Mr. RUBY. Excuse me; he also talked to my brother in Dallas, Sam.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you say he talked with your brother Jack?
Mr. RUBY. No; he talked to Eva. But he talked to Dr. West and Dr. Smith
and Bellows who spent a lot of time with Jack, of course, altogether.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You indicated to Mr. Hubert that this Exhibit No. 1 had
been read by you and that it generally reflected your views.
Mr. RUBY. Yes; yes, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Can you tell us in your own words generally what is set
forth in Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. RUBY. Well, it goes into, it explains Jack’s thinking along the
Jewish problem, and his obsession and his love of President Kennedy,
his going out of the way to try to be an exceptionally good guy by
helping gentiles as much as he possibly could, and in any way he could.
It also explains happenings at the trial. The withholding of evidence
by District Attorney Henry Wade that should have been presented to the
court. That my brother had received psychiatric help when he was 10
years old and none of the family knew it except the FBI, who had turned
this information over to Wade.
However, Wade never permitted this to be used at the trial, and it also
goes into telling of many cases that were reversed because of incidents
similar to those which took place at my brother Jack’s trial, and
states for these many reasons that the verdict should be reversed for
all of these mistakes or negligence or whatever you may call it on the
part of the court and the State’s attorney.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Is it correct, do I have the correct understanding then,
that in a sense we can break this down into two parts: One part of the
document deals with the facts that have to do with Jack’s obsession?
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And the other part has to do with the legal errors in the
trial?
Mr. RUBY. Yes; right—correct.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me direct myself to some of the factual issues that
are raised by Exhibit No. 1. I have made some notes here as you have
been talking, and I want you, after we cover this, to tell me if I have
left anything out that you think is important, but I want to try to
cover this in orderly fashion. I am going backward though.
One issue that you raised here was that District Attorney Wade had
withheld certain psychiatric evidence at the trial that had been turned
over to him by the FBI.
Mr. RUBY. By the FBI.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And that was that your brother Jack had received
psychiatric help at age 10 and none of the family members knew about it?
Mr. RUBY. That is right.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me ask you to tell us what your present understanding
is now as to how Jack happened to get this psychiatric treatment, and
where it was administered, and for how long, and the other details?
Mr. RUBY. I don’t know that but the FBI gave that information to Wade,
and Tonahill has that information in Dallas but I don’t have the exact
dates.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, do you know where he got the psychiatric aid?
Mr. RUBY. In Chicago.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you know what institution?
Mr. RUBY. No.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You say Tonahill has this information?
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you know how this evidence happened to be given, or let
me ask you this, how do you know this evidence was given by the FBI to
Mr. Wade?
Mr. RUBY. Tonahill.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Tonahill has told you?
Mr. RUBY. Yes; that it was given to Wade by the FBI.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How did Tonahill learn about this?
Mr. RUBY. That I don’t know.