The testimony of Mrs. Eva Grant was taken at 3:30 p.m., on May 28,
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. Mrs. Eva Grant was
accompanied by her attorney, Phil Burleson.
Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Mrs. Eva Grant. Mrs. Grant is
represented by Mr. Phil Burleson, her attorney.
Mrs. Grant, my name is Leon D. Hubert. I am a member of the advisory
staff of the general counsel on the President’s Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy. Under the provisions of Executive
Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, issued by President Johnson,
the joint resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules of procedure
adopted by the President’s Commission in conformance with the Executive
order and that joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn
deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of
this Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon
the facts relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular, as to
you, Mrs. Grant, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine what
facts you know about the death of Oswald, and the life and activities
of your brother, Jack Ruby, and any other pertinent facts that you may
know about the general inquiry.
Now, Mrs. Grant, I believe that you appear here today by a request made
to you by a letter from Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff
for the President’s Commission. I ask you now if you have received that
letter?
Mrs. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you state to us, please, what the date of the letter
is?
Mrs. GRANT. May 22.
Mr. HUBERT. And it was received by you on what date?
Mrs. GRANT. On the following date. I think, what is today—Thursday? I
know I called here, it seems to me, Monday or Tuesday now.
Mr. HUBERT. In any case, you have no objection to the taking of this
deposition at the present time?
Mrs. GRANT. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, will you rise and raise your right hand so that I may
administer the oath?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs. GRANT. I do.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name, please, ma’am?
Mrs. GRANT. Well, I go under the name of Eva L. Grant.
Mr. HUBERT. How do you spell the first name?
Mrs. GRANT. Eva (spelling) E-v-a and “L.” Let me explain something to
you—I married a man who used the name Grant, but the name, which you
will notice, is Granovsky, but I married him under that name and I used
that name for at least 25 years. I married in 1936, so you figure it
out.
Mr. HUBERT. And how old are you, Mrs. Grant?
Mrs. GRANT. Fifty-five.
Mr. HUBERT. And where do you reside?
Mrs. GRANT. 3929 Rawlins, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. Are you at present occupied?
Mrs. GRANT. No.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, in the course of this investigation I hope to conduct
it in this way, that I will question you concerning certain segments or
blocks or questions that will relate to a subject.
Under the rules of the proceedings your counsel may make any objection
at anytime and under the rules also he could ask you any questions that
he wants to at the end of the whole hearing, but I think, for ease of
handling, it would be better if he asked you his questions after we
have finished a particular area or block. I will try to indicate to
your counsel when I am passing from one to the other, so that we can
stop there and let him ask the questions as to that block, but I invite
you, Mr. Burleson, if I should overlook and pass on to the next block,
and it is obvious to you that I am, will you please interrupt and we
will then have your questions relative to that block, so that the whole
of the matter will be together in that way.
I think that perhaps the first thing I should like for you to do
is identify the statements that were made by you to the FBI in
several interviews that they had of you. Now, for the purpose of
identification, first I am marking these exhibits as follows, to
wit: “Dallas, Tex., May 28, 1964, Exhibit 1 to the deposition of Eva
Grant.” I have signed my name to that and placed my initials on each
of the subsequent pages in the lower right-hand corner. That Exhibit
No. 1 purports to be the report of an interview of you by FBI Agents
Jack Peden and Gaston Thompson on November 25, 1963, consisting of
seven pages, and I have previously handed this Exhibit 1 to you and
your attorney with the request that you read it and make any notes you
wish, because what we want to do now is to state whether this Exhibit 1
represents a correct version of your understanding of the facts, and I
will now ask you—have you read Exhibit 1?
Mrs. GRANT. Yes; I have.
Mr. HUBERT. With the aid and assistance of your counsel, would you
tell us please, ma’am, whether Exhibit 1 is correct, pointing out any
incorrections—things that are incorrect—anything that is omitted?
Mrs. GRANT. I would have to see that again; may I?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes, ma’am.
Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Hubert, I might make a suggestion here since I have
gone over it with her, possibly I could take her now and go into these
areas?
Mr. HUBERT. That will be a good way to do it because my general
question is whether or not it is a completely correct document, and,
therefore, to the extent it is not, I think it would be best if you
would take her over to show that.
Mrs. GRANT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. May I suggest that you use a system of quoting the sentence
to which you address yourself so it is clearly identified?
Mr. BURLESON. Mrs. Grant, on page 1 of this—it is correct to the best
of your present memory, is it not?
Off the record.
(A discussion between Counsel Hubert and Counsel Burleson off the
record.)
Mrs. GRANT (reading instrument referred to). Let me go ahead and say
this now—you do want me to say it—when Jack looked at that Weissman ad,
it seems to me this is what he said——
Mr. BURLESON. Wait, are you making reference to a specific sentence in
here, or are you adding to something?
Mrs. GRANT. Well, I didn’t say here that he called. I think he was over
there. I’m almost sure, but I may have said it—will you tell him about
me? I was so sick—I mean—I was——
Mr. BURLESON. Well, we will get into that in just a minute. Is there
anything in this—on this first page that is incorrect as you now view
things?
Mrs. GRANT (reading). Well, you see, right here, “he said he
contacted”—he was in the Dallas Morning News when the President was
assassinated. He was placing his ads and he was in the building from
11 until, maybe, at 1:30, and that should have been put in here and I
thought I told him that.
Mr. BURLESON. Well, let’s refer to that—on this last sentence on page
1, it starts out with, “She stated that Jack Ruby told her that he was
at the Dallas Morning News which ran his advertisements and asked them.
‘Where in the hell do you get off taking an ad like that? Are you money
hungry?’”
What do you want to say about that?
Mrs. GRANT. There was a fellow there that takes his ads and his name
is Newman. I think his name is John Newman, and Jack was in that area
where this all takes place and the telephones were ringing, and Jack
says people were canceling their ads, you know, complete commercial
ads and subscriptions and the place was a madhouse. He was in the
Dallas Morning News—he went there, you see——
Mr. BURLESON. To this statement, though, that I have just quoted—your
answer is what?
Mrs. GRANT. Yes: but he did call me from there—he was there.
Mr. BURLESON. That morning?
Mrs. GRANT. That’s right—he was in the Dallas Morning News and John
knew——