about this Rubenstein deal. I would call Tom Howard and say, “The
Jewish community is in an uproar about this, I had a call from
so-and-so,” and this was true--this is true. In fact, I had a call
from Julius Schepps and some of the most responsible and influential
people we do have in Dallas too, and they said to me, “I hope you are
not going to get involved in this case,” and to Julius I remember I
said, “Well, Julius, you know--” he heard my name mentioned, and I
said, “Julius, if I were able to represent the man I would” and I told
him how I felt, and in my conversation about it he indicated that the
whole country was concerned about it. So, I would keep on to Tom Howard
about this--I said, “Man, this is just wrong that these people here in
Dallas feel that someone is trying to just incite a bunch of prejudice
into this and that’s not right.” I told him that Jack Ruby should be
tried as Jack Ruby and not anything else. So, I would get in touch
with Tom and did on many occasions, and I’ll say to you this quite
frankly, that I talked with Tom and when they cited him to go before
the Grievance Committee, that I would personally appear voluntarily
to tell them that there had been a great deal of pressure put on
about this Rubenstein deal and I so advised the FBI at the time and
told them that I had been bothered, molested, called and so on about
the Rubenstein part, and that people didn’t like it and they didn’t
know why it was injected into it, and that Chief Curry apparently had
started it when they made this announcement on TV when he told them
that his name was Rubenstein, alias Jack Ruby, and that this was not a
reflection on Henry Wade and it was not a reflection on anybody that I
knew, except somewhere along the line someone had either in error or
either intentionally started this business about Jack Rubenstein.
Now, the reason I say this--later, if you recall, there were a number
of TV stories on a Jack Rubenstein who is supposed to have been, and
these are things that I didn’t even know about but I read about it
in the paper, and heard it on TV that he was supposed to have been a
questionable character that had been cited by the House Un-American
Activities Committee, and Tom Howard even indicated to me that he had
gone to the trouble of going to the public library and looking it up
or had someone do it, of checking all the Jack Rubensteins in all the
major cities, that there were many, many Jack Rubensteins, and where
they got this business he didn’t know and why they were trying to do
this, he didn’t know.
Yes, sir; I was contacted and contacted by others and I will say this:
Mr. Ted Freedman from the southwestern regional office of ADL came
up to Dallas and he was in my home and he wanted to know whether or
not I felt that the antisemitism had been injected into this case and
I told Ted that as far as I knew it had not been, that this was not
intentional, that it was an accident perhaps, and in talking with Tom
Howard, he had talked to some of the major newspaper writers who were
in Dallas at the time and some of the major magazines that had been
here at the time, and they felt likewise that there was no antisemitism
that had been purposely injected into the matter, but the damage was
already done, Mr. Hubert.
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Mr. KAUFMAN. If there was any damage, it was already done, and there
was no way of erasing it, and believe me, this was a great concern of
many, and I could go on and on and on and tell you the concern that
many had for it.
Mr. HUBERT. I have one final matter I would like to ask you about. I
have been advised that you represented an individual who happened to be
in jail on the day the President was shot and had a view through the
window?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; this was an interesting development, Mr. Hubert.
As I told you before we took the deposition, I represent a number of
insurance companies and when I say a number, I maybe have three or four
that we do defense work for, and when I talked to Mrs. Stroud of the
U.S. attorney’s office, I told her that----
Mr. HUBERT. That was just a couple of days ago?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes, sir; when I received the notice from the Committee.
