Mr. FOWLER. Well, I won’t want to go back there then.
Mr. TONAHILL. If he ever gets his hands on you, they’ll let him have it.
Mr. SPECTER (addressing the court reporter). I hope you have had a
chance to put these observations on the record.
Mr. FOWLER. I also want this further put into the record as to how many
requests, in addition to this one, that were made for this test.
Mr. SPECTER. We would be willing to accede to that request, and as
you know, we have been trying to set this up for a long while. The
circumstances of the Commission’s timetable require us to proceed
today; that is, either proceed or find out from Mr. Ruby that we would
not ever proceed along this line. I have requested Sheriff Decker to
have a physician standing by so that he may protect, to the fullest
extent possible, Mr. Ruby’s physical condition if he needs medical
attention. As to your first request for Dr. Tanay of Detroit to be
present, the Commission would permit that. But since Dr. Tanay is not
now present, there is no way to implement that. We have no objection to
having any other doctor here who can be present here today.
With respect to request No. 2 made during our preliminary discussion,
that the results of the tests be held confidential, the Commission has
heretofore on other questions refused to make any advance commitment
because of the nature of its responsibility to make the final
decision on disclosing or not disclosing what it concludes is in the
public interest. Or stated differently, the Commission just won’t be
committed. The results of this examination will not be disclosed to
anyone until the Commission itself has reviewed the results and makes a
decision, bearing many factors in mind, including your request, to have
the information remain confidential.
Mr. FOWLER. All right; now in the past, of course we feel this—that
as to the other information that we assumed would be confidential and
would not be released to the press, this of course has been done, and
we strenuously request that this matter not be released to the press.
(At this point Sheriff Decker entered the room.)
Mr. DECKER (addressing Mr. Fowler). Jim Kerr caught you making a
50-yard dash and they are circling around downstairs and Jim Kerr is
just going in circles wanting to know what Clayton Fowler is doing up
in the jail.
(At this point Sheriff Decker left the room.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Fowler, as to your last statement, I don’t know what
you are referring to specifically, and without taking it up in terms
of specific items, I couldn’t comment about it, and I don’t know that
it would be really useful to go into it at this time. The material
given to the Commission, where the Commission says it will be kept
confidential, to the best of my knowledge, has always been honored.
There are in these proceedings many chains and it is not possible in
some cases to pinpoint responsibility, but the Chief Justice and the
Commission have honored every commitment they have made heretofore.
If they feel in their judgment—of course they have the paramount
responsibility for the entire investigation—that the results of this
proceeding ought to be kept secret, you may be assured that it will be
implemented to the fullest extent possible.
Mr. FOWLER. Well, of course, our request is that this matter be held
strictly confidential because it is being given at the request of the
Commission and for the benefit of the Commission, and we feel that
the Commission and only the Commission should have this information,
and before any of it is released for public consumption or private
consumption, No. 1, the sheriff’s office, the district attorney’s
office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any other agency of the
Government outside the Warren Commission—that we be told that this is
going to be done.
Mr. SPECTER. That request, I think, can be honored in that you will
be notified in advance of any publication, that the Commission will
make a publication if in fact it ultimately decides to make such a
publication. Now, there is one facet of this matter which is difficult
to control and that is the fact itself that a polygraph examination
is being administered. I do not know at this time what circulation
has been given to this fact, if any, by any of the people who are
involved, since it has touched many bases among many parties in this
proceeding. That fact itself may have already been disclosed, but with
respect to the results of this examination, I propose to keep those
within the custody of the Commission through the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and its operators, who are conducting this test, and
their report will be made available only to the Commission until the
Commission decides whether it should be made public.
