repatriation loans may be granted only to destitute U.S. nationals:
a. Who are in complete and unquestioned possession of their
citizenship rights;
b. Who are entitled to receive United States passports;
c. Whose loyalty to the United States Government is beyond
question, or to whom the provisions of Section 423.1-2(b)
apply.[A15-238]
Oswald undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of paragraphs (a) and
(b), since he was determined to have been a U.S. citizen at the time
the loan was granted and he had been issued a passport to return to
the United States. There is a serious question whether he could have
qualified under the first clause of paragraph (c). The Commission is
of the opinion that in its application of this clause the Department
should exercise great care in determining whether an applicant’s
loyalty to the U.S. Government is beyond question, particularly in
the case of a defector like Oswald who has expressed hostility and
disloyalty to our government and manifested a desire to renounce his
citizenship. The Department chose instead to exercise its judgment
under the second clause of paragraph (c), which refers to section
423.1-2(b). This section provides that loans to destitute nationals are
authorized when:
b. The United States national is in or the cause of a
situation which is damaging to the prestige of the United
States Government or which constitutes a compelling reason for
extending assistance to effect his return.[A15-239]
The Department decided that the provisions of section (b) were
applicable to Oswald because his “unstable character and prior
criticism of the United States” would make his continued presence
in the Soviet Union damaging to the prestige of the United
States.[A15-240] In acting under this section, the Department was
acting within its competence and the law. As required by another
section of the regulations, the Department sought to obtain funds for
the Oswalds’ repatriation from private sources--his mother and the
International Rescue Committee--before using Government funds.[A15-241]
Regulations further provide that repatriation loans are authorized
for the alien, wife, and children of the U.S. national receiving a
repatriation loan in order to avoid the division of families.[A15-242]
However, loans are limited
To the minimum amount required to cover transportation and
subsistence while enroute to the nearest continental United
States port. * * * When necessary, loans may include: expenses
incident to embarkation, such as fees for documentation and
minimum subsistence from the date of application for a loan to
the date of departure by the first available ship. * * * The
cost of transportation shall be limited to third-class passage
by ship.[A15-243]
Oswald’s loan was sufficient to cover no more than the least expensive
transportation from Moscow to New York. His passport was stamped as
valid only for return to the United States.[A15-244] Oswald completed
all necessary forms and affidavits to obtain the loan.[A15-245]
According to its own procedures the Department of State should have
prepared a lookout card for Oswald in June 1962 when he received the
proceeds of the loan.[A15-246] The promissory note which he signed
contained a provision stating,
I further understand and agree that after my repatriation I
will not be furnished a passport for travel abroad until my
obligation to reimburse the Treasurer of the United States is
liquidated.[A15-247]
However, a lookout card was never in fact prepared. With respect to
this failure the State Department has informed the Commission as
follows:
On receipt of notice of the loan from the Embassy in Moscow,
the Department’s procedures provided that Miss Leola B.
Burkhead of the Revenues and Receipts Branch of the Office
of Finance should have notified the Clearance Section in the
Passport Office of Oswald’s name, date, and place of birth. If
the Passport Office received only the name and not the date
and place of birth of a borrower, it would not have prepared
a lookout card under its established procedures because of
lack of positive identification. (Among the Passport Office’s
file of millions of passport applicants, there are, of course,
many thousands of identical names.) Mr. Richmond C. Reeley was
the Chief of the Revenues and Receipts Branch of the Office
of Finance and Mr. Alexander W. Maxwell was Chief of the
Clearance Section. If the notice was received in the Clearance
Section it would have been delivered to the Carding Desk for
preparation of a lookout card on Oswald. It appears, however,
that such a lookout card was not prepared. It may have been
that the Finance Office did not notify the Clearance Section
of Oswald’s loan. One reason for this might have been the
Finance Office’s lack of information concerning Oswald’s date
and place of birth. On the other hand, the Finance Office may
have notified the Clearance Section of Oswald’s name only, in
which case this Section would not have prepared a lookout card
under its procedures. Since Oswald began repaying the loan in
installments immediately after his return to the United States,
it is also possible that the Office of Finance decided that it
was unnecessary to pursue the matter further. In any event,
Oswald’s loan was repaid in full on January 29, 1963, five
months prior to his application for a new passport.[A15-248]
