on it, and you least of all?
Captain KING. Me least of all--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. On other pages there are comments that appeared by you and
I understand from what you tell me that these--this galley proof fairly
represents what is correct as to what you said, as far as you can
remember?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I would like the record to show that this galley proof
shows some corrections made apparently by some editorial process, and
at other places there are some apparent typewriter corrections and some
words changed or added by pen and ink and that these various changes
and comments were not made by me or by Captain King but are in the
same condition as were received by me from the American Association of
Newspaper Editors in this way, that by letter dated May 26, 1964. Mr.
Gene Giancarlo, G-i-a-n-c-a-r-l-o [spelling], addressed a letter to Mr.
Barefoot Sanders, U.S. attorney, enclosing this galley proof, and that
Mr. Sanders handed this to me this morning.
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. All of these comments being relative to Exhibit No. 4.
Captain King, is there anything you would like to add to what has been
said?
Captain KING. I think not.
Mr. HUBERT. Immediately prior to the beginning of this deposition, I
had a short conversation with you in which I showed you the various
documents that were introduced. The rules of the Commission require
that I now ask you if there was any discussion between us concerning
those documents or anything else that is not covered in the deposition?
Captain KING. I recall nothing that was said before that was not
covered after the deposition was begun.
Mr. HUBERT. And there is nothing inconsistent between what we spoke of
before and what was covered in the deposition?
Captain KING. No inconsistencies.
Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, Captain.
Captain KING. Thank you. This is not of any particular value--this that
I have here--but this is what I had prepared.
Mr. HUBERT. Let’s get this in the record, Captain, that you have
referred to a prepared speech that you went to the American Society of
Newspapers conference with, as to what you have already testified, that
you used this as a basis but actually spoke largely extemporaneously.
Captain KING. That’s correct, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You have also indicated to me that I may introduce this
prepared copy of the text for whatever it is worth?
Captain KING. Yes; sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And I will do that and mark it for identification as
follows, to wit: I am placing in the right-hand margin the words,
“Dallas, Texas, the date May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 5, deposition of
Capt. Glen D. King,” and I am signing my name below that and I am
initialing the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth,
the seventh and the eighth pages by placing my initials in the lower
right-hand corner.
I have not read this Exhibit No. 5--do you know if there is anything in
it that was omitted from the speech?
Captain KING. Not from the speech proper. Actually, I think there
are no inconsistencies between this and the speech. There might
have been some things said in the prepared text that I didn’t say
there, and I think there was, or vice versa, but I think there are no
inconsistencies.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, in any case, the contents of Exhibit No. 5, whether
or not spoken by you at the time you made your speech, represents your
views in any case?
Captain KING. That’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir, I think that is all. Thank you very much,
Captain, and we appreciate it.
Captain KING. Thank you--I appreciate this opportunity to speak with
you.
TESTIMONY OF C. RAY HALL
The testimony of C. Ray Hall was taken at 2 p.m., on May 28, 1964, in
the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Byran and
Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant
counsel of the President’s Commission.
Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Mr. C. Ray Hall.
Mr. Hall, my name is Leon D. Hubert. I am a member of the advisory
staff of the general counsel of the President’s Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy. Under the provisions of Executive
Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, issued by President Johnson, and
the joint resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of procedure
adopted by the President’s Commission in conformity with the Executive
order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn
deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of
the Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon
the facts relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular, as to
you, Mr. Hall, our inquiry today is to determine what facts you know
about the death of Oswald, the interviews of Ruby, and any other
pertinent facts that you may know about the general inquiry.
Mr. Hall, you appear today, I think, by virtue of a request made by
Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel of the staff of the President’s
Commission to Mr. Hoover, and I suppose through Mr. Shanklin that you
appear before me to take a deposition.
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Under the rules adopted by the Commission, all witnesses
are entitled to 3 days’ written notice prior to the taking of their
deposition, but the rules also provide that a witness may waive that
3-day written notice if he wishes to do so, and I ask you now--do you
desire to waive that 3-day written notice?