Mr. FOWLER. All right. Now then, I would like for this record to also
show that this letter from Mr. Gordon Shanklin has been handed to
you and that you are fully appraised of what this letter contains,
and I want the record to further show that on this date (1:05 p.m.),
not later than 10 minutes ago, I talked with Jack Ruby. I read the
letter to him. I explained it to him to the best of my ability. I
also advised him that the family legal advisor, Mr. Sol Dann, an
attorney of Detroit, had made these requests, and that following these
requests that I as Jack Ruby’s attorney advised him not to take the
test, and that if he did so he would be doing it against the advice
of his attorney, against the advice of his family advisor’s attorney,
and against the advice of the family, and that notwithstanding this,
Jack said that he had requested this before either Mr. Sol Dann or
myself came into this case as attorneys, and that Chief Justice Warren
had promised that he would give him this test, and that regardless
of what Mr. Dann’s wishes would be, together with his entire family
and together with his attorneys of record, that he insisted on this
test, but that a further proceeding of it would be against the advice
of his lawyers, and at this time we do respectfully request that the
Commission not disclose any of the questions that will be submitted
to Jack Ruby to any other person other than the operators, the
investigator for the Warren Commission, and his attorneys present, Mr.
Joe Tonahill and Clayton Fowler; and that more specifically that these
questions not be given to anyone connected with the Dallas Sheriff’s
Office, the Dallas Agency of the Bureau of Investigation, the Dallas
District Attorney’s Office, and more specifically, Mr. Bill Alexander,
who is present in the room at this time and representing the district
attorney’s office, and Mr. Allan Sweatt, who is present in the room and
representing the Dallas Sheriff’s Office. Anything else, Joe?
Mr. TONAHILL. I might go back on a little background whenever you
finish.
Mr. FOWLER. I wish you would.
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the notation for the record concerning
the contents of the letter from Mr. Gordon Shanklin, special agent in
charge of the FBI office here in Dallas, that identical information has
been conveyed through the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Mr. J.
Lee Rankin, general counsel of the Commission. Having considered those
requests and those factors, the general counsel has instructed me to
proceed to have this polygraph taken today if Mr. Jack Ruby wants to
have this polygraph taken in accordance with his prior request to the
Commission on June 7, 1964, and the commitment given by the Commission
through the Chief Justice that such a polygraph examination would
be given. With respect to the request that none of the questions be
made available to anybody from the Dallas Police Department or the
Dallas District Attorney’s Office or the Dallas Sheriff’s Office,
the Commission’s position on that is that if the questions are to be
submitted in advance to the counsel for the defendant, that there is
equal standing on the part of the State to have similar treatment.
Previously, I outlined for you the procedure that we proposed to adopt
during the course of this polygraph examination, to wit; having the
people present in the room who are here at the present time, which
includes Mr. Clayton Fowler and Mr. Joe Tonahill, representing Mr.
Ruby; Mr. William F. Alexander, representing the Dallas District
Attorney’s office; Mr. Allan L. Sweatt, chief criminal deputy of the
Dallas Sheriff’s office; Mr. Bell P. Herndon, special agent of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Mr. W. James Wood, special agent
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who are going to administer the
polygraph examination.
The questions to be asked of Mr. Ruby at the time of administration
of the examination would be set forth to Mr. Ruby so that he would
understand them fully; and with the other people present, it would be
known what questions were going to be asked of Mr. Ruby in advance of
the actual asking.
Then, it was the Commission’s view that everybody should leave the room
except for the two special agents of the FBI who would be administering
the test, the court reporter and me, so that the minimum number of
people would be present.
I have conveyed that request to Sheriff Decker and he has insisted that
a member of his staff be present as custodian of the body of Jack Ruby,
since he has that responsibility. It is not yet determined who that
will be, but the Commission proposes to proceed on the administration
of the polygraph test under those circumstances, with the only open
question being the identity, if anyone, of the representative of the
sheriff who has charge of the custody of the body of the defendant here
or Jack Ruby, since he is not a defendant in this proceeding, actually.
Mr. TONAHILL. I should like to say as one of Jack Ruby’s defense
counsel along with Chief Defense Counsel Clayton Fowler, that when I
entered the defense of Jack Ruby back in December of 1963, with Mr.
