that the press, in an effort to get an interview, started making such
accusations?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I did not hear any of these.
Mr. HUBERT. You did not?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. I’ll say this again in all fairness to the
officers that were involved in this thing, with knowing the seriousness
of this incident, the international importance of it--that Chief Curry
and his subordinate officers made every effort to allow Lee Harvey
Oswald to be seen by the press--to see that the man was not being
physically abused, that he wasn’t being tortured in any way. I saw
none of it personally myself. That would have been out of the realm
of reasonableness. He was spoken to in a normal, calm voice by the
officers who spoke to him, and I just can’t see it any other way except
that Chief Curry tried every way he could, with the national and
international importance of this thing, to allow the press to make its
coverage of it.
Mr. HUBERT. You never saw any indication of maltreatment of Oswald at
all?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; none whatsoever in the period of some 7 or 8
hours that I was connected with it.
Mr. HUBERT. Oswald made no such accusations in your presence?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. As I say, the only thing he said was when he
was brought in for the arraignment on President Kennedy, and he says
to me, “Is this the trial?” I said, “No, sir; I have to arraign you
again on another offense.” And, there was some seven or eight officer
witnesses to that arraignment and an assistant district attorney, and
that assistant district attorney at that time was Mr. Maurice Harrell
[spelling] H-a-r-r-e-l-l.
Mr. HUBERT. I believe that is all, sir. I’m obliged to ask you these
questions to end it up: I don’t think that we have had any conversation
that has been off the record?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Nor any conversation prior to the beginning of this
deposition?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. So that all that has passed between us has been recorded?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming down.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I hope that some of it might help shed a little light.
Mr. HUBERT. I’m sure it will. I’m sure they have copies of the
affidavits?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; I’m sure they have. Those were turned over to
the FBI, however, no one from the Commission has ever asked for those.
Mr. HUBERT. Could we make copies of those affidavits?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, I will mark the copies for identification. Mr.
Johnston, you will furnish for me certified copies--you have shown
me the originals of the affidavits, F-153, F-154 and F-155. We are
going to have photostatic copies made of those. The originals will be
returned to you, and when the photostatic copies are brought back to
me, I will mark them for identification as follows, to wit: F-153 will
be Exhibit No. 3 of the deposition of David L. Johnston, F-154 will
be Exhibit No. 4 of the deposition of David L. Johnston, and F-155
will be Exhibit No. 5 of the deposition of David L. Johnston, which
will be marked by me for identification after you leave, but these
will be photostatic copies of the originals which will remain in your
possession.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I could do this--make copies now?
Mr. HUBERT. Let’s discuss this a little bit more before you leave--you
think you can get the copies made and just bring them to the office
here and hand them to me this afternoon?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; and I will take these affidavits over to the
company across the street myself and bring them back for you.
Mr. HUBERT. All right. That will be fine.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I’ll do that now.
TESTIMONY OF STANLEY M. KAUFMAN
The testimony of Stanley M. Kaufman was taken at 9 a.m., on June 27,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan 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 Stanley M. Kaufman.
Mr. Kaufman, my name is Leon D. Hubert. I am a member of the advisory
staff of the general counsel on the President’s Commission. Under the
provisions of Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and
the joint resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of procedure
adopted by the President’s Commission in conformance with the Executive
order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a
sworn deposition from you. I state to you that the general nature of
the Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon
the facts relative to the assassination of President Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald.
In particular as to you, Mr. Kaufman, the nature of the inquiry is to
determine what facts you know about the death of Oswald and any other
pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry and about Jack
Ruby and his operations and associations and so forth.
I think you have appeared here today by virtue of a letter written
to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff of the
President’s Commission, asking you to come, isn’t that correct?
Mr. KAUFMAN. That is correct.