Mr. HALL. I will consent to waive the 3-day written notice for
appearance before the Commission’s representative.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you rise, please, so that I may administer the oath?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give here
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. HALL. I do.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name?
Mr. HALL. C. Ray Hall.
Mr. HUBERT. How old are you, Mr. Hall?
Mr. HALL. 45.
Mr. HUBERT. Where do you live?
Mr. HALL. Dallas, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?
Mr. HALL. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so employed?
Mr. HALL. Over 21 years.
Mr. HUBERT. And how long have you been stationed in the Dallas office
area?
Mr. HALL. Almost 8 years.
Mr. HUBERT. Did I ask you your house residence?
Mr. HALL. I live at 6542 Ellsworth in Dallas, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Hall, were you in Dallas on the 24th of November 1963?
Mr. HALL. I was.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you have occasion on that date to interview or speak to
a man by the name of Jack Ruby?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you know him prior to that date?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you tell us the circumstances under which you did
talk to him? That is to say, how you were assigned the place, time, and
so forth?
Mr. HALL. I was in the office of the chief of police in Dallas, Tex.,
at approximately 12:35 p.m. on November 24, 1963, when I received a
telephone call from the special agent in charge of the FBI in Dallas,
Tex., Mr. J. Gordon Shanklin, who instructed me to interview Jack Ruby.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you have to secure the permission of the chief to do
so, just tell us what happened after that?
Mr. HALL. I immediately contacted the chief of police, Jesse Curry, and
advised him that I would like to interview Jack Ruby.
Mr. HUBERT. You were in the same building at the time--you were in his
office, the chief of police’s office?
Mr. HALL. I was in his office at the time I received the telephone call.
Mr. HUBERT. And he was in there too?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. So, you were able to talk to him immediately?
Mr. HALL. Yes; well, actually, I took the phone call outside of
his office, just outside of his office. I went into his office and
explained to him that I would like to talk to Jack Ruby. Chief Curry
stepped outside his office where a uniformed officer was and instructed
this officer to take me immediately to where Jack Ruby was, and
instructed the officers there on duty that I was to interview Jack Ruby
immediately.
Mr. HUBERT. And where was Jack Ruby, then, when you first saw him?
Mr. HALL. Jack Ruby was in a cell in the city jail at Dallas, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. Was he interviewed in that cell or elsewhere?
Mr. HALL. He was in a cell block area, by that I mean, there was an
outer door and then a series of cells, with a hallway in between and
he was the only occupant in that cell block area, the only prisoner
being held in that area. There was a table and some chairs in the space
between the front of the cells.
Mr. HUBERT. In the hallways?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; Ruby came outside to the table and we sat at the
table during the time I interviewed him.
Mr. HUBERT. And your interview must have begun, then, about 5 minutes
later, you suppose?
Mr. HALL. My interview with Jack Ruby commenced at 12:40 p.m. on
November 24, 1963.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you know who else was present at the time you first
went in?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Who was that?
Mr. HALL. Detective T. D. McMillon [spelling] M-c-M-i-l-l-o-n, of
the auto theft bureau was seated in front of the cell where Ruby was
sitting at the time I walked in. Just a few minutes later another
detective named B. S. Clardy [spelling] C-l-a-r-d-y, from the auto
theft bureau of the Dallas Police Department came in. A uniformed
officer, K. H. Haake [spelling] H-a-a-k-e, Badge No. 1107, was on guard
duty at the outer door of the cell block.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, did those three persons you have mentioned remain
within the sight and hearing of your interviewing of Jack Ruby
throughout the whole time, from the beginning to the end?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, maybe we would be better to get the change of
personnel first before we get into the statement. Could you clarify
that--for instance--if McMillon left and someone else took his place
and Clardy left, if you have a notation of that it will be helpful.
Mr. HALL. Officer Haake was some distance away at the outer door.
He was present there but I doubt seriously if he heard the complete
interview.
Mr. HUBERT. Was he inside or outside the outer door?
Mr. HALL. He was outside.
Mr. HUBERT. Outside the outer door?