Belli, at that time we insisted before undertaking his defense that he
agree to a polygraph test and truth serum test or any other scientific
test that would reflect whether or not there was a connection between
him and Lee Harvey Oswald or in any respect a conspiracy. He agreed and
insisted at that time that there was no such conspiracy. He did not
know Lee Harvey Oswald and there was no connection between them and
that he would undertake any type of a scientific test that we could
have made available for him. Jack Ruby has insisted on those tests ever
since.
We have from time to time proposed to the FBI through Mr. Gordon
Shanklin and others, that a lie detector test be given Mr. Ruby. We
have filed motions to obtain scientific tests. Mr. Ruby has insisted on
these tests very strenuously and has felt that I have stood in the way
of him obtaining them.
I was present during the Warren Commission deposition of Jack Ruby
along with Mr. Jim Bowie of the district attorney’s office some 6 weeks
ago when Chief Justice Earl Warren on numerous occasions responded to
Jack Ruby that he had it in his power to make available to him some day
in the future a polygraph test and would do so at Mr. Ruby’s request.
Now it has come down that Chief Justice Earl Warren and the Warren
Commission are now in the process of keeping faith with their promise
to Mr. Ruby.
Mr. Fowler and I have talked with the various psychiatrists, Drs.
Tanay, West, and Beavers, each of whom feels that because Jack Ruby is
of unsound mind and mentally ill, this polygraph test is a mistake and
would produce nothing by way of an accurate result of deception, truth,
or conclusiveness in any regard and feel that it should not be made.
As cocounsel with Mr. Fowler. I yield to his position here and
concur with him, but as a personal individual, very close and very
knowledgeable of the entire history of this polygraph demand on
the part of Ruby, it is my personal view that even though he is of
unsound mind, does not know right from wrong, is mentally ill, and his
psychiatrists are opposed to it, unless he is given the polygraph test
there will never be any satisfaction in any respect. His condition
might even grow worse without it, and in the interest of satisfying
everyone concerned, the State, the Nation, and the world—that in
all probability if this polygraph test is not given, there will be
left hanging in the clouds certain doubts as to whether there was a
conspiracy between Ruby and others or Oswald, or whether they knew each
other, despite the fact that his mental condition may be such that it
will not demonstrate any effective results.
Nevertheless my personal view is that it might be well to go forward
with it, and certainly if all appellate efforts are exhausted on behalf
of Jack Ruby and his case is affirmed all the way up, which I feel that
it won’t be; if his family and Jack Ruby should refuse to undergo a
polygraph test, certainly the Board of Pardons and Parole may look with
disfavor upon that fact and infer possible premeditation on his part in
the shooting of Oswald or a possible conspiracy and might rule against
him in granting clemency, in the event it ever reached that stage. And,
irrespective of whether an effective polygraph test can be run of this
man at this time in his present mental state or not, I personally feel
that an effort should be made to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. For the record I want to add that requests have been
received by the Commission, requests made on behalf of Mr. Ruby, to
have a polygraph test, prior to the time the Commission heard his
testimony on June 7 of this year, and that the Commission has not
initiated any effort whatsoever to have a polygraph test taken but is
only conducting these proceedings today to make available to Mr. Ruby
this examination if he wishes to have it at this time, in accordance
with the promise made by the Commission through the Chief Justice on
June 7.
I want to be emphatic and clear on this question that we do not now
and have never asked for or insisted on a polygraph examination. If
Mr. Ruby does not want to have such an examination taken, that is
acceptable to the President’s Commission on the Assassination. As we
discussed informally before we started a record proceeding, in this
event we are willing to have anything put on the record that Mr. Fowler
or Mr. Tonahill wish to place on the record as his attorneys; and of
course, we do not wish to, have not, and will not interfere in any way
with your representation of Mr. Ruby, as his counsel, so that he may
take your advice and proceed in accordance with your advice.