Mr. HUBERT. The rules of the Commission provide that every witness
is entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of their
deposition, to commence from the date of the letter of request. It’s
probable that the letter request was dated the 22d and therefore the
3 days have passed, and on the other hand, you may not have received
it until later, and therefore I want to say to you that the rules also
provide that a witness may waive the 3-day notice in the event the
3-day notice has not actually been given, and so I ask you if you are
willing to waive, in the event that technically the 3-day notice has
not elapsed.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, I don’t know when the notice was received. I
do know that I did talk to Mrs. Stroud of the U.S. attorney’s office,
who helped rearrange the appointment which originally was scheduled at
1 o’clock. If there was not sufficient notice, we would certainly agree
to waive it.
I would like to point out probably another error in your notice and
that was in the name. It was addressed to Stanley F. Kaufman. The
correct name is Stanley M. Kaufman, and as far as that notice is
concerned with respect to the name being incorrect on the notice, we
would likewise waive that.
Mr. HUBERT. What does the “M” stand for?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mike.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you stand and raise your right hand and I will
administer the oath?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I do.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Stanley Mike Kaufman.
Mr. HUBERT. Where do you reside?
Mr. KAUFMAN. 6831 Northport.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?
Mr. KAUFMAN. An attorney.
Mr. HUBERT. You are admitted to the bar of the State of Texas?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I am admitted to the bar of the State of Texas; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been practicing law?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Actually, I graduated from SMU in 1942 and was admitted
to practice law in 1942. I immediately went into the service and was
discharged in October 1945, and have been in active practice since a
little after October 1945, when I returned to Dallas.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Kaufman, do you know Jack L. Ruby?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; I am acquainted with Jack Ruby.
Mr. HUBERT. How long have you known him?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Actually, Mr. Hubert, it has been difficult in my own mind
to really go back, but I did go back into my files some time ago and I
believe that the statement you have here that I knew him since 1954 is
pretty accurate. It may be a few years difference either way.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Kaufman, on several occasions in the past you have been
attorney or lawyer for Mr. Ruby, is that not so?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I have handled some matters for Mr. Ruby; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you have any connection as an attorney for Mr. Ruby
with reference to the homicide of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. KAUFMAN. No.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, in the course of this examination, Mr. Kaufman, it may
be that some of the questions that I would ask would require answers
which may invade or violate in some way the lawyer-client privilege
which might exist between you and Mr. Ruby. I might not know that. On
the other hand, I think you are in a position to know it. I want to
state to you that it is not my purpose or the Commission’s purpose to
cause you to violate or to jeopardize or compromise that lawyer-client
relationship or privilege in the slightest way whatsoever. Therefore,
I invite you to state to me at any time that you think the questions
I ask require an answer that may violate or jeopardize or compromise
that lawyer-client privilege. I assure you we will drop the matter
immediately. Perhaps you wish to state your position on that problem
now.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hubert. I would make this statement that
you inquired about my contact with Jack Ruby regarding the homicide.
I did not visit or see him prior to the trial of his case other than
seeing him in the courtroom when I testified in the change of venue
hearing and also on the date I testified as a defense witness.
I saw him on three occasions subsequent to that, all within a week.
Other than that, I have had no immediate contact with Jack Ruby or
discussed his case with him, and I give you this so that, not able to
anticipate what you might ask, I can outline this to you and this would
be the relationship--the only relationship that I have had with him
since the date of this homicide.
I have had a number of contacts with him on civil matters and if any
of these encroached upon the privilege, I personally believe that if
Jack were asked, and if he is mentally able to, he would waive the
privilege. Had we known that you wanted this done, we probably could
have arranged it as time permitted. However, I don’t feel that there is
anything that I could add or give the Commission that he would hesitate
about or want me not to give, and I would like the record to reflect
that even if we take advantage of the privilege at this time, that I
would like the record to reflect that we would like at that time to
present this matter to Ruby so that he could waive the privilege and
that we could give you this information in the event we encroach upon
the privilege at any time during the taking of the deposition.