Mr. HALL. Yes; Detectives McMillon and Clardy were present up until
3:15 p.m. when Jack Ruby was taken to the office of Capt. Will Fritz,
the homicide and robbery bureau of the Dallas Police Department. After
Ruby came back upstairs to the jail from the interview with Captain
Fritz, apparently Detectives McMillon and Clardy had gone off duty
and from that time on I was alone with Ruby in that cell block area
interviewing him.
Mr. HUBERT. There was, then, sort of an interruption of your
interviewing?
Mr. HALL. Yes; there were interruptions.
Mr. HUBERT. How long did this interruption take, so that we might, for
instance, fix the time when the second part of this began, if you are
able to help us on that?
Mr. HALL. There was more than one interruption, yes, sir; and I first
entered the cell where Ruby was confined at 12:40 p.m. on November
24, 1963. Ruby conferred with Attorney Tom Howard from 1:58 p.m. to
2:02 p.m. He was then examined by Dr. Fred A. Bieberdorf (spelling)
B-i-e-b-e-r-d-o-r-f, at 2:06 p.m. and I interviewed Ruby again from
2:24 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. I then returned to interviewing Jack Ruby
from 4:30 until 5:30 p.m.
Mr. HUBERT. And at 5:30 p.m. your interviewing was over with?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And, as I understand it, then McMillon and Clardy were
there from the time you began at 12:40 until the time you first
stopped, that is, at 2:24, roughly?
Mr. HALL. McMillon and Clardy were actually with me from 12:40 until
3:15, because at the time Ruby was taken down to another floor to talk
with his attorney and be examined by the doctor, McMillon, Clardy and I
all went to the floor where he was taken, so we were all together all
during that time from 12:40 p.m. until 3:15 p.m.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, you reinterviewed him for another hour, from 4:30 to
5:30?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, from 3:15 to 4:30 he was being interviewed by Captain
Fritz?
Mr. HALL. He was interviewed by Captain Fritz and then he was arraigned
before Justice of the Peace Pierce McBride on a charge of shooting and
killing Lee Harvey Oswald. Then he was returned to the fifth floor of
the jail where he was searched by the jailers and given a white shirt
and trousers as jail clothing and then returned to his cell. That is
what occurred between 3:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you present during that period, 3:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, you were with Ruby all the way through?
Mr. HALL. Yes; I was with Ruby from 12:40 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. I
did not participate in the interview by Captain Fritz, nor did I
participate in any search of Ruby’s things, but I was present.
Mr. HUBERT. But you were present?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. When you first went there, you found McMillon and Clardy?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And Mr. Sorrels of the Secret Service was not there?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Dean was not there, I believe, of the Dallas Police
Department--P. T. Dean--only the two of them?
Mr. HALL. Those two officers were the only ones present, and Officer
Haake was at an outer door. Mr. Sorrels of the Secret Service was in
Captain Fritz’ office during the time that Ruby was being interviewed
down there.
Mr. HUBERT. But he was not present when you interviewed him?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Let me ask you this general question: first of all, did you
or anyone in your presence, threaten Jack Ruby, offer him any promises
of help, take any action or do anything to affect the voluntary nature
of what he said?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Is it your opinion that what Jack Ruby told you was
completely voluntary?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. At 12:45 p.m. on November 24 I advised Jack Ruby
at the beginning of the interview that he was not required to make any
statement, that he had a right to talk with an attorney before making
any statement and that any statements he made could be used against him
in a court of law.
Mr. HUBERT. And he indicated he understood what that meant?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he ask for any attorney?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. How did Mr. Howard get into the matter; do you know?
Mr. HALL. I was interviewing Jack Ruby when one of the jailers, a
uniformed officer that I did not know, came in and said that an
attorney was downstairs and wanted to talk with Jack Ruby. I told him
that Jack was available immediately to go talk with his attorney. Jack
was wearing only a pair of shorts. The officers produced his clothing,
gave him a shirt, trousers, his shoes, and then after dressing, he went
downstairs and then talked to Mr. Howard.