If you wish to put on the record any medical evidence, I am authorized
to have that done here today or at a later date. Mr. Tonahill and I
discussed this matter by telephone last Wednesday and I indicated to
him at that time that the Commission was willing to have such evidence
placed on the record as an aid to their evaluation of whether to place
any credence in the tests which are going to be administered.
It has been somewhat uncertain as to whether this proceeding would
go forward today, so that counsel for Mr. Ruby may wish to provide
supplemental data by way of testimony, letter, affidavit or in whatever
form you choose. The Commission will be glad to receive it and to weigh
it in evaluating whatever these tests may disclose.
May the record further show that arrangements have been made to
have Dr. Norman Beavers available, adjacent to the room where these
proceedings will take place, in the event that there is any medical
attention required for Mr. Ruby.
Mr. TONAHILL. Sheriff Decker gave me this phone number and said he
would be standing by.
I would like to add to Mr. Specter’s comments that it is correct that
numerous letters have been written by me to the Warren Commission
requesting the polygraph test prior to the intervention of the
psychiatrist, who felt that it would be a mistake.
At no time has the Warren Commission agreed and stated that they
desired the polygraph test. The test, as I understand, has grown out of
the agreement between Mr. Ruby and Mr. Chief Justice Earl Warren at the
hearing that occurred here about 6 weeks ago.
I should like to say that I asked Sheriff Bill Decker to get in touch
with Dr. William Beavers, and this was as a result of the conversation
with Mr. Specter, and have Dr. William Beavers available so that he
could be interrogated subsequent to the running of the polygraph test.
Is that agreeable?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; that is agreeable, if you desire to do just that.
Mr. FOWLER. Further, let’s add this, Joe, that in whatever capacity or
degree it would help to substantiate that in our opinion we believe
that Jack Ruby is of unsound mind.
We would like to submit at a later date a report by Dr. Emanuel Tanay,
a practicing psychiatrist in Detroit, Mich., a report by him based upon
the examination of Jack Ruby, together with the report of Dr. West, and
we would respectfully request that this matter be furnished to you at a
later date. We have it available but not for today, and we would like
to make it a part of this record, as suggested by counsel.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Fowler, the Commission will be glad to receive any
evidence that you may wish to submit on all the questions which you
have raised during the course of this proceeding.
Mr. TONAHILL. Whoever is in charge of his body ought not to be an
expert on this thing [referring and indicating the polygraph machine].
Mr. FOWLER. You and I have done all we can do on it. I am not going to
physically manhandle Jack Ruby.
Mr. TONAHILL. No; Jack Ruby is going to insist on doing it, and until
he is declared a ward through an insanity proceedings, he is presumed
to be able to exercise his own consent.
Mr. FOWLER. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. Let us discuss this off the record a moment.
(Discussion between Mr. Specter and Messrs. Tonahill and Fowler off
the record regarding presence in the room of anyone able to operate a
polygraph machine other than the FBI operator, Mr. Herndon.)
Mr. FOWLER. Let us put this into the record, that we would further
object to anyone in the sheriff’s office being present. If the only
valid reason is one of security, and I would like the record to
reflect that we are within the confines of the Dallas County Jail,
namely, on 7-M, which is a part of the Dallas County Jail, and that it
would appear to me to be virtually escape proof, and as I understand
previously when Mr. Warren was here, that he was allowed to talk with
Jack Ruby by himself and without the presence of anyone from the
sheriff’s department, which further leads me to believe that this is
not for security purposes only, and we will object to the presence of
anyone from the Dallas County Sheriff’s office.
Mr. SPECTER. In response to your objection. Mr. Fowler, for the record
I will state that the Commission has requested that its preference be
honored to have no one other than the FBI personnel administering the
test, the court reporter, and me present, but that Sheriff Decker has
taken the position that the prisoner, Jack Ruby, is his responsibility
and that he must have someone on his staff present. Sheriff Decker
did agree to substitute as that person the chief jailer, who has no
knowledge of or experience with polygraph operation, so that the
confidentiality of these proceedings is secure in my view.