Mr. HUBERT. Let me commence then by asking you this. I have previously
handed to you and I think you have read, a document which I have marked
for identification as follows: In the margin of the first page “Dallas,
Texas, June 27, 1964, Exhibit No. 1, Deposition of Stanley Kaufman”
and I have signed my name below that and on the second page, and the
document consists of two pages only, I have marked my initials in the
lower right-hand corner.
This document, Mr. Kaufman, purports to be a report of an interview of
you by FBI Agents Neeley and Rice on November 26, 1963. I think you
have read it and I now hand it back to you and ask you if it’s correct
or if you have any changes or modifications to make in that document.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, I would say that there are a number of
inaccuracies in this report, probably not of a major concern.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, I wish you would point them out, identifying
them, so that a person reading the record later can know what you’re
talking about.
Mr. KAUFMAN. First, let me explain how the statement was taken. It’s
not a statement as you correctly stated. It’s a report. Whether or
not Neeley and Rice were the agents who talked to me, I wouldn’t
know because I didn’t take their names down. I was called by the
Dallas office of the FBI one evening and asked if they could make
an appointment to see me regarding the Jack Ruby case and I advised
them that they could and that I was available then and there, so they
told me in about 15 minutes they would come over. Both of the agents
came by my office at 1520 Mercantile Securities Building, identified
themselves, and sat down and asked me a number of questions, most of
which are, I would say, covered in the third paragraph here.
Mr. HUBERT. That’s Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; of Exhibit No. 1. Now, three of the--I mean--there
were three basic concerns that they talked to me about. They didn’t
just ask questions and write anything down. We just conversed similar
to a conversation that you and I might have with a person in our
office. Their main concern seemed to be (1) whether or not I knew Ruby,
and (2) whether or not I knew him to be a Communist, and (3) whether or
not I knew of any connection or relationship with Lee Oswald.
Thereafter, we had a lot of other discussions which are not reported
here. Primarily, the concern that I had that was called to my attention
by a lot of people who called me and seemed concerned that the name
Rubenstein had been invoked in this case, and we probably spent a
greater part of the discussion on the prejudices that had been invoked,
rather than the things that are reported in the statement.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you interviewed by the agents more than once?
Mr. KAUFMAN. No; just once. As I say, the statement does not
cover--this report does not cover all of that, and I think they’ve got
some of the facts confused by virtue of our discussion, so I’ll go by
this paragraph-by-paragraph, and when I say “this,” I’m talking about
this exhibit which I am holding in my hand at this time and I think you
identified it as Exhibit No. 1.
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Mr. KAUFMAN. In the first paragraph the name is stated. It should
be “Stanley M. Kaufman”. The rest of the paragraph is substantially
correct.
In paragraph 2, reference is made that I was acquainted with Jack Ruby
and was not familiar with his activities in Chicago, which is true. I
knew nothing about his background and in fact I never knew that his
name was Rubenstein. In the years that I knew him and in the years that
I represented him, his name was Jack Ruby. Every legal instrument that
I have in my file has always referred to Jack Ruby, and this is what
disturbed me. In all the years that I knew Jack, I never knew his name
was Rubenstein, not that he withheld it from me, but he was known in
Dallas as Jack Rubenstein.
The conclusion that the agents have in their report that “he considered
Ruby one of the most active Jewish bachelors in the synagogue” is
something that I don’t know exactly what this meant, and I’ve put a
question mark by the side of this line. I indicated and so indicate at
this time that Jack Ruby was a bachelor to the best of my knowledge.
Mention is made in the third paragraph about Alice Nichols----
Mr. HUBERT. Before you leave the synagogue, I wanted to ask you
something more on that.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, I’ll come back to it. I just wanted to say that
I did know that he and Alice were quite friendly and at times I
think Jack had mentioned to me that he wished he could be worthy
enough to marry Alice, but apparently he did not marry her. As far
as his activities in the synagogue, the only time that I knew Jack
Ruby was active in the synagogue, he did go for a period of time to
recite memorial services for one of his deceased parents, which was
commendable, because many people today don’t do those things. I mean,
it’s a voluntary thing, but as far as other activities, I wouldn’t know
what would be meant here. I have served on the board of my synagogue
for over 7 years.