Mr. HUBERT. You went with him too?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; I went with him too. Ruby did not know who the
attorney was.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he recognize him when he saw him? I mean, did he say
anything or do anything to indicate he did?
Mr. HALL. I don’t know--Ruby walked over to a door where there was a
screen where people can confer with prisoners and I was at the back of
the room and I did not hear any of the conversation. They had a private
talk--Ruby and Mr. Howard had a private talk.
Mr. HUBERT. Through the usual accommodations for attorneys-clients?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. They are separated by a screen?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; and I stayed with the other officers and we were
back. I knew Mr. Howard personally, I knew who he was, but whether Jack
Ruby did or not, I do not know.
Mr. HUBERT. And that was, as I understand it, between 1:58 and 2:02?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Or just about 6 minutes?
Mr. HALL. Four minutes.
Mr. HUBERT. Four minutes--and then he was brought back up?
Mr. HALL. The jail doctor, Dr. Fred A. Bieberdorf, was in the jail
area and had apparently been there on other business, and one of the
officers, I don’t recall whether it was McMillon or Clardy, asked the
doctor to look at Jack Ruby while he was there.
Mr. HUBERT. And when was that finished?
Mr. HALL. We returned to the floor above there, the fifth floor, and
they--the police officers removed the clothing that had been given Jack
and he was returned back to where he was wearing his shorts. Then, I
started interviewing him again.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, this has been clarified to some extent already, but I
would like to clarify it a bit further. Prior to doing so, let me mark
the documents--I’m going to refer to for identification. I have marked
the document which purports to be a report of an interview by you,
Mr. Hall, of Jack Ruby taken on November 24, 1963, appearing in the
Clements’ report of November 30, 1963, at pages 160, 161, 162, and 163.
We are identifying that document on the first page as follows: I have
written into the right-hand margin the words, “Dallas, Texas, May 28,
1964, Exhibit No. 1 of the deposition of C. Ray Hall,” and I have
signed it “Leon D. Hubert, Jr.,” and I have marked the next page of
that document, being page 161, with my initials in the lower right-hand
corner and the same with pages 162 and 163.
The other document also purports to be a report of an interview by
you of Jack Ruby, dated, on the face of it. November 25, 1963. I have
marked that document on the first page with the following: “Dallas,
Texas, May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 2 of the deposition of C. Ray Hall,
Leon D. Hubert.” This document with the successive pages also appears
in the Clements’ report of November 30, 1963, pages 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, and 18, and as to each of those pages, I have identified them for
the purpose of this deposition by marking my initials in the lower
right-hand corner.
Now, there has already been clarification, as you know, concerning
the date on this Exhibit No. 2, that this was really an interview of
November 24 rather than November 25.
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, they are both November 24?
Mr. HALL. Yes; that was a typographical error.
Mr. HUBERT. Yes; that was a typographical error and that has been
clarified.
What I would like to have clarified now was whether or not these
two documents, and which actually appear in different places in the
Clements’ report, and to which I have given two exhibit numbers, really
are a composite of the same interview, or does one of them refer to the
first half, such as you have described it, and another to the other
half? In other words, your interview was interrupted, you see, and I
don’t know whether this is a composite of all of it or whether one of
them deals with that first half, which went from 12:40 or 12:44 to 3:15
p.m. and the other part from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., just how it came to
be--that there were two separate documents?
Mr. HALL. These two documents are a composite of the entire interview.
The reason they were divided is for reporting purposes. By that, I
mean, that the first document relates to the events that happened.
Mr. HUBERT. And by that “the first document” would you use by
identification the exhibit numbers I have given them--which one do you
mean by “the first”? The first one in Clements’, of course, is Exhibit
No. 2, as far as physical position is concerned, because it runs from
page 13 to page 18 of the first volume of the Clements’ report of
November 30.
Mr. HALL. Your exhibit number here is wrong.
Mr. HUBERT. That’s Commission Document No. 4, you see?
Mr. HALL. And this is what [indicating]?