Sheriff Decker’s position is not that Mr. Ruby may escape, but there
may be an incident which would require having someone present, and the
sheriff feels that someone from his staff ought to be present. In view
of his position on that, it is my conclusion that such a proviso is
justifiable under all the circumstances.
With respect to the conversations between the Chief Justice and Mr.
Ruby, I was present at the time those conversations were held and
they were held in the corner of the room in which we are now sitting,
following the formal testimony of Mr. Ruby at a time when there were
numerous people in another portion of this room in which we now sit,
so that at no time was the Chief Justice alone with Mr. Ruby in any
separate room. Mr. Tonahill was present at that time and I think can
confirm my version.
Mr. TONAHILL. We were all present and the sheriff’s department men did
leave, the personnel there—the sheriff and his deputies. He left him in
the custody—we left Ruby’s body in charge of a Secret Service man.
Mr. SPECTER. Elmer Moore.
Mr. TONAHILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And at that time there were also present Mr. Tonahill,
Mr. Rankin, Congressman Ford, Mr. Ball of the Commission’s staff, and
I was present. At no time did the Chief Justice have any conversations
privately with Mr. Ruby except that, at the very end, Mr. Ruby, the
Chief Justice, and I were in a corner of the room conversing, and there
were many others present at that time, and I think Mr. Tonahill can
verify that.
Mr. TONAHILL. I was present.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, for the record, I want to state that Mr. Fowler has
previously gone to discuss the matter with Mr. Ruby to determine what
are Mr. Ruby’s desires in terms of having a polygraph examination,
in view of the stated position of the Commission that it does not
request such an examination, but has made such an examination available
to Mr. Ruby if he wants one, pursuant to his request to have such an
examination, made during the course of Commission proceedings on June
7, 1964, and the response by Chief Justice Warren that the Commission
would offer him such a polygraph examination in response to his
repeated requests.
Mr. FOWLER. Now, I would like to answer regarding the presence of a
deputy sheriff here. I believe you advanced the theory that it was
thought by Mr. Decker that there might be something that might occur
during the giving of the polygraph tests that perhaps might disrupt
things.
We further feel and respectfully request that if there is this feeling
by the polygraph operator himself, that he will be conducting this test
some 10 or 12 feet from a door, and if the sheriff is allowed at all,
that he be allowed to stand at the door and any other exit that might
be in the building, to not be able to view the chart or any part of it.
This would be our request to that.
Mr. SPECTER. The conditions set forth in your request will be granted
and the sheriff’s custodian will be present at the door so that he may
not have access to the chart, to insure the confidential nature of
these proceedings.
I think we are now ready to have Mr. Ruby come in, but before he comes
in, let’s take a 5-minute recess.
Let the record show we are taking a 5-minute recess.
(Proceedings recessed and resumed as stated.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. I assume that once Jack is brought in, there will be
complete silence.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Mr. Alexander, do you want to make your request for
the record?
Mr ALEXANDER. Yes; please. At this time for and on behalf of the Dallas
County, Tex., district attorney’s office, a request is made that the
Warren Commission furnish the district attorney’s office a list of the
questions asked Jack Ruby in this polygraph examination, and that a
copy of the recording made by the polygraph machine be furnished the
Dallas County district attorney’s office. We would also like a copy
of the interpretation of the test, but whether or not we are given an
interpretation of the test, we do want the aforementioned questions and
actual tape of the polygraph machine.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Fowler, you may want to make a similar request as to
the results.