I had a case styled Lowe versus Mitchell that was in the 44th Judicial
District Court and I was representing this, as I say, on behalf of an
insurance company, and this boy, Willie Mitchell, a colored boy who we
incidentally had a great deal of trouble getting into a defendant’s
case. He felt that he had already served his term in jail and that he
didn’t owe any debt to society moneywise or otherwise, and there was
a serious question of whether we were going to continue to defend him
or whether or not he had any coverage, but notwithstanding that, we
did settle his case, and I did get him to come by the office one day
for an interview, and in the course of my conversation he let me know
that he was in the jail serving a DWI offense at the time the President
was killed, and I sat back and forgot about the automobile accident
and just let him talk, and he related how all of these prisoners up
in jail had been advised by the jailers and that they had read in the
newspapers that the President was coming to town, and they looked
in the papers and they saw the route, how the President was coming
to town, and the jailers told them where and that they were coming
and they congregated at this window--I mean--this side of the jail.
Apparently they had a good view of what took place, and he described
to me exactly, and when I say “exactly,” he didn’t see anyone in that
window, but I did tell Mrs. Stroud that I thought it might be helpful
to the Commission to know that there were people in jail who saw the
actual killing.
He described the President as having been hit from the rear and he said
there was no question in his mind that the bullet came from the window.
He said when the President’s head was hit, it was just like throwing a
bucket of water at him--that’s the way it burst. He said it made him
sick and everybody else sick up there.
I felt that Mrs. Stroud should know this and would want the Commission
to know it for the reason that there seems to have been some question
as to what I’ve read in the newspaper as to whether or not there was
more than one bullet and whether or not the bullet came from the back
or came from the front.
I was a small-arms instructor myself over in China, having been trained
in the infantry school in Fort Benning, and I certainly feel I would
love to, if I could, volunteer anything that would be helpful to the
Commission, and if that information were helpful, I will be glad to get
Willie Mitchell’s address and furnish it to you.
Actually, I don’t know who else was in jail. I do know that Willie
Mitchell was, and I had even suggested that he get in touch with the
Warren Commission, but he just has as many people have this “I don’t
want to get involved” attitude. I mean, he felt that he had already
been too much involved with that DWI and didn’t want to get involved
with anything else.
Mr. HUBERT. Does Mitchell live in Dallas?
Mr. KAUFMAN. He’s a construction worker and lives in Dallas.
Mr. HUBERT. I would ask you to do this, would you address a note to Mr.
J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the Commission?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I have his address on the letter of transmittal.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you advise him that in the course of this deposition
the question of Willie Mitchell came up and that I asked you to furnish
the address that you have for him?
Mr. KAUFMAN. All right.
Mr. HUBERT. And that you are doing it at my request?
Mr. KAUFMAN. I will be happy to, and incidentally, I did mention
this to Sheriff Decker. This is no surprise, and I did tell Sheriff
Decker--because I had asked Willie Mitchell how many people had talked
to him about this, whether or not anyone had come up to the jail to
discuss this with any of the prisoners, and he did indicate that there
were some people but he thought they were probably just people from the
jail office rather than anyone else.
Mr. HUBERT. When did you tell Sheriff Decker about it?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Right after I found out about it.
Mr. HUBERT. And when was that?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, the case was settled, I guess, about 5 or 6 or 7
weeks ago. It’s been within the last 2 or 2½ months, maybe. I believe I
was down there one Saturday afternoon and was talking to him about it.
Mr. HUBERT. Is there anything else you wish to say, Mr. Kaufman?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, that’s very kind of you to turn the record loose
to me here where I could go ahead and make any statements. I would
like to say this, Mr. Hubert, that frankly I certainly would give any
additional information that you would want to know now or at any time,
whether by interrogatories by letter, and I assure you that you have
my utmost full cooperation. I know what the function of the Commission
is--I have read it. I know that it’s a difficult task that you have and
whether you can ever come up with the conclusions that the American
people want, I don’t know. I certainly feel that many people won’t
believe the findings of the Commission, that they’ve already prejudged
this thing. I think what you are attempting to do is a worthy project
of the President, the Chief Justice, and all I’m sure they are doing is
trying to get to the root of it.
