was your duty to be there since you were
the press man?
Captain KING. That’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. And where the press was, you would be?
Captain KING. That’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. I notice in the fourth paragraph you state that you talked
briefly with Captain Jones, Captain Talbert, and Captain Arnett--do you
recall the nature of the conversation?
Captain KING. I don’t recall what was said only we spoke briefly, and
I don’t remember actually what any of us said. I remembered having
seen them down there. I don’t know whether it was anything more than a
greeting or not.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you say that the conditions you have described
concerning the press, that is to say, the number of them, the noise,
the commotion, the cameras and so forth, continued to be as bad after
Oswald was shot, as those conditions had been prior to the shooting?
You see, heretofore, you have described the conditions really on the
22d and the 23d.
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And for the morning of the 24th. Then came the shooting
of Oswald, and what would you have to say about the conditions with
relation to the press after that incident as a comparison?
Captain KING. I don’t recall any noticeable change.
Mr. HUBERT. Ruby was not ever on the third floor, as I recall it, was
he?
Captain KING. I don’t know--I don’t remember ever having seen him on
the third floor--I don’t know whether he was there or not.
Mr. HUBERT. I have also shown you previously what appears to be a
galley proof of the purported publication of a speech made by you
before the meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and
I have marked this document for identification as follows: “Dallas,
Texas, May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 4, deposition of Capt. Glen D. King,”
and I have signed my name in the right-hand margin.
The pages that I have shown you are marked with blue ink--this is page
7 and it is on that page that I have marked the identification data
which I have just dictated.
On page 8, marked in blue ink, I have put my name in the bottom
right-hand corner, the same with page 9, and the same with page 10, and
the same with page 11, where your speech ends at the top of page 11,
and also I have marked my name on the bottom of page 17, because there
is a comment by you there on that page, and the same with pages 18, 19,
and 20.
Now, I think you have read this galley proof?
Captain KING. I have--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Addressing ourselves now to pages 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11,
which is the body of your speech, would you say that this is a correct
report of what you said?
Captain KING. I’m sure it is--yes--as I said, I did not read this. I
had a prepared text there that I actually didn’t particularly follow.
I spoke more extemporaneously then, and I can’t remember exactly my
wordage on it, but there is nothing in there I think that I did not
say. There is nothing incorrect there.
Mr. HUBERT. Turning to page 17, it appears that a Mr. Black asked you
to comment on a point, and there is printed on this galley proof on
page 17 what purports to be your comment, and I think that you told me
that you wanted to make some correction as to that comment?
Captain KING. Only in one word only. My answer as listed on this----
Mr. HUBERT. On page 17?
Captain KING. On page 17--it is written here, “I think it probably
would be improper for me to comment on this even before the other
members of the panel,” and I think what I said there, and certainly
what I would have intended to say, is, “I think it probable that it
probably would be improper for me to comment on this even more than the
other members of the panel.”