Mr. FOWLER. In behalf of Jack Ruby and as attorney for Jack Ruby, I
respectfully request that the Warren Commission deny the request of the
Dallas district attorney’s office for the following reasons: Number
One—that this is a matter of request that has been made by Mr. Ruby
to the Warren Commission only, that if the district attorney’s office
were furnished with these questions and answers and any other matters
pertaining to the giving of this polygraph test, it might and could
and very well effect the outcome of his case that is now on appeal
before the court of criminal appeals here in the State of Texas, and we
respectfully request that the request by the district attorney’s office
be denied by the Warren Commission in all of their requests for this
information.
On the other hand, we who represent Jack Ruby, respectfully request
that we be furnished a copy of the questions that will be asked and
that if some determination is made as to the answers and the outcome is
ever made public, that we be furnished the information of the outcome
of the tests.
Now, this is off the record.
(Statement by Mr. Fowler to Mr. Specter, off the record, requesting
that Mr. Ruby be advised again when brought into the room for the test,
the requests of his attorneys and family with respect to taking the
test.)
Mr. SPECTER. In response to those two statements, no commitment can
be made on behalf of the Commission anticipating the action of the
Commission in advance of knowledge by the Commission of the results of
the tests, and any additional evidence which may be submitted on the
competency of Mr. Ruby which may aid the Commission in the evaluation
of the results of the polygraph examination. The requests of Mr.
Alexander and Mr. Fowler will be transmitted to the Commission and
will be carefully studied by the Commission before any final decision
is reached.
With respect to a list of questions, the procedure as previously
outlined will permit all parties to be present when the questions are
enumerated, so that the questions asked of Mr. Ruby will be a surprise
to no one, but will be discussed in his presence and in the presence of
representatives of both the district attorney’s office and Mr. Ruby’s
defense counsel, so that there is no limitation to the taking of notes
on the questions that may be asked.
With respect to the results, including a copy of the results themselves
and a copy of the interpretation, no commitment can be made until the
Commission has examined the results in this matter fully.
With respect to affecting the outcome of any subsequent proceedings,
the Commission has exercised the greatest possible care in avoiding the
influencing of the State court proceedings.
The action taken by the Commission has been designed to fulfill its
function, while at the same time not interfering, or interfering to the
minimal possible extent, with the State court proceedings. Now, before
we get Mr. Ruby in, do you want to make a request for his doctor; and
when we get Mr. Ruby in, we will make the other statement and then we
will be able to go ahead, but I don’t think we want to go through any
more with him present than we have to.
Mr. TONAHILL. Yes; it is requested that Dr. William Beavers, who has
been retained by Jack Ruby’s family to observe and treat Jack Ruby, be
present during the examination in order that he may observe and render
any expression that he may have to offer that will be of benefit to
the Commission as well as to Jack Ruby’s mental health condition, with
special reference to interpreting the results of the polygraph tests,
and as an aid and guide to the Commission in its interpretation of it
as to what weight and value to give to it.
Mr. SPECTER. Does that request, Mr. Tonahill, go only for the time that
everyone is present, or do you want him present, while the examination
itself is going on?
Mr. TONAHILL. While the examination itself is going on—before and
during the examinations—before the examination and during the actual
examination, so that he can actually observe the actual examination.
Mr. SPECTER. In view of the expression of concern that has been made by
Dr. Tanay, that request will be granted, since it is made by counsel
for Mr. Ruby at this time.
The JAILER (on entering the room). He will be right up.
(Mr. Ruby entered the hearing room at 2:23 p.m.)
Mr. SPECTER. May the record now show that Mr. Ruby is present. Mr.
Ruby, I am Arlen Specter. How are you today?
Mr. RUBY. Fine; how are you?
Mr. TONAHILL. Jack, that’s Mr. Specter of the Warren Commission.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Ruby, why don’t you have a chair over here—we’ve been
getting things set up, and let me introduce you to everybody so you
will know who everybody is.
This is Miss Odell Oliver, who is the court reporter, and she will take
your testimony just like we did before.
Miss OLIVER. How do you do, Mr. Ruby?
