Mr. HUBERT. What I am trying to determine is whether that is your only
personal----
Mr. SORRELS. Oh, no.
Mr. HUBERT. Way of doing things, or if it is an established policy of
the Service, and if so, how is it established?
Mr. SORRELS. I think it is possibly a bit of both, because it is
always my practice to tell these people that we cannot promise them
anything--I am talking about the people we handle for prosecution in
our investigations. And that, of course, they don’t have to tell us
anything if they don’t want to. We make that known--because if we do
not we know if there is a trial in a case, that that question is going
to be asked, and we know that under our laws that a person is supposed
to be warned of his constitutional rights before he is questioned.
Mr. HUBERT. Is that your version of what the law is?
Mr. SORRELS. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Coming back to the policy matter, I don’t expect you to
be able to quote it to me now, but you have the impression there
is something in writing in some manual of standard operations,
instructions, that requires that you warn a person of his
constitutional rights?
Mr. SORRELS. I just cannot answer that question, because I just can’t
recall if there is a specific instruction of that particular thing or
not.
But I do know that if we do not warn them of their constitutional
rights, that we are--we will be in serious trouble in the trial of a
case because if the question is asked, “Did you warn this man of his
constitutional rights?” we have to tell the truth, and if we say “No,
it wasn’t,” we would be jeopardizing our case.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, at the time you called Curry, you had not spoken to
Wade?
Mr. SORRELS. Not about the actual interview with Ruby at that time.
Mr. HUBERT. At the time you talked to Curry, was that before or after
you saw Wade at Love Field?
Mr. SORRELS. I can’t say for sure, but I think it was probably
afterwards.
Mr. HUBERT. What I am trying to get at is what motivated your call to
him.
Mr. SORRELS. I probably didn’t make myself plain.
What motivated my call to him was that I figured that if I was called
to Mr. Wade’s office to explain this thing to him, that the fact that I
had not warned Ruby when I approached him to get this information--that
I had not warned him of his constitutional rights, that I would not--it
would not be good testimony. And my thought is that the two men who
were--the two uniformed officers there, who were just standing by and
had nothing to do with the questions and so forth, who heard what was
said, they might be able to testify to that effect.
Mr. HUBERT. So you wanted to get that information to someone in
authority?
Mr. SORRELS. That is right.
Mr. HUBERT. And the information was twofold--that you knew there was
someone who could testify as to what Ruby had said, because you had
heard Ruby say it in the presence of other people?
Mr. SORRELS. That is right.
Mr. HUBERT. And, secondly, you were doubtful as to whether your
testimony as such would be valuable?
Mr. SORRELS. That is right.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know why you conveyed that information to Curry
instead of Wade?
Mr. SORRELS. Because I did not know the names of the two police
officers that were there. Two uniformed men.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, was it your thought, then, if you advised Curry he
would get the names of the men, and then convey it to Wade? I am trying
to get what your motivation was.
Mr. SORRELS. Well, that is all I can recall as to the motivation. In
other words, I don’t know that I thought that he would convey the
information to Wade or not. I just cannot recall whether I had that in
mind or not. But I did have in mind that possibly these two fellows,
these two uniformed police officers, might be able to testify as to
what Ruby said there when I would not be able to do so, because of the
fact I had not warned him.
Mr. HUBERT. And this conversation with Curry was in between the time
you saw Wade at Love Field and the time you had the interview with him
when he came back from Washington?
Mr. SORRELS. As I recall it, it was. I won’t be positive about that.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, you told Wade, I think you said, the same thing, about
your doubts as to your qualifications.
Mr. SORRELS. I believe that I did, if I recall it correctly, because I
think when I was talking to Wade in his office, that that was mentioned.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you make any memo of the conversation you had with
Curry?
Mr. SORRELS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you make any memo of the interview you had with Wade?
Mr. SORRELS. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. What did Curry say to you when you told him this
information?
Mr. SORRELS. As I recall it, I think he said that he could possibly
find out. It seemed to me like I talked to Chief Batchelor about that,
also. I am not positive. But, anyway, I figured they would have a way
of knowing who it was that was there, and so forth, at that time.
Mr. HUBERT. Is there anyway you could fix for us more definitely the
dates of these three occurrences--your meeting with Wade at Love Field,
your telephone conversation with Curry, and your interview with Wade?
Mr. SORRELS. I think that I can on the one at Love Field, because, as
I recall it, Miss Lynda Johnson was en route to Washington, D.C., and
I went to Love Field to be there at the time they arrived in the event
that they might need a car or something. I can establish that--February
16, 1964.