I won’t go into my feelings about the trial of Jack because I know
you know I am rather prejudiced about it. I do feel that a great
injustice has been done. I wouldn’t tell a story for him, though, or
tell a lie. I am here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. I think that Jack, notwithstanding what I read in the
Dallas Morning News today, was acting on impulse. I think that he did
something that many, many Americans--good red-blooded Americans would
have done. I don’t justify it. I don’t condone it. I don’t say it
is the right thing to do. I have had a number of calls where people
thought he should have gotten a medal.
I think there is certain testimony that should have been brought out
that wasn’t. I have questions about the defense of Jack Ruby as a
lawyer. I have some feelings about statements that have been made about
the oligarchy of Dallas. That’s why I say to you, when you asked me if
there is anything else I could say, I could certainly lend a lot of
thought that I’m sure would have no bearing on it, but the only reason
I’m making this statement is that I do feel that it’s very difficult
in reviewing depositions to get the same feeling you do when you look
a person in the eyes; when you get to sit across from them you get to
feel the warmth of a person, that notwithstanding the good work of a
reporter, these things cannot be reflected in a written deposition,
and in the Commission’s later reading this--I’m just trying to reflect
a little of my personality so that they would know that I am not a
vicious person and I am not a person who has any malice towards anyone.
I mean, I personally as a lawyer and trained as a lawyer, think that
the facts should be brought out, and I think that the things that have
motivated people in their testimony, whether it’s before the Commission
or otherwise, certainly is worthwhile. I think there have been
tremendous pressures put on people involved in this case, whether it’s
me or anyone else. As I pointed out, the tremendous pressures that were
put on me those first few days because my name was mentioned, is what I
refer to. I think that there was tremendous pressure put on the lawyers
who tried this case.
I think the Ruby family were not treated fairly in the opportunity of
getting fair counsel. I think they had a very difficult time employing
counsel locally. I think the fact that they had to go out of the State
to get counsel is not because they wanted to go out of State. I think
that they had many, many problems that I can’t discuss with you because
perhaps the relationship of client-attorney is involved. I believe
there are many people who have been involved as lawyers who have
had tremendous pressure put on them. I think that even the district
attorney’s office has been put under tremendous pressures, and this
is an unfortunate situation, because if you believe in justice, if
you believe in truth, if you believe in righteousness, you would say
certainly that these things--you have to get these pressures taken off
of you.
I have had many, many people tell me about the future of this appeal,
that they feel that the pressures will have more to do with it than the
law. I think this is wrong. I think that this case should be decided
as a matter of law, not as a matter of prejudices or pressures, and I
certainly think that the Commission should let the chips fall as they
will, that they shouldn’t be subjected to pressures. I don’t think that
those who are on it probably would be, but they are human beings and we
all have human frailties. I think we can only take so much and I think
this is what happened to Jack Ruby.
In closing, I would like to say this--that one of the things I have
alluded to is this point about Jack not walking into a police station
to make a sacrifice of himself with the money in his pocket. I think
that the physical facts--you can see premeditation on a man like Lee
Oswald, but the fact that he had a planned method in this whole thing.
In my opinion he had a plan not only of accomplishing his mission but
of a getaway.
You take a man such as Jack, as I see this situation and as I have
found from information that has been told to me, not by Jack but from
outsiders, Jack could never have known the plan of removing Lee Oswald
from the jail, that it had to be something that just happened. These
physical facts are there and I’m sure the Commission has them.
Mr. HUBERT. I think you’ve mentioned to me that it is your opinion that
as you knew Jack Ruby, he would not walk into jail----
Mr. KAUFMAN. With several hundred dollars in his pocket.
Mr. HUBERT. Intending to shoot somebody with the certainty of being
caught?