OSWALD’S RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AND REPAYMENT OF HIS LOAN
On June 1, 1962, the some day that Oswald received his loan from the
State Department, he and his family left Moscow by train destined for
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.[A15-249] They boarded the SS _Maasdam_ at
Rotterdam on June 4 and arrived in New York on June 13, 1962.[A15-250]
The Embassy sent word of the Oswalds’ departure to the Department of
State in Washington on May 31.[A15-251] Consistent with its prior
practice of keeping the Federal security agencies informed of Oswald’s
activity,[A15-252] the Department notified the FBI.[A15-253]
Frederick J. Wiedersheim, an officer of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in New York, interviewed the Oswalds upon their
entry into the United States at Hoboken, N.J., on June 13, 1962, but
made no written report. Mr. Wiedersheim recalled that he asked the
Oswalds various questions which would determine the eligibility of both
Oswald and Marina to enter the United States. The questions included
whether Oswald had expatriated himself and whether Marina belonged to
any Communist organization which would bar her entry. These questions
were answered in ways which did not appear to raise any problems and
therefore the Oswalds were admitted.[A15-254]
After his reentry, Oswald repaid his loan without having to be reminded
by the Department to do so. The early payments were very small because
he first repaid the approximately $200 he had borrowed from his brother
Robert to apply against the expenses of his travel from New York to
Fort Worth, Tex.[A15-255] The schedule of payments is as follows:
Aug. 13, 1962 $10.00
Sept. 5, 1962 9.71
Oct. 10, 1962 10.00
Nov. 19, 1962 10.00
Dec. 11, 1962 190.00
Jan. 9, 1963 100.00
Jan. 29, 1963 106.00
Total [A15-256]435.71
ISSUANCE OF A PASSPORT IN JUNE 1963
On June 24, 1963, Oswald applied for a U.S. passport at the Passport
Office in New Orleans, La.[A15-257] He said he was planning to visit
England, France, Holland, U.S.S.R., Finland, Italy, and Poland, and
that he intended to leave the country sometime during November or
December 1963 by ship from New Orleans.[A15-258] He stated further
that he was married to a person born in Russia who was not an American
citizen. For occupation, the word “Photographer” was inserted on the
application.[A15-259]
On the same day a teletype was sent to Washington containing the names
of 25 of the persons who applied for passports on that date in New
Orleans, Oswald’s name among them. On the right side of the Washington
Passport Office copy of the teletype message, approximately parallel to
his name, are the letters, “NO,” written in red pencil.[A15-260] Oswald
was issued a passport on June 25, 1963.[A15-261]
Since there was no lookout card on Oswald, the passport was processed
routinely. Twenty-four hours is the usual time for routinely granted
passports to be issued.[A15-262] The handwritten notation, “NO,”
which appeared beside Oswald’s name on the list of applicants from
New Orleans, is a symbol for the New Orleans Passport Office that is
routinely placed on incoming teletype messages by anyone of a group
of persons in the teletype section of the Passport Office.[A15-263]
No one looked at Oswald’s file previously established with the
Department.[A15-264] The Department, however, has informed the
Commission that at the time the passport was issued there was no
information in its passport or security files which would have
permitted it to deny a passport to Oswald.[A15-265] No lookout card
should have been in the file based upon the Moscow Embassy’s memorandum
of March 28, 1960, which drew attention to Oswald’s intention to
expatriate himself, because the subsequent determination that Oswald
had not expatriated himself would remove expatriation as a possible
ground for denying him a passport.[A15-266] And by January 29, 1963,
the repatriation loan had been repaid, so a lookout card should not
have been in the file on that basis.[A15-267]
* * * * *
Oswald was entitled to receive a passport in 1963 unless he came
within one of the two statutory provisions authorizing the Secretary
of State to refuse to issue it.[A15-268] Section 6 of the Subversive
Activities Control Act of 1950, which has recently been declared
unconstitutional,[A15-269] then provided:
* * * it shall be unlawful for any member of [an organization
required to register], with knowledge or notice that such
organization is so registered and that such order has become
final--(1) to make application for passport, or the renewal of
a passport, to be issued or renewed by or under the authority
of the United States; or (2) to use or attempt to use any such
passport.[A15-270]
Pursuant to section 6, the State Department promulgated a regulation
which denied passports to
* * * any individual who the issuing officer knows or has
reason to believe is a member of a Communist Organization
registered or required to be registered under Section 7 of the
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 as amended.[A15-271]
Since there is no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of the
American Communist Party or any other organization which had been
required to register under section 7 of the Subversive Activities
Control Act,[A15-272] a passport could not have been denied him under
section 6.
Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that, while
a Presidential proclamation of national emergency is in force,
* * * it shall, except as otherwise provided by the President,
* * * be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to
depart from or enter * * * the United States unless he bears a
valid passport.[A15-273]
Because a proclamation of national emergency issued by President Truman
during the Korean war had not been revoked by 1963, the Government has
taken the position that the statute remains in force.[A15-274] Pursuant
to section 215, the State Department has issued regulations setting
forth the circumstances under which it will refuse a passport:
In order to promote and safeguard the interests of the United
States, passport facilities, except for direct and immediate
return to the United States, shall be refused to a person when
it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that
the person’s activity abroad would: (a) violate the laws of
the United States; (b) be prejudicial to the orderly conduct
of foreign relations; or (c) otherwise be prejudicial to the
interests of the United States.[A15-275]
The State Department takes the position that its authority under
this regulation is severely limited. In a report submitted to the
Commission, the Department concluded that “there were no grounds
consonant with the passport regulations to take adverse passport
action against Oswald prior to November 22, 1963.”[A15-276] Although
Oswald’s statement in 1959 that he would furnish the Russians with
information he had obtained in the Marine Corps may have indicated
that he would disclose classified information if he possessed any
such information, there was no indication in 1963 that he had any
valuable information.[A15-277] Moreover, Oswald’s 1959 statement had
been brought to the attention of the Department of the Navy[A15-278]
and the FBI[A15-279] and neither organization had initiated criminal
proceedings. The Department therefore had no basis for concluding that
Oswald’s 1959 statement was anything more than rash talk.[A15-280] And
the State Department’s files contained no other information which might
reasonably have led it to expect that Oswald would violate the laws of
the United States when he went abroad.
The most likely ground for denying Oswald a passport in 1963, however,
was provided by subsection (c) of the regulation quoted above, which
requires the denial of a passport when the Secretary of State is
satisfied that the applicant’s “activity abroad would * * * otherwise
be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” In 1957 the
State Department described to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
one category of persons to whom it denied passports under this
provision:
Persons whose previous conduct abroad has been such as to bring
discredit on the United States and cause difficulty for other
Americans (gave bad checks, left unpaid debts, had difficulties
with police, etc.).[A15-281]
In light of the adverse publicity caused the United States by Oswald’s
prior defection to the Soviet Union, he could have been considered
a person “whose previous conduct abroad had been such as to bring
discredit on the United States.” Indeed, the State Department itself
had previously been of the opinion that Oswald’s continued presence in
Russia was damaging to the prestige of the United States because of his
unstable character and prior criticisms of the United States.[A15-282]
However, in 1958 the Supreme Court had decided two cases which
restricted the Secretary of State’s authority to deny passports. In
_Kent_ v. _Dulles_[A15-283] and _Dayton_ v. _Dulles_,[A15-284] the
Supreme Court invalidated a State Department regulation permitting the
denial of passports to Communists and to those “who are going abroad
to engage in activities which will advance the Communist movement for
the purpose, knowingly and willfully of advancing that movement,” on
the ground that the regulation exceeded the authority Congress had
granted the Secretary. The _Kent_ opinion stressed the importance to be
attached to an individual’s ability to travel beyond the borders of the
United States:
The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the
Fifth Amendment * * * Freedom of movement across frontiers in
either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of
our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country,
may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the
heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or
wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of
values.[A15-285]
The _Kent_ opinion also suggested that grounds relating to citizenship
and allegiance to illegal conduct might be the only two upon which the
Department could validly deny a passport application.
The Department, though publicly declaring that these decisions had
little effect upon its broadly worded regulation,[A15-286] in practice
denied passports only in limited situations. In 1963 the Department
denied passports only to those who violated the Department’s travel
restrictions, to fugitives from justice, to those involved in using
passports fraudulently, and to those engaged in illegal activity abroad
or in conduct directly affecting our relations with a particular
country.[A15-287] Passports were granted to people who the Department
might have anticipated would go abroad to denounce the United States,
and to a prior defector.[A15-288] State Department officials believed
that in view of the Supreme Court decisions, the Department was not
empowered to deny anyone a passport on grounds related to freedom of
speech or to political association and beliefs.[A15-289]
Since Oswald’s citizenship was not in question and since there was
no indication that he would be involved in illegal activity abroad,
the only grounds upon which a passport might have been denied Oswald
would have fallen within the area of speech or political belief and
association. The Commission therefore concludes that the Department was
justified in granting a passport to Oswald on June 25, 1963.
