The testimony of Robert S. Huffaker, Jr., was taken at 4:25 p.m., on
April 16, 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. Mr. Huffaker, my name is Leon Hubert. I’m a member of the
advisory staff of the general counsel of the President’s Commission.
Under the provisions of Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963,
and the Joint Resolution of Congress No. 137 and rules of procedure
adopted by the Commission in conformance with that Executive order and
joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn statement from
you.
I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission’s inquiry
is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon facts relating to the
assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of
Lee Harvey Oswald.
In particular as to you, Mr. Huffaker, 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
the activities of one Jack Ruby.
Mr. Huffaker, I think you have appeared here today as a result of a
written request addressed to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel
of the President’s Commission; is that a fact?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you receive that written notice more than 3 days from
today?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes; I did.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, will you rise and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. HUFFAKER. I do.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your name, please?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Robert S. Huffaker, Jr.
Mr. HUBERT. How old are you, sir?
Mr. HUFFAKER. I am 27.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your residence?
Mr. HUFFAKER. My residence is 4700 Eastside Avenue.
Mr. HUBERT. Dallas?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Apartment 121, Dallas, and it has changed since these
statements were made.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation, sir?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Radio television newsman.
Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so occupied?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Well, I have been in radio and television for, excluding
a 6 months’ term in the Army, for 7 years.
Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been with KRLD?
Mr. HUFFAKER. I have been with KRLD since May 1963.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you with another television or radio station prior to
that time?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes; I was with KBTX-TV in Bryan.
Mr. HUBERT. Bryan, Tex.?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And how long were you with them?
Mr. HUFFAKER. I was with them for about 2½ years.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, on November 24, 1963, were you on duty with your
employer?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you in the Dallas police basement?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes; I was.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, Mr. Huffaker, I have shown you two documents, the
first being a report of an interview with you on November 28, 1963, by
FBI Agents Hardin and Rawlings [spelling] R-a-w-l-i-n-g-s, which I have
marked for identification as “Dallas, Tex., April 16, 1964, Exhibit
5331, Deposition of R. S. Huffaker,” and I have signed my name on it.
Mr. HUFFAKER. Be sure that that’s “Jr.” because I’ve got a father with
the same name.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, I shall add that, and I have signed my name, and
since the document contains two pages, I have placed my initials on the
right-hand bottom of the second page.
The other document is also a report of an interview of you by FBI
Agents Pinkston [spelling] P-i-n-k-s-t-o-n, and Brown, on November 30,
1963, upon which I have endorsed the following, “Dallas, Tex., April
16, 1964, Exhibit 5332, deposition of R. S. Huffaker, Jr.”
I have signed my name below that and on the second page I have placed
my initials in the lower right-hand corner.
I now ask you if you have had an opportunity to read both of those
exhibits, numbers 5331 and 5332?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us whether those two exhibits are correct
reports of the interviews had with you by the FBI agents mentioned?
Mr. HUFFAKER. With a few very, very minor exceptions.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, will you take first the exhibit which has been
identified as No. 5331 and state what corrections you wish to be made
to that statement?
Mr. HUFFAKER. First of all, in the second line as it first appears
and in its subsequent appearances the call letters of my station are
incorrect. It should be--rather than KLRD--it should be KRLD.
Mr. HUBERT. And that’s true throughout the document, if it appears as
KLRD it should be KRLD?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Right--that’s correct.
Mr. HUBERT. Have you any other changes or corrections to make?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Well, just to be exactly specific, the last sentence in
the second paragraph.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, that sentence reads as follows: “He even noted they
were checking police automobiles parked in the area.” Now, addressing
yourself to that sentence, what comment do you wish to make?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Well, it should be--it should have referred to the fact
that I did note Sergeant Putnam check a police van which was driven
down into the basement.
Mr. HUBERT. And that’s the only vehicle that you saw them check?
Mr. HUFFAKER. That’s the only one that I saw them check.
Mr. HUBERT. So, that you think that the quoted sentence is too broad in
that it intimates you saw them checking several automobiles, whereas,
in fact, you had reference there to only one, as you have identified it
a moment ago?
Mr. HUFFAKER. That’s correct, and to expand a little bit further toward
this--I did note that they were checking all over the basement, and I’m
sure that they were checking the vehicles down there, but I did not
specifically note them doing so.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, perhaps it would be helpful to you if you would
explain what you saw which prompts you now to say that they were
checking all over the basement, what then were they doing, in fact?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Well, I saw Sergeant Putnam and Sergeant Dean and--oh, a
fairly good sized number of uniformed officers who were walking around
the basement area from one end to another and they were searching the
basement.
Mr. HUBERT. How were they searching, what were they actually doing?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Well, they were just looking--I cannot say definitely
that they were looking in cars, because I really didn’t pay that close
attention, but they were looking in various portions of the basement
and I was well aware that they were searching the basement.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, the impression of their activities you
gained was that it was a search party?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Right.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, have you any other comments to make about
Exhibit No. 5331?
Mr. HUFFAKER. Let me say just off the record--this sentence here is
incorrect [indicating].
Mr. HUBERT. Well, let’s stay on the record and let me read the sentence.
“His eyes were focused on Oswald as he approached the automobile which
was to transport him to the county jail and when the shot rang out, he
looked toward Oswald as the latter fell to the floor.”
What comment have you to make as to that quoted sentence?
Mr. HUFFAKER. My eyes were focused on the automobile which was to
transport Oswald to the county jail as it was being backed into
position. I had looked at Oswald when he first emerged from the door,
but when the car began to back up, then I looked at it.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, when the car began to back up and you looked at it, in
what direction did it cause you to look, to your left or to your right?
Mr. HUFFAKER. When I looked at the car?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Mr. HUFFAKER. To my left.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, any other comments?
Mr. HUFFAKER. The remainder of the sentence is correct, because when
the shot rang out, then I did look towards Oswald.
Mr. HUBERT. Are there any other corrections to be made as to Exhibit
No. 5331?
Mr. HUFFAKER. No, sir; to the best of my knowledge the remainder of it
is correct.
Mr. HUBERT. All right. Now, I ask you to look at the document which has
been previously identified as Exhibit 5332, and state whether it is a
true and correct copy--report on the interview had of you by Special
Agents Pinkston and Brown on November 30, 1963?
Mr. HUFFAKER. The first sentence of the second paragraph could be
slightly misleading.