Mr. HUBERT. Well, this is Commission Document No. 4 too, but different
volumes.
Mr. HALL. Commission Document No. 4, vol. 1, relates primarily to the
event that happened involving Jack Ruby.
Mr. HUBERT. That has been identified by us as Exhibit No. 2 for this
deposition.
Mr. HALL. Yes; Exhibit No. 1, which is Commission Document No. 4, vol.
2, relates to background information. In this report we tried to set up
a section of the report dealing with the background of Ruby.
Another section dealing with the event surrounding the murder of Lee
Harvey Oswald was set up, and it was for that reason that there were
two separate reports of an interview here set out, but it was actually
a composite of the information obtained during this time between 12:40
p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on November 24, 1963.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I notice from your report and principally, for
example, at the bottom of page 15 on Exhibit No. 2 that Ruby refused
to answer certain things and would not say, for instance, how he got
into the basement and why he brought his revolver and so forth. Do you
recall, or is there any way you can tell us whether that denial on
his part came before or after he was interviewed by his attorney, Mr.
Howard?
Mr. HALL. Well----
Mr. HUBERT. I notice that you are referring to some notes; are those
the notes that you took contemporaneously with the interviewing?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Have you a copy that will be available for introducing into
the record?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. These are your entire notes on the transactions?
Mr. HALL. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You say there are two parts?
Mr. HALL. I have three copies of the same thing here for your benefit,
Mr. Hubert. There are 3 pages there.
Mr. HUBERT. I understand; is this your entire notes?
Mr. HALL. This is an interview log in which I set forth the
circumstances of the interview. These are not my notes on the actual
interview. I do not have my notes of that interview. I took my notes
and prepared these reports of the interview and I commenced the night
following the interview and after that was typed up, then I destroyed
the notes that I took at the time.
Mr. HUBERT. So, actually the running notes of the interviews themselves
do not exist?
Mr. HALL. That’s right.
Mr. HUBERT. That is, as I understand it, standard practice and the
interview notes are destroyed after the report is made?
Mr. HALL. After the report of the interview has been prepared. In this
case it was a matter of hours following that, and this represents my
notes in effect because it was prepared from them.
Mr. HUBERT. It was prepared directly from them?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And immediately--the same day?
Mr. HALL. Immediately afterwards; it probably actually was extended
after midnight that night.
Mr. HUBERT. What you have handed me as being your notes is really a log?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. It’s a log showing the times, the date, who was
present, and specifically the times and what happened.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, I’m going to mark it for the purpose of
identification as follows: “Dallas, Texas, May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 4
of the deposition of C. Hay Hall.” On the first page I am signing my
name below that. There is a second page which I am initialing in the
lower right-hand corner and a third page which I am initialing in the
right hand corner, and Mr. Hall, you have been kind enough to supply
me with two extra copies which I thank you for, but I will just mark
the one for identification, and I think you have already testified
concerning what it is.
Mr. HALL. Back to your previous question as to whether this denial on
the part of Ruby was before or after his conference with an attorney,
Mr. Tom Howard, I believe his conference with Mr. Howard was after that
denial?
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, he had refused to tell you he got in, in
effect?
Mr. HALL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Prior to having talked with Mr. Howard?
Mr. HALL. Yes; I based that on the time he went there, because his
conference with Mr. Howard was almost 2 o’clock and there was only--a
majority of the interview had been conducted before then.
Mr. HUBERT. Which was--an hour and 15 minutes it had been going on
already?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Was he speaking freely to you?
Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, if you will refer again to what I have marked as
Exhibit No. 2, I notice that Ruby at that time mentions a girl by the
name of Karen Bennett of Fort Worth and about sending her a telegram.
There is no mention in this report of having received a telephone call
from her. Am I correct, then, in my assumption that he did not tell you
that at that time?
Mr. HALL. He did not tell me that at that time.
Mr. HUBERT. I take it also that he did not tell you that the girl had
called him at that time--he did not tell you at that time that the
girl had called him on the night before?
Mr. HALL. That’s true. He did not tell me at that time.