Mr. SPECTER. And I guess you know Dr. Beavers, and this is Mr. Wood.
He is one of the polygraph operators with the FBI, and this is Mr.
Herndon, one of the operators and with the FBI also. This is Mr.
Alexander, and your name, sir?
The JAILER. Mr. Holman, E. L.
Mr. SPECTER. This is Mr. Holman.
Mr. RUBY. Can Fowler remain here after I start with the interrogation?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; Mr. Ruby. The procedure which we’ve discussed is this
and this is subject to agreement of all sides, and we’ve been through
it, but let me go through it with you. We are going to conduct the
polygraph examination in a standard way, which involves a series of
questions, about eight or nine in duration. Before we start with the
series, the questions will be explained to you in advance so that you
will know exactly what the questions are to be and you will know what
the operator means by the questions. He will explain them so that
there is no possibility of any confusion in terms of what the questions
mean so they won’t surprise you. You will have full awareness of what
is going to be asked.
At that time, everybody who is present in this room will be present
when the questions are discussed in a general way. So that the record
may be complete, let it show that Mr. Fowler is here and Mr. Tonahill
is here, and Mr. Alexander is here, and Mr. Herndon and Mr. Wood are
here. Dr. Beavers is here, and Chief Jailer E. L. Holman is here, Odell
Oliver is here, and of course, I am here. Those are the only people who
are here now and they are the only people who will be present when we
explain each series of questions to you, so that you understand what is
happening and what questions are going to be asked.
Now, scientifically, it’s preferable to have as few people possible
at the time the examination is administered as we can, so for that
purpose, we are trying to cut down the number as much as we can. We
had originally thought that the only people present would be the two
operators, the court reporter and I. Now we have Mr. Holman here on the
custody question, and then your counsel requested especially that Dr.
Beavers be present at the time of the administration of the tests. It
is our desire to have only those people present, which would mean Mr.
Alexander wouldn’t be here and Mr. Tonahill wouldn’t be here and Mr.
Fowler wouldn’t be here at the time the test is administered.
Mr. RUBY. I would like to have Mr. Fowler here in preference of Dr.
Beavers. May I request that?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; you may request that.
Mr. RUBY. And how soon will the answers be released, as soon as
possible?
Mr. SPECTER. Well, the answers are going to be compiled by the FBI and
then they’re going to go to the Commission, to Chief Justice Warren
of the Commission, and I am not in a position to say to you when the
answers will be released. That will be up to the Commission. They will
have to study the results of the tests and make a decision on the time
of release of the tests. Everything is up to them as to whether they
will be released, what the release will be, and when it will be made.
I want to say preliminarily before we start, that the Commission has
not requested the test, but it is responding to the request which was
made on your behalf by letter, before the Chief Justice questioned you
on June 7.
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. You requested then that a test be given.
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. We want it to be perfectly plain for the record that the
Commission isn’t pushing this matter, but it’s only in response to your
request, and that you have learned counsel here who are representing
you, and you are aware of that. We want to make it pointed and clear
that anything you say could be used against you, and it is possible for
adverse or unfavorable inferences to be drawn. Whenever a defendant who
is involved in a criminal proceeding says anything, anything he says
could be held against him.
I know Mr. Fowler and Mr. Tonahill have advised you of that and that
has been brought to your attention, but this record should show that we
called it to your attention as forcefully and as clearly as we could,
so that you would understand what we are doing here.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Specter; let me explain one thing. Under Texas law,
nothing that Jack says here could be used against him in Texas.
Mr. RUBY. Bill, I’m not quarreling with that, and I know you certainly
are not going to help me, I know that, but I want to get a copy to the
chief as soon as I can, Chief Holman over there.
Mr. SPECTER. You would like to do what, Mr. Ruby?
Mr. RUBY. To have the report as soon as the results are analyzed.
Mr. SPECTER. That, as I say, is up to the Commission, but you
understand what I have said to you here?