VISIT TO THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY IN MEXICO CITY
In October 1963, the Passport Office of the State Department received
a report from the Central Intelligence Agency that Oswald had visited
the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.[A15-290] The report said nothing
about Oswald’s having visited the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, a fact
which was not known until after the assassination. Upon receipt of the
information the passport file on Lee Harvey Oswald was reviewed by the
Passport Office.[A15-291] The CIA communication and the passport file
were read by an attorney and a supervisory attorney in that office
who found no basis for revoking Oswald’s passport or for notifying
the FBI or CIA that Oswald had been issued a new passport in June
1963.[A15-292] The Department has informed the Commission that, “since
the report indicated no grounds for determining Oswald was ineligible
for a passport, a determination was made that no action by the passport
office was required.”[A15-293] Travel to Russia was not proscribed
in 1963. Moreover, the Soviet Union was one of the countries Oswald
had listed on his passport application. Hence, the Commission agrees
that Oswald’s taking steps to enter the Soviet Union in 1963 was not a
sufficient reason to revoke his passport.
Later, on November 14, 1963, the FBI sent the Department a report on
Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans, La. during August in connection with
a fistfight in which he became engaged when passing out pamphlets
entitled “Hands Off Cuba.” No action was taken on the basis of the
Bureau’s report.[A15-294] The Commission agrees that this incident was
not grounds for revoking Oswald’s passport.
CONCLUSION
Investigation of Oswald’s complete dealings with the Department of
State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service reveals no
irregularity suggesting any illegal actions or impropriety on the
part of government officials. The Commission believes, however, that
in applying its own regulations the Department should in all cases
exercise great care in the return to this country of defectors such
as Oswald who have evidenced disloyalty or hostility to this country
or who have expressed a desire to renounce their U.S. citizenship and
that, when such persons are returned, procedures should be adopted
for the better dissemination of information concerning them to the
intelligence agencies of the Government. The operation of the “lookout
card” system in the Department of State was obviously deficient,
but since these deficiencies did not affect Oswald or reflect any
favoritism or impropriety, the Commission considers them beyond the
scope of its inquiry.
Especially while he was in the Soviet Union, Oswald’s manner to
Government personnel was frequently insulting and offensive. As one
1962 communication between the Embassy and the Department of State
observed, “It is not that our hearts are breaking for Oswald. His
impertinence knows no bounds.”[A15-295] Nonetheless, the officials of
the U.S. Government respected Oswald as a troubled American citizen and
extended to him the services and assistance for which the agencies
of government have been created. Though Oswald was known to be “an
unstable character, whose actions are highly unpredictable,”[A15-296]
there was no reasonable basis in 1961 and 1962 for suspecting that upon
his readmittance to the country he would resort to violence against
its public officials. The officers of the Department of State and
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, acting within the proper
limits of their discretion, concluded that Oswald’s return to the
United States was in the best interests of the country; it is only from
the vantage of the present that the tragic irony of their conclusion
emerges.
APPENDIX XVI
A Biography of Jack Ruby
In this appendix the Commission presents a biography of Jack Ruby.
Although criminal proceedings involving its subject are pending in
the State of Texas, the Commission has decided to include this rather
detailed account of Ruby’s life and activities for several reasons.
Most importantly, the Commission believes it will permit a better
evaluation of the evidence on the question whether Ruby was involved
in any conspiracy. Furthermore, the Commission believes that in view
of the many rumors concerning Ruby the public interest will be served
by an account which attempts to give sufficient material to provide an
impression of his character and background. The Commission’s desire
not to interfere in the pending proceedings involving Ruby necessarily
limits the scope of this appendix, which does not purport to discuss
the legal issues raised during Ruby’s trial or his possible motive for
shooting Oswald.
FAMILY BACKGROUND
Jack Ruby, born Jacob Rubenstein, was the fifth of his parents’ eight
living children. There is much confusion about his exact birth date.
School records report it as June 23, April 25,[A16-1] March 13, and,
possibly, March 3, 1911.[A16-2] Other early official records list his
date of birth as April 21 and April 26, 1911.[A16-3] During his adult
life the date Ruby used most frequently was March 25, 1911.[A16-4]
His driver’s license, seized following his arrest, and his statements
to the FBI on November 24, 1963, listed this date.[A16-5] However,
the police arrest report for November 24 gave his birth date as March
19, 1911.[A16-6] Since the recording of births was not required in
Chicago prior to 1915, Ruby’s birth may never have been officially
recorded.[A16-7] No substantial conflict exists, however, about whether
Jack Ruby was born in 1911.[A16-8]
Ruby has one older brother and three older sisters. The oldest
children, Hyman and Ann, were born shortly after the turn of
the century,[A16-9] before their parents arrived in the United
States.[A16-10] The other children were born in Chicago. Ruby’s sister
Marion was born in June 1906[A16-11] and his sister Eva in March
1909.[A16-12] Ruby also has two younger brothers and a younger sister.