Mr. HUBERT. Is that Shearith Israel?
Mr. KAUFMAN. It is Rabbi Silverman’s synagogue. So, when this document
says “active,” I wouldn’t know what they meant because frankly I don’t
know the facts on which they base this conclusion.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you characterize his attendance or his relationship to
the synagogue as “active” when you were interviewed by the FBI?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, as far as the actual words used, I wouldn’t
recall. I do say that he attended services more than usual during that
period of time. As far as other activities are concerned, I don’t
recall that he has been active. To that extent, though, that’s what
disturbs me a little when they put this in their report.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you one of the officials--a member of the board of
trustees of the synagogue?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I have been. I’m not at this time, but I have been.
In other words, in our synagogue we have an autonomous group which
is--actually, we are a nonprofit corporation. We have a president and
other officers and we have a board of directors, and I have served on
two occasions as a director 3 years each. You cannot succeed yourself
as director, and I was also secretary for a year in between my term.
Mr. HUBERT. What I’m getting at is did you have occasion to observe
whether Ruby was active in the normal sense of that word, with respect
to religious activities?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Actually, that’s what disturbs me, Mr. Hubert. As far as I
know, he’s never been on any committee, he’s never been an usher during
the services--these things--so when you use the word “active”, he
attended services.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he attend regularly--there is a regular service, isn’t
there?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Oh, there are services every day and there are services on
Friday and there are services this morning, and in fact, if I wanted
to have been very technical, I could have advised you I didn’t want to
testify today, that it was in violation of my Sabbath.
Now, whether I myself could be one who could tell you this would be
unfair, because frankly, I can’t say that I’m in attendance every day,
and as a result I believe there is only one person that I know who
could give you such an opinion and that would be a person such as a
rabbi, a person who is in daily attendance, and I personally am not in
that category and therefore I would rather not pass on it.
Mr. HUBERT. There were services on Friday, November 22, the night
of the President’s death, and I ask you if you were present at that
service?
Mr. KAUFMAN. No, sir; I was not present.
Mr. HUBERT. There were also services on Saturday morning, November 23,
and I ask you if you were present at those services?
Mr. KAUFMAN. No; I wasn’t present then. I was supposed to go to
Abilene, Tex., to take a deposition on that Saturday and I recall
having to cancel my taking of the deposition because I felt so bad
about the assassination, but I do recall that I had a plane reservation
to leave Dallas at that time.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, will you continue with your comments on Exhibit
No. 1?
Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, getting down to paragraph (3). The statement
in regard to trips by Ruby are substantially correct. The comment
about a visit to Cuba to visit an acquaintance who works in a casino
there--now, I don’t recall that I made any statement that the man
worked in a casino. It was my recollection that I felt or thought that
the man was supposed to be a gambler, and I think prior to the taking
of the deposition, this morning, you and I commented about this when
you gave me an opportunity to examine it, and I believe this man’s
name was McWillie, if I’m not mistaken, but whether he worked at the
casino or not, I don’t know. I didn’t know then and I don’t know now. I
wouldn’t make the statement that he worked in the casino.
Mr. HUBERT. In any case, the only thing you would know about it would
be what Ruby told you?
Mr. KAUFMAN. What Jack had told me, correct.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember when that was?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, I wouldn’t even try to guess. I don’t believe
Castro was in office at that time. As I recall--of course--it might
have been right at the time when the takeover took place. I would
rather not even try to venture a guess.
Mr. HUBERT. Are you aware from any source, including Ruby, whether he
took more than one trip to Cuba?
Mr. KAUFMAN. If he took more than one trip, I am not aware of it.