Mr. KAUFMAN. That’s right. Knowing Jack Ruby as I did, knowing his
financial situation, I feel that if the story that I read in the paper
this morning was correct, that he considered himself a sacrifice, I
just can’t believe this, because I would say that if he did do this,
Mr. Hubert, I feel, knowing him, that Jack would have taken his money
and left it with his sister or left it with his bartender or left it
with someone, but I don’t believe Jack Ruby would have walked into
the jail with his money, and leaving his dogs elsewhere, with the
understanding he was going to make a sacrifice out of himself and be
caught, because this does not demonstrate to me the actions of a sane
person--to walk into a place with your money, with your dogs here, and
without any plan of getting away or a plan of getting out of it.
Mr. HUBERT. And you say that’s inconsistent of what your estimate of
Jack Ruby as a human being was?
Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. You made reference to what you read in the paper this
morning, and I take it you are referring to the front page story of the
Dallas Morning News by Carl Fruend?
Mr. KAUFMAN. By Mr. Fruend.
Mr. HUBERT. Who writes a story concerning the interview of Jack Ruby
with the Chief Justice, is that correct, that’s the story?
Mr. KAUFMAN. That’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. I wanted to identify it.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes, sir; in other words, the story you refer to is a
story that purports to be a copyrighted story regarding the testimony
of Jack Ruby before the Chief Justice and other members of the
Commission or whoever was present, and in which the story relates that
Jack said he went down there for a twofold purpose. One was to send a
telegram and the “other”--referring to the elimination or assassination
or the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I say that I believe that’s
inconsistent with the man’s personality and with his actions--with the
man that I know.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, prior to the commencement of this deposition, we did
have some conversation, and in order that the record can be clear
on the point, as I now look back, we have covered in the deposition
everything that we spoke about prior to the deposition, isn’t that
correct?
Mr. KAUFMAN. That is correct, Mr. Hubert.
Mr. HUBERT. So that there is nothing that has passed between us that
has not been recorded.
Mr. KAUFMAN. There is nothing that has passed between us that has not
been recorded, and I believe further that we had a further conversation
prior to that in which you had indicated, just as you did in the
deposition, that we could invoke our privilege, and I had indicated
to you that if necessary I would go off the record and give you the
information, and you further requested that I do not go off the record
because there would have to be other explanations, and we have not gone
off the record, that all of our conversations before and after have now
been, I believe, correctly reported.
Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful indeed.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, I hope so.
Mr. HUBERT. We are trying to get the picture of the man.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, that’s what I tried to give you and that is all I
can do.
Mr. HUBERT. I might state to you, too, you know that we are far more
interested in this man just from the newspaper standpoint. We are
building this record so that in a hundred years from now, a person
reading it can make sense of it.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, I wish that I were an artist, but I’m not that
articulate, but you see, this is what’s wrong, and our good reporter
knows that many times when we see these depositions, we say, “Do we
sound that bad?” Sometimes a reporter will edit them, but they are not
supposed to. I mean, they may make us sound a little better.
I will further say frankly, that the worst part of this is that it is
impossible for the Commission when they read all this and try to digest
it, to see the people and how they feel, and if they could see the
people I think it would be so much more helpful to the Commission.
Mr. HUBERT. Yes; I can understand that. And again, let me say how much
we thank you for coming today.
Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, thank you.
TESTIMONY OF DANNY PATRICK McCURDY
The testimony of Danny Patrick McCurdy was taken at 4:15 p.m., on June
26, 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 Danny Patrick McCurdy.
Mr. McCurdy, my name is Leon Hubert. I’m 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 now 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. McCurdy, the nature of the inquiry today
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 movements and associates and so forth
on a certain date.
Now, I believe 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 be present.
Mr. MCCURDY. Right.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember the date of the letter?
Mr. MCCURDY. I am not sure. I think it was the 22d, if I’m not
mistaken, is when I got it. It was dated the 22d at the top of the
letter.
Mr. HUBERT. When did you get it?
Mr. MCCURDY. About the 23d or 24th.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, under the rules adopted by the Commission every
witness is entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of
his deposition, dating from the date of the request, and it is probable
therefore that the rules have been complied with, but in any case the
rules do provide that a witness may waive that 3-day notice, and I ask
you whether you are willing to go ahead and testify now?
Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; I will go ahead and testify right now.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you stand up and take the oath, please, sir?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this
matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. MCCURDY. I do.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. McCurdy, I have heretofore, a little while ago,
handed you a document consisting of two pages which I have marked
for identification as follows: On the first page in the right-hand
margin I have marked the words “Dallas, Texas, June 26, 1964, Exhibit
No. 1, Deposition of Danny Patrick McCurdy” and on the second page I
have placed my initials in the lower right-hand corner. This document
purports to be the report of an interview of you by FBI Agent Coleman
Mabray on November 29, 1963. Have you read this, sir?
Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; sure have.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us whether this is a correct report of the
interview?
Mr. MCCURDY. Well, basically it is. There are two or three
discrepancies at the end. I suppose they misunderstood me, but they’re
not earth shattering or anything about the conversation that I had with
Jack.
Mr. HUBERT. You are referring to page 2?
Mr. MCCURDY. Right--it says, “McCurdy advised that he ended his
conversation with Ruby and he entered the diskjockey room”. Now, our
conversation took place in the diskjockey room, that is, our console
room, and not the newsroom.
Now, Jack spent the majority of the time in the newsroom with our
newsman, Glenn Duncan, the man that just left, and a man by the name of
Russ “Knight” Moore, who is now at WXYZ at Detroit, Mich., and also
a gentleman named Pappas that I mentioned--I can’t remember what his
first name was, but anyway he’s a newsman with WNEW in New York City,
but Jack’s conversation and my conversation took place by ourselves in
the control room. Now, he was in the control room at the time. There
is another discrepancy down here, and it says I had met Ruby one time
before.
Mr. HUBERT. That’s in the fourth paragraph.
Mr. MCCURDY. Actually, I had been with him twice. I had been to his
club twice, rather than just once--it’s once--right here, and in the
same paragraph it says, “So far as I know Ruby is not a personal friend
of anyone at the station.” This is not true. He was a friend of Russ
Moore. Now, Russ didn’t really appreciate his friendship, but he was a
friend of Russ and this clarifies the last paragraph where it says, “I
have no idea how Ruby obtained the telephone number at the station.”
He knew several of the diskjockeys, one who had left the radio station
earlier named Chuck Dunnaway--Charles Dunnaway who is now in Beaumont.
He knew him, so I could easily see how he got the telephone number of
the unlisted phone number--either through Chuck or Russ, or possibly
one of our newsmen, that he possibly knew.
Mr. HUBERT. Is this an incorrect report or is it that you did tell this
to the FBI people and now your memory is clearer on it?
Mr. MCCURDY. I don’t exactly know. I can’t remember telling Mr.
Mabray anything. Of course, it was such an informal conversation we
had anyway, that these are actually I’m sure not earth shattering
discrepancies, but Mr. Mabray was handwriting most of the stuff and
some of the questions--I’m sure he wrote down answers that were
understood rather than--since he wasn’t there, he couldn’t understand
the setup of the control room. Now, we are in a new control room now
over across the street, but at this particular time I suppose maybe my
description of the control room--the difference between the control
room and the newsroom possibly didn’t make it clear in Mr. Mabray’s
mind as to the difference.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, in any case, with the exceptions that you have noted,
the document which has been identified Exhibit No. 1 is substantially
correct?
Mr. MCCURDY. Correct; entirely correct.
Mr. HUBERT. Apparently you talked to Ruby about 5 minutes after he
arrived with the sandwiches; is that correct?
Mr. MCCURDY. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You were alone with him, I believe, at that time, were you
not?
Mr. MCCURDY. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What was the nature of the conversation?
Mr. MCCURDY. Well, now first of all--Jack and I met in the newsroom.
I went back with him to the newsroom and we had the sandwiches and
everything and I grabbed a sandwich and started back to the control
room and Jack walked part of the way back with me and he stopped in the
hall.