Sam was born in December 1912,[A16-13] Earl in April 1915.[A16-14] The
youngest child, Eileen, was born in July 1917.[A16-15] At least one and
possibly two other children died during infancy.[A16-16]
Jack Ruby’s father, Joseph Rubenstein, was born in 1871 in Sokolov,
a small town near Warsaw, Poland, then under the rule of Czarist
Russia.[A16-17] He entered the Russian artillery in 1893.[A16-18]
There he learned the carpentry trade, which had been practiced by his
father and at least one brother[A16-19] and he picked up the habit
of excessive drinking that was to plague him for the rest of his
life.[A16-20] While in the army,[A16-21] he married Jack’s mother,
Fannie Turek Rutkowski;[A16-22] the marriage was arranged, as was
customary, by a professional matchmaker.[A16-23] According to his
oldest son, Joseph Rubenstein served in China, Korea, and Siberia,
detesting these places and army life. Eventually, in 1898, he simply
“walked away” from it and about 4 years later he went to England and
Canada, entering the United States in 1903.[A16-24]
Settling in Chicago, Joseph Rubenstein joined the carpenters union in
1904 and remained a member until his death in 1958.[A16-25] Although
he worked fairly steadily until 1928, he was unemployed during the
last 30 years of his life.[A16-26] The only other group which Joseph
Rubenstein joined consisted of fellow immigrants from Sokolov. His
daughter Eva described this group as purely social and completely
nonpolitical.[A16-27]
Jack Ruby’s mother, Fannie Rubenstein, was probably born in 1875 near
Warsaw, Poland.[A16-28] She followed her husband to the United States
in 1904 or 1905, accompanied by her children Hyman and Ann.[A16-29]
An illiterate woman, she went to night school in about 1920 to learn
how to sign her name.[A16-30] She apparently failed in this endeavor,
however, for an alien registration form, filed after about 35 years
in the United States, was signed by an “X”.[A16-31] Although she
apparently learned some English, her speech was predominantly Yiddish,
the primary language of the Rubenstein household.[A16-32] Still, Mrs.
Rubenstein felt strongly that her children required an education in
order to better themselves. She frequently argued about this with
her husband, who had received little, if any, formal education and
firmly believed that grammar school training was sufficient for his
children.[A16-33]
CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH (1911-33)
In 1911, when Jack Ruby was born, his family resided near 14th
and Newberry Streets in Chicago, the first in a series of
Jewish neighborhoods in which the Rubensteins lived during his
childhood.[A16-34] In 1916, the Rubensteins lived at 1232 Morgan
Street, where they apparently remained until 1921.[A16-35] This was
the fourth residence in the first 5 years of Jack Ruby’s life.[A16-36]
Earl Ruby described one typical neighborhood in which the family lived
as a “ghetto” with “pushcarts on the streets.”[A16-37] His sister
Eva characterized it as “below the middle class but yet it wasn’t
the poorest class.”[A16-38] The family generally lived near Italian
sections, where there were frequent fights along ethnic lines.[A16-39]
The Rubenstein home was marked by constant strife and the parents
were reported to have occasionally struck each other.[A16-40] Between
1915 and 1921, Joseph Rubenstein was frequently arrested because
of disorderly conduct and assault and battery charges, some filed
by his wife.[A16-41] In the spring of 1921, Jack Ruby’s parents
separated.[A16-42] In 1937 Mrs. Rubenstein reported that she had
desired a divorce 15 years earlier, but her husband had been opposed to
it.[A16-43] The predominant causes of the separation were apparently
Joseph Rubenstein’s excessive drinking and Fannie Rubenstein’s
uncontrollable temper. She resented her numerous pregnancies, believed
her husband to be unfaithful, and nagged him because he failed to make
enough money.[A16-44]
Psychiatric Report
Young Jack soon showed the effects of parental discord. On June 6,
1922, at the age of 11, he was referred to the Institute for Juvenile
Research by the Jewish Social Service Bureau. The reason for the
referral was “truancy and incorrigible at home.”[A16-45] On July 10,
1922, the institute recommended to the bureau that Jack be placed in a
new environment where his characteristics might be understood and where
he might be afforded the supervision and recreation that would end his
interest in street gangs.[A16-46] In March 1923, the institute advised
the bureau that “placement in a home, where intelligent supervision and
discipline can be given” was appropriate.[A16-47]
The institute’s psychiatric examination, which served as a basis for
these recommendations, took place in 1922, prior to the advent of
many techniques and theories of modern psychiatry,[A16-48] but it
is the most objective evidence of Jack Ruby’s childhood character.