Actually, I couldn’t even swear he took this one, except he told me he
was going and I assumed he went, but he sent me no postcards, I got no
souvenirs or anything that would actually put me in a position where I
could tell you definitely he was in Cuba.
Mr. HUBERT. Could you tell us why he would inform you that he was going
to Cuba?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I think Jack liked me. I think we discussed a lot
of things that were not lawyer-client conversation. I think that
over the period of years we discussed many subjects from physical
education--taking exercises, to his nightclub business, the changeover
from one type of operation to another, and these matters in my opinion
don’t relate to law, Mr. Hubert.
Mr. HUBERT. I was just wondering why he told you and I think you’ve
given me the answer.
Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, continuing with paragraph (3)--the report is
correct that I did not know and do not know, and never did know Lee
Harvey Oswald. I have never heard Oswald’s name mentioned by Ruby and
have no knowledge or information that Ruby ever knew Oswald.
This portion that “Kaufman stated he heard over TV Ruby had asked for
three attorneys”--this is correct. My first acquaintance with the case,
that my name was attached to the case was when Judge Pierce McBride
was interviewed after talking with Ruby and he indicated that Ruby had
asked for Fred Brunner, Tom Howard, and Stanley Kaufman, and at times I
feel that knowing Jack like I did know him that the only reason he even
did this is probably he thought he would offend me by not mentioning my
name, but if you knew Jack, you would know he’s very sensitive and he’s
very, very thoughtful, and I at times feel that that was his reason for
mentioning my name.
Although, I must confess that if I could practice criminal law I
wouldn’t hesitate to represent Jack, that I do feel that he respected
my legal ability, and I’m not flattering myself or not trying to be
modest, but I do feel that if I could have helped him, and I want the
record certainly to reflect this, that had I felt capable, I certainly
would not have hesitated to have been his lawyer.
Mr. HUBERT. All right.
Mr. KAUFMAN. About the bank-account business--this is correct. I don’t
recall Jack having any bank accounts. I didn’t make any big money off
of Jack over the period of years. I did represent some ventures that
might have been referred to me through him. I remember one of the girls
that worked for him was involved in an automobile collision and he
was kind enough to--when she needed an attorney--to recommend me, and
I might have made money in that direction from different people, but
as far as Jack himself, he just didn’t have, Mr. Hubert, that kind of
legal business.
We had some problems with some bands and we did go to court on one or
two occasions. I think at one time we tried a case in the presence
of the present U.S. district judge here for the Northern District
of Texas, Judge Sarah T. Hughes, down at the State court. We had an
injunctive matter before her.
We do have or did have at the time this was pending, a case in which
we filed an answer in a case which he had been involved in, and I did
offer my files to the FBI, and they were in my office, which they
didn’t want.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you incorporate the S&R Corp.?
Mr. KAUFMAN. The S&R Corp.--I believe I handled the incorporation on
that, but Jack Ruby, to the best of my recollection there was someone
who opened a club up there at the same location where Jack was and Jack
was not involved, to the best of my recollection, and S&R was supposed
to have been a management company or something of that type, and I
don’t believe that Jack had any financial interest in the S&R Corp.
Now, I believe I was asked about this and I don’t know whether the FBI
asked me about it or not, but I’m sure I had been asked about it.
I know Jack’s name was not involved as an incorporator, and I don’t
believe he was ever an officer. He may have been an officer, but as far
as owning any stock in the S&R, I am very, very doubtful about that.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know who did own the stock in S&R initially?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I would rather not guess. Frankly, if I had the papers
before me--if I have the papers. Now, there were some of his papers,
and when I say “his papers,” I have all of my file, I believe, but as
far as these corporations were concerned, I don’t remember whether the
bookkeeper had this or whether the bookkeeper had custody of some of
these matters, but as far as Jack Ruby’s having a financial interest in
S&R, I would say to the best of my recollection Jack Ruby did not and
does not have such an interest.