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And under those circumstances do you continue to request
that such an examination be given you?
Mr. RUBY. Yes: any questions you want to ask, anything pertaining to
this—I will answer anything without reluctance. There’s no punches to
be pulled. I want to answer anything and everything.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Fowler, I think, wants to make a statement for the
record too.
Mr. RUBY. In fact, Bill, you can stay here If you want to.
Mr. FOWLER. Jack: let me ask you this: A little while ago I came up
into the jail cell and talked with you, is that correct?
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. FOWLER. And at that time I advised you that the Warren Commission
people were here at your request to give you a polygraph test?
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. FOWLER. I also showed you a letter from Mr. Gordon Shanklin of the
FBI here in Dallas, that he had received requests that were submitted
to him by Mr. Sol Dann, who is the legal advisor to your family?
Mr. RUBY. Right.
Mr. FOWLER. And that certain requests were made there, No. 1, that the
tests would be given in the presence of Dr. Tanay, with no outsiders
present, with particular reference to anyone from the district
attorney’s office or the sheriff’s office, and further, that it
would have to be assured that the results of the tests would be held
confidential by the Commission, and that under no circumstances made
available to the district attorney or the press. Further, that written
authority for such examination be obtained from Mr. Earl Ruby. Now, I
have explained this to you, have I not?
Mr. RUBY. Yes; can I change that now?
Mr. FOWLER. Well, let me go on further, Jack, and as your attorney of
record, at that time I advised that you not take nor submit to this
polygraph test.
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. FOWLER. And at this time, as your attorney of record, I advise
you in the presence of these gentlemen and Commission, these people
representing the Commission, that you will be doing so against the
advice of your counsel.
Mr. RUBY. Right.
Mr. FOWLER. And against the advice and wishes of your family.
Mr. RUBY. Right.
Mr. FOWLER. Now, do you still at this time wish to take the tests?
Mr. RUBY. Yes; and I would also like to add that, if I have a right to
say this—I want it be made immediately that the district attorney’s
office should receive whatever is necessary in regard to the answers
to the district attorney, and as I once wrote to District Attorney
Henry Wade, that I didn’t want to publicize it, but if possible they
may—I would prefer that naturally, but at that time it was so easy to
get a lie detector test, I wrote to Henry Wade; that it is not for
publicity purposes but only for authenticity and the truth. So, I agree
with everything except that if I may supersede the attorney and say
I’m not concerned about withholding anything. I want it to be released
immediately to all parties concerned.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, your request on that, Mr. Ruby, will be transmitted
to the Commission and they will consider that very carefully in
reaching whatever conclusion they do about releasing it.
Mr. RUBY. I want to supersede the attorney, Mr. Dann, in stating that
I want everything to come out immediately, as soon as possible, and
whoever wants to know the results—what the results are—I want it to be
known, regardless of which way it turns.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Ruby, you want Mr. Fowler to remain with you during
the course of the examination?
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. In view of Mr. Ruby’s request, it is my view that it ought
to be honored and that the group is of such a size now that it ought to
remain as it is constituted at the present time for both sessions.
We have done our best to limit it, but since it is a legitimate request
here to include Mr. Fowler, we will sit in this group during all
portions of the test.
Mr. Ruby has indicated that he has no objection to having Mr. Alexander
here, and if one side is here, the other may be.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Specter, if it will help the ultimate in the tests,
I have no objection to leaving the room, and perhaps Mr. Tonahill, I
think, could very well leave, or if Jack has no objections and perhaps
wants us here, we will stay.
Mr. SPECTER. I am advised by Mr. Herndon that the technical
considerations are not persuasive as to one or two more people,
with this many present, so that if it’s acceptable to all parties,
specifically Mr. Ruby, we will just proceed with the group that’s
presently here during all portions, the explanatory portion to Mr. Ruby
and the actual testing itself.
Is that agreeable, gentlemen? Is that agreeable with you, Mr. Ruby?