According to the psychiatric report, Jack was “quick tempered” and
“disobedient.”[A16-49] He frequently disagreed openly with his mother,
whom he considered an inferior person with whose rules he did not have
to comply.[A16-50] Jack told the institute’s interviewer that he ran
away from home because his mother lied to him and beat him.[A16-51]
Although Mrs. Rubenstein was severe with her children, she was
described as totally incapable of coping with them “because of their
delinquencies, i.e., principally their destructive tendencies and
disregard for other people’s property.”[A16-52] His mother’s “extreme
temperament” and quarrelsomeness were cited as possible causes of
Jack’s “bad behavior.”[A16-53]
Self-administered questionnaires revealed that Jack felt his classmates
were “picking” on him and that he could not get along with his
friends.[A16-54] They also indicated that, although Jack described
himself as a good ballplayer, he did not belong to any clubs and
was not a member of any athletic teams.[A16-55] Jack’s psychiatric
interviewer reported:
He could give no other good reason for running away from
school except that he went to amusement parks. He has some sex
knowledge and is greatly interested in sex matters. He stated
that the boys in the street tell him about these things. He
also claims that he can lick everyone and anybody in anything
he wants to do.[A16-56]
The interviewer noted that during “mental tests” he reacted quickly,
often carelessly, and his attention was apt to wander so that he had to
be reprimanded.[A16-57]
A letter recommending the boy’s placement in a more wholesome
environment stated:
He is egocentric and expects much attention, but is unable
to get it as there are many children at home. His behavior
is further colored by his early sex experiences, his great
interest [in sex] and the gang situation in the street. From a
superficial examination of his mother who was here with him,
it is apparent that she has no insight into his problem, and
she is thoroughly inadequate in the further training of this
boy.[A16-58]
Recognizing that the sketchiness of the case record precluded complete
diagnosis, Dr. Raymond E. Robertson, currently the superintendent of
the institute, reported nonetheless that it seems “firmly established
* * * [that] his unstable and disorganized home could not provide Jack
with the necessary controls and discipline.”[A16-59]
Placement in Foster Homes
On July 10, 1923, a dependency hearing involving Jack, his younger
brothers Sam and Earl, and his sister Eileen, was held in Chicago’s
juvenile court.[A16-60] The petition alleged that the children were not
receiving proper parental care. They had, until then, been in their
mother’s custody, living on Roosevelt Road, the border between Jewish
and Italian districts.[A16-61] The juvenile court made a finding of
dependency. It appointed the Jewish Home Finding Society guardian with
the right to place the children in foster homes, and it ordered Joseph
Rubenstein to pay the court clerk $4 per week for the support of each
child. On November 24, 1924, this order was vacated, which apparently
signified the termination of the guardianship and the return of the
children to their mother. On April 8, 1925, the case was continued
“generally,” meaning that it was inactive but could be reactivated if
the court so desired.[A16-62]
Despite court records, the exact circumstances and length of time
that Jack Ruby lived away from home are not entirely clear. Records
indicate that Jack, Sam, Earl, and Eileen Rubenstein were wards of the
Jewish Home Finding Society “for a short time in 1922-23.”[A16-63]
However, Jack and Eileen stated they spent about 4 or 5 years in
foster homes.[A16-64] Earl testified that he and Sam were originally
sent to a private foster home and then lived on a farm for a little
more than a year, while Jack was on a different farm “some distance
away.” Subsequently the three brothers lived together in another foster
home.[A16-65]
Subsequent Home Life
When Jack Ruby returned to his family, the unit was still disordered.