Mr. HUBERT. You mean you don’t know it now, but you could establish it?
Mr. SORRELS. No; I could establish it.
Mr. HUBERT. I wonder if you would undertake to establish that for us.
Mr. SORRELS. Yes; I would.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, you think there is no other collateral way to
establish the dates of the other matters?
Mr. SORRELS. I can--I think I can pretty well establish it. I will
tell you why. At the time that I was in Wade’s office, and during the
course of the time that I talked to him, this officer Dean came into
Mr. Wade’s office and Mr. Wade asked me about if I was present when
Ruby said such and such things--I don’t recall what it was now--I think
about that he had been thinking for 2 or 3 days about killing this
fellow, or words to that effect, and I told him I was not. And it was
right after that that Dean testified in that case. And I think I can
establish about pretty close to what day it was. He either testified
that day or the following day, as I recall it.
Mr. HUBERT. What interval of time would have elapsed between your
meeting Wade at the airport and the date of the interview?
Mr. SORRELS. Oh, I think that would have been probably--it is just hard
to estimate the time, but it was before the trial of Ruby had ever even
begun. It would just be a guess on my part, but I would say it was
probably maybe 2 or 3 weeks, or maybe even more.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, can you fix for us--put it this way: Can you fix for
us whether the Curry conversation was closer to the time you met Wade
at Love Field than it was to the time you interviewed Wade, or Wade
interviewed you?
Mr. SORRELS. I just don’t believe I can. It seems to me like it was
shortly after I had seen Mr. Wade. I may be wrong about that. But I
know the thought occurred to me, well, if I am going to be called down
on that thing, I don’t think they are going to be able to accept my
testimony, because of the fact that Ruby wasn’t warned. And so it was
that time that I thought about maybe getting the names of these other
two officers who could possibly remember the conversation, and they
were standbys and were not the ones actually in the questioning.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember telling Mr. Griffin here that you would
call the Dallas Police Department--I think that was in a telephone
conversation he had with you--to find out the names of the people?
Mr. SORRELS. It seems that I did mention to Mr. Griffin, when he was
talking to me on the phone, that there were others present, and that
I could possibly find out their names, and it seems to me that Mr.
Griffin said something about, “Well, no; don’t do that,” or “It is not
necessary.”
Mr. HUBERT. Well, let me ask you this: Would that have been before you
called Curry, or afterwards?
Mr. SORRELS. Let me see now. I think that would have been before.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, perhaps it is this. Perhaps it was that when you had
a personal conversation with Mr. Griffin in Dallas that you told him
that you had made a call to ascertain the names of these people.
Mr. SORRELS. It could have been.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you make such a call?
Mr. SORRELS. Did I?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Mr. SORRELS. I made a call. I am not sure it was to Chief Curry. It
seems to me I remember talking to Chief Batchelor on that. Now, I may
have mentioned it to Chief Curry, too. But it seems to me like I
remember talking to Chief Batchelor.
Mr. HUBERT. About the existence of some officers?
Mr. SORRELS. To find out who the uniformed officers were who were there.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, now, would that conversation with Chief Batchelor be
before the Curry conversation or afterwards?
Mr. SORRELS. I don’t recall that I made that conversation to both of
them or not. Now, I am just not positive about that. But I do recall
having made that call for the specific purpose of getting somebody that
was there, those two uniformed officers, that could have heard that
conversation, that could have testified in the case down there.
Mr. HUBERT. Is it possible that that aspect of the matter was part of
the call to Curry?
Mr. SORRELS. I just don’t remember--I just don’t remember. But I know
that I did talk to either Curry or Chief Batchelor, and I am inclined
to think it was Chief Batchelor. Now, when you mentioned awhile ago
about the call to Curry, I, of course, said “yes” on that, because I
was thinking about the call. But since thinking about it, I am not sure
that it was Chief Curry that I talked to at all about that particular
angle. But I do know that I talked to Chief Batchelor about it. I know
that.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, let’s see if we can clarify it. There is no doubt
about it that there was one telephone call made to a high police
official.
Mr. SORRELS. That is what I recall.
Mr. HUBERT. You are definite that one call was made to Batchelor.
Mr. SORRELS. If my memory serves me right, it seems that I did talk to
Batchelor.
Now, whether I talked to Chief Curry on that particular thing or not, I
am not too positive.
Mr. HUBERT. So that the matter stands that you are not certain that
there was the second telephone call with Curry at all?