The testimony of William J. Newman was taken at 4:08 p.m., on March 26,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building,
Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Burt W. Griffin,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Mr. HUBERT. Let the record show that at 4:08, March 26, 1964, the
deposition of Mr. W. J. Newman, which was commenced last night with
Mr. Burt W. Griffin conducting the investigation, but which was not
completed last night, is now being resumed by Leon D. Hubert, Jr.,
staff member, conducting the deposition.
Mr. Newman, are you willing to continue the deposition at this time?
Mr. NEWMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you understand that you are under the same oath that
you were yesterday when the deposition began, and all through the
deposition?
Mr. NEWMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And that you regard yourself as being under the same oath?
Mr. NEWMAN. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Let the record show, also, that I have been designated by
Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel of the Commission, to take the sworn
deposition of Mr. William J. Newman.
Mr. Newman, I simply want to mark for identification so that we will
all know what we are talking about certain papers and letters and
reports so that we can refer to them by the designation marked on them.
Now, I notice that last night, apparently, the last exhibit number
that was used by Mr. Griffin was No. 5038, in connection with a letter
dated November 26, or rather it is a copy of a letter dated November
26 addressed to J. E. Curry, Chief of Police, the original of which,
apparently, signed W. J. Newman.
Since I do not know what sequence of the letters Mr. Griffin has used
since he started your deposition, I am going to number the documents
that we will be talking about now by using the same basic number 5038,
adding the letters "A", "B", "C", etc., as far as we need to go. Now,
in that connection, I am marking an undated statement--an undated
document, I beg your pardon, undated document entitled "Statement of
Police Reserve Officer William J. Newman." It is also unsigned. And
it is to be found in the Commission Document 81-A point 79. For the
purpose of identification, I am marking it "Dallas, Tex., March 26,
1964. Exhibits 5038-A. Deposition of W. J. Newman." Sign my name below
it. Then for the purposes of identification, also, I am marking a
verifax or photostatic copy of "Officer's Memorandum dated December
6, 1963, to Lieutenant Revill, from Detective R. W. Westphal," which
document is to be found in Commission Document 81-A point 79. And,
I am marking that "Dallas, Tex., March 26, 1964. That's Exhibit
5038-B. Deposition of W. J. Newman," and signing my name below on
that document. Then the next document is a letter, or verifax or
photostatic copy of a letter, dated December 31, 1963, to J. E.
Curry, signed by Jack Revill, and C. C. Wallace, purporting to be a
report on an interview by Reserve Officer W. J.--William J. Newman,
No. 317, and for the purposes of identification I am marking that
document "Dallas, Tex., March 26, 1964. Exhibit No. 5038-C." Continuing
your identification, "Dallas, Tex., March 26, 1964, Exhibit 5038-C.
Deposition of W. J. Newman." I am signing my name on that document,
which is also to be found in Commission Report--Commission Document No.
81-A point 79. Finally, I am marking what purports to be a copy of the
report by FBI Agents James C. Kennedy and Leo L. Robertson, concerning
an interview with William J. Newman on December 24, 1963, and for
identification I am marking that document, "Dallas, Tex., March 26,
1964. Exhibit 5038-D. The deposition of W. J. Newman." And signing my
name on that document.
Now, Mr. Newman, you have had an opportunity, I think, to read these
various documents there, 5038, then 5038-A, B, C and D.
Mr. NEWMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. The only purpose of asking you to read them and to compare
them is to ask you if you can assist us at getting at the facts, and
that is all we want to know.
There seems to be some contradiction between them. Maybe there is not.
If there isn't and you can show us that there isn't, that is all we
want to know. If there is a contradiction, we would like to have your
explanation, if we can, as to what is the truth, because that is all we
want to know anyhow. If there is a contradiction, it is obvious that
one of the statements must be wrong, and all we want to do is tell us
which is wrong and which is right. That is the sole purpose of this
inquiry.
Mr. NEWMAN. Be happy to; if I can.
Mr. HUBERT. Perhaps I can get at it this way: These reports seem
to indicate that you saw a man coming down the ramp. These records
also seem to indicate that you saw a man climbing over a rail in the
basement. Now, I think we can clarify this situation immediately by
asking you, do those reports relate to two different instances?
Mr. NEWMAN. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, there was a man climbing over the rail, and
there was a man coming down the Main Street ramp, and as far as you
know they are two different episodes?
Mr. NEWMAN. Two different things.
Mr. HUBERT. Two different things. All right. We got a lot clarified
there. Now, I think the other point is when did each of these happen,
and let's take, first of all, the man coming down the ramp.
Mr. NEWMAN. This, as I stated there, was, as near as I can estimate,
approximately 1 minute or less prior to the shooting.
Mr. HUBERT. I think you said in your statement that because of the
various conditions existing you could not identify the man by name or
sight or anything of that sort?
Mr. NEWMAN. No.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say when he was coming down the ramp?
Mr. NEWMAN. That's correct. I have also--I have never made any estimate.
Mr. HUBERT. No; that's correct. I didn't mean to intimate that you had.
It is a fact that a man coming down--that you did see a man coming
down, but you really don't know who he is, and that never have known?
Mr. NEWMAN. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. You have, of course, seen pictures and so forth of Jack
Ruby since?
Mr. NEWMAN. That's right.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you say that the man coming down the ramp was Jack
Ruby?
Mr. NEWMAN. No; I wouldn't. By the same token, I wouldn't say that he
wasn't.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, you can't say whether he was or wasn't?
Mr. NEWMAN. That's right. I just didn't pay that much attention to it
at the time.
Mr. HUBERT. And that was definitely about a minute before the shooting?
Mr. NEWMAN. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. So, I think we have that one clarified, so far as that is
concerned.
Now, about the man jumping over the rail, what is your best thought
about the timing on that?
Mr. NEWMAN. I have none. When I talked to Lieutenant Revill, I think
this was Sunday the 1st of December, I guess it would be, and he asked
me two or three times whether I had seen a man go over the rail. I
couldn't recall anyone. Later, I think it was, oh, two days later, I
am not sure, I did remember seeing someone go over that rail, but as I
stated in that statement, I cannot, for the life of me, set the time in
any figures. Just something that registered, and that was the end of it.
Mr. HUBERT. So, that when you say "it", you couldn't tell whether it
was before the shooting or after, you can't tell whether it was a
minute before or a minute after, 5 minutes before or 5 minutes after,
or for that matter more time before or more time after?
Mr. NEWMAN. Well, I know not longer than 5 or 10 minutes after, because
I wasn't there. I couldn't establish it at any time.
Mr. HUBERT. So, that your best recollection right now, today, is simply
that you have a recollection of a man going over the rail from the
parking area into the ramp.
Mr. NEWMAN. That's right.
Mr. HUBERT. About what part of the ramp was it; do you remember?
Mr. NEWMAN. About midway.
Mr. HUBERT. About midway? But, you don't know?