His father remained apart from the children at least until 1936 and
perhaps until a few years later.[A16-66] Mrs. Rubenstein’s inability to
manage her home, which had been reported by the Institute for Juvenile
Research in 1922, apparently continued. For example, in 1937 Marion
Rubenstein observed that her mother “has never been any kind of a
housekeeper, was careless with money, and never took much interest in
the children’s welfare * * * she was selfish, jealous, disagreeable,
and never cared to do anything in the home but lie around and
sleep.”[A16-67] Dr. Hyman I. Rubenstein, the son of Joseph Rubenstein’s
brother, recalled that Jack Ruby’s mother ran “an irregular household”
and appeared to be “a rather disturbed person of poor personal
appearance with no incentive for cleaning or cooking.”[A16-68]
Mrs. Rubenstein’s domestic shortcomings were accompanied by symptoms
of mental disease. In about 1913, 2 years after Jack was born, Mrs.
Rubenstein began to develop a delusion that a sticking sensation in
her throat was caused by a lodged fishbone.[A16-69] Each month Hyman,
her oldest child, took her to a clinic. And each month the examining
doctor, finding no organic cause for discomfort, informed her that
there was nothing in her throat and that the sensation was but a
figment of her imagination. According to Hyman, this practice continued
for a number of years until Mrs. Rubenstein tired of it.[A16-70]
In 1927, Mrs. Rubenstein once again began to visit clinics in
connection with her fishbone delusion. Three years later, a
thyroidectomy was performed, but she subsequently said it did nothing
to relieve her discomfort.[A16-71] According to the Michael Reese
Hospital, whose clinic she had visited since 1927, Mrs. Rubenstein was
suffering from psychoneurosis with marked anxiety state.
By order of the county court of Cook County, Mrs. Rubenstein was
committed to Elgin State Hospital on July 16, 1937.[A16-72] She was
paroled on October 17, 1937, 3 months after her commitment.[A16-73] On
January 3, 1938, the Chicago State Hospital informed Elgin State that
the family desired that she be readmitted to the mental hospital. The
family reported that she was uncooperative, caused constant discord,
was very noisy, and used obscene language.[A16-74] A State social
worker observed that Mrs. Rubenstein refused ever to leave the house,
explaining that her children would have thrown her things out had she
left. Mrs. Rubenstein rebuffed a suggestion by the social worker that
she help with the dishes by stating that she would do nothing as long
as her “worthless” husband was in the house.[A16-75] She was readmitted
on January 14, 1938.[A16-76]
Mrs. Rubenstein was again paroled on May 27, 1938, and was discharged
as “improved” on August 25, 1938.[A16-77] She stayed in an apartment
with Marion, and her separation from the rest of the family apparently
ended most of the difficulties.[A16-78] Subsequently, Jack Ruby’s
parents were apparently reconciled, since their alien registration
forms, filed in late 1940, indicated that they both resided at Marion’s
address.[A16-79]
Fannie Rubenstein was admitted to Michael Reese Hospital on April 4,
1944, as a result of a heart ailment. Her condition was complicated
by an attack of pneumonia and she died at the hospital on April 11,
1944.[A16-80] Hyman testified that, perhaps because she favored the
education of her children and they recognized her difficulties in
rearing them during a turbulent marriage, they all remembered Mrs.
Rubenstein with warmth and affection.[A16-81] The evidence also
indicates that Jack, notwithstanding his earlier attitudes, became
especially fond of his mother.[A16-82] Following his wife’s death,
Joseph Rubenstein stayed with the children in Chicago, where he died at
the age of 87, on December 24, 1958.[A16-83]
Education
Records provided by the Chicago Board of Education revealed that Jack
Ruby attended Smyth Grammar School from October 24, 1916, through
the 1920-21 term, completing kindergarten to grade 4B.[A16-84] He
repeated the third grade.[A16-85] During the 1921-22 school year Jack
finished the fourth grade at the Clarke School; he attended Schley
School for the 1924-25 term, when he completed the sixth grade. Ruby’s
relationship with the Institute for Juvenile Research and the Jewish
Home Finding Society may explain the lack of academic records for the
1922-23 and 1923-24 school years. While there is some uncertainty
about Ruby’s education subsequent to September 1925,[A16-86] it seems
likely that he completed the eighth grade in 1927, when he was 16.
Although Jack Ruby and others have stated that he attended at least 1
year of high school,[A16-87] the Chicago Board of Education could not
locate any record of Ruby’s attending Chicago high schools.[A16-88]
Considering the absence of academic records and Jack’s apathetic
attitude toward school,[A16-89] the Commission deems it unlikely that
his education extended into high school.
