Mr. HUBERT. Well, would you have covered with Batchelor the material
that we have talked about that you say you did cover with Curry?
Mr. SORRELS. Now, what material is that?
Mr. HUBERT. Well, such as that you were doubtful about your ability to
testify, and so forth.
Mr. SORRELS. Not necessarily. In other words, if it was Batchelor that
I called, then I would have, I think, have explained it to him. If it
had been Curry I called, I would explain it to him--as to why I was
wanting these names, or given that information to them.
Mr. HUBERT. What I am trying to get at, you see, is whether or not
there were two calls.
Mr. SORRELS. I don’t recall that there were two calls. I don’t.
Mr. HUBERT. And you are positive you spoke to Batchelor?
Mr. SORRELS. It seems that I remember talking to Chief Batchelor about
it, because it seems that I can remember that he said, “I am sure that
we can find out that information,” or words to that effect.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, if there was only one call--that is to say, if you
are doubtful about two, and you do remember definitely Batchelor, then
the one call would have to be Batchelor, would it not?
Mr. SORRELS. That is correct; yes.
Mr. SMITH. I think there is a lack of meeting of the minds here.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you try to help me out? I would appreciate it.
Mr. SMITH. Let me see if I can clarify this. Was there definitely a
conversation with Curry about whether you would be able to testify
because of your failure to warn Ruby of his constitutional rights?
Mr. SORRELS. I just cannot say positively that there was. I do know
that I made a phone call for the specific purpose of informing them
of the fact that these two uniformed police officers were there and
could have heard the conversation that I had with Ruby, and as my
memory serves me it seems that was Chief Batchelor. Now, I may have had
conversations with Chief Curry. We have talked about this thing from
many, many different angles from time to time.
Mr. SMITH. Let me ask it a different way.
Was there one call to obtain the names of the men, uniformed policemen,
who were in the room when you interrogated Ruby, and a second call
concerning the question of whether you could testify, or were these two
subjects covered in one telephone conversation?
Mr. SORRELS. No; as I recall it, there was only one conversation on it
at that time.
Mr. SMITH. All right. And you don’t know, then, for sure, whether it
was to Chief Batchelor or to Chief Curry?
Mr. SORRELS. I would say that, if my memory serves me right, it seems
to me like it was Chief Batchelor. There were many, many conversations
about this case from many angles. But I know I was concerned when
Henry Wade indicated I was going to be called as a witness down there,
because I felt that they should know that, and I think as I recall it
when he talked to me I told him about those two uniformed officers
being there.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, whoever you talked to, did that person, whether
it was Curry or Batchelor, indicate that he was not aware of the
information you were giving him?
Mr. SORRELS. Now, what information?
Mr. HUBERT. About the statements made by Ruby. And that you had been
present.
Mr. SORRELS. No; I don’t think so.
Mr. HUBERT. You have already adverted to the telephone call that you
had from Mr. Griffin.
Mr. SORRELS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you make the telephone call to Curry or Batchelor as a
result of the conversation you had with Mr. Griffin?
Mr. SORRELS. No.
Mr. HUBERT. That was independent? You think it was before?
Mr. SORRELS. No; I don’t think it was before, because as I recall it,
this conversation with Mr. Griffin was quite some time before.
Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Sorrels, I call your attention to the fact that on the
exhibit which has been identified as Commission Document 354, as to
which you have already testified, there is no mention of the names of
the officers who were present, and that is dated February 3, 1964. Does
that help you to recollect whether you then got interested in who those
people were and called Batchelor or Curry, or both?
Mr. SORRELS. It probably brought it to my mind that there were other
people present there, and I think I so informed Mr. Griffin on the
telephone. But that is not what prompted me to make the call about the
two uniformed officers, because that had no bearing on what I told Mr.
Griffin. What he was asking me over the telephone is what I had heard
Ruby say. And I told him what I had heard Ruby say. And he had asked me
about certain things that I did not recall hearing Ruby say, and I told
him so at the time. And when I was in District Attorney Wade’s office,
the question was asked of me by Mr. Wade as to whether or not certain
statements alleged to have been made by Ruby were made to Officer Dean
in my presence, and I told him I did not hear anything like that.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, perhaps another approach would be this: You were
interested or became interested sometime in finding out the names of
these people. Isn’t that a fact?
Mr. SORRELS. Yes; but only for that particular purpose.
Mr. HUBERT. And you also wanted to convey the information that you
were doubtful whether you would qualify, as you put it, as a witness,
because you had failed to warn. And that that thought came into your
mind after Wade indicated that you might be a witness.
Mr. SORRELS. That is as I recall it.
Mr. HUBERT. And that, therefore, you called someone. Now, were those
two things in the same conversation?