Records of the Institute for Juvenile Research revealed that, as of
June 1922, Ruby had no religious education outside the public school
system.[A16-90] However, according to their children, Jack’s parents
made some effort to inculcate in them a desire to adhere to the tenets
of Orthodox Judaism. Jewish dietary and festival laws were observed
and several of the children accompanied Joseph Rubenstein to the
synagogue.[A16-91] Earl Ruby stated that all the boys received some
Hebrew school training until the breakup of the Rubenstein home in
1921.[A16-92] However, Hyman Rubenstein testified that the instability
and economic necessities of the household and the children’s
relationships outside the home frustrated the religious efforts of
Ruby’s parents.[A16-93]
Activities
Born in a home that disintegrated when he was 10 and boasting no
substantial educational background, Jack Ruby early found himself on
Chicago streets attempting to provide for himself and other members of
his family. An avid sports fan, he, together with many of his friends,
“scalped” tickets to various sporting events.[A16-94] He also sold
numerous novelty items and knickknacks, particularly those connected
with professional and collegiate athletics. Even in his youth, Ruby
declined to work on a steady basis for someone else.[A16-95]
According to his brother Hyman, Jack Ruby’s only legal difficulty as
a youth resulted from an altercation with a policeman about ticket
scalping. Hyman, then active in local politics, was able to have
charges arising out of the incident dropped.[A16-96] Ruby has indicated
that during the depression he served a short jail sentence for the
unauthorized sale of copyrighted sheet music.[A16-97]
The only other member of the Rubenstein family who appears to have had
any difficulty with the law while a youth was Hyman. On May 1, 1916,
Chicago’s juvenile court declared Hyman incorrigible, a term covering a
wide range of misbehavior. Because of the absence of informative court
records and the lapse of time, the misconduct that occasioned this
proceeding could not be ascertained, but Hyman is not known to have
encountered subsequent difficulty.[A16-98] Some of Ruby’s childhood
friends eventually became criminals;[A16-99] however, Hyman Rubenstein,
his sister Mrs. Eva Grant, and virtually all of Ruby’s friends and
acquaintances who were questioned reported that he was not involved
with Chicago’s criminal element.[A16-100]
The evidence indicates that young Jack was not interested in political
affairs.[A16-101] Hyman was the only Rubenstein to participate actively
in politics. Sponsored by various political officials, he became a
sidewalk inspector and warehouse investigator for 8 years. On one
occasion, he obtained a permit for Jack to sell novelties from a
pushcart located in a business district during the pre-Christmas buying
rush. Eventually the complaints of enraged businessmen led licensing
authorities to declare that a mistake had been made and to revoke
Ruby’s permit.[A16-102]
Temperament
The evidence reveals striking differences of opinion among childhood
friends and acquaintances of Jack Ruby about whether he possessed
violent tendencies. Many persons stated that he was mild mannered,
quiet, and even tempered.[A16-103] Former welterweight champion
Barney Ross, whom Jack Ruby idolized from the inception of his
boxing career,[A16-104] stated that Ruby was “well behaved,” was
never a troublemaker, and was never involved with law-enforcement
agencies.[A16-105] Another friend, who became a successful businessman
on the west coast, said that, as a youth, Ruby never started fights
even though he was adept with his fists.[A16-106] Other friends
declared that he would, if at all possible, avoid clashes.[A16-107]
But many other friends and acquaintances recalled that he had a hot
temper and was quickly moved to violent acts or words.[A16-108] One
friend explained that in the “tough” Chicago neighborhood where they
lived, self-defense was vitally important and added that Ruby was fully
capable of defending himself.[A16-109] Another friend described Ruby as
quick tempered and, though unlikely to pick fights, willing to accept
any challenge without regard to the odds against him.[A16-110] Young
Jack also interfered in fights, particularly when the person he was
aiding appeared to be taking a severe beating or in a disadvantageous
position.[A16-111] Others reported that he had the reputation of being
a good street brawler.[A16-112] One school friend recalled that when
Jack argued vehemently about sports, he occasionally used a stick or
other available weapon. He reported, however, that after Ruby’s anger
subsided, he reverted to his normal, likable character.[A16-113]
From early childhood, Jack Ruby was called “Sparky” by those who knew
him.[A16-114] According to his sister Eva Grant, the nickname derived
from the way Jack wobbled when he walked. He was thought to resemble
the slow-moving horse called “Sparky” or “Sparkplug” depicted in a
contemporary comic strip. Mrs. Grant testified that her brother became
incensed when called “Sparky” and that from the time he was about 8
years old he would strike anyone calling him by that name.[A16-115] A
childhood friend also recalled that Jack hated the nickname and would
fight when called by it.[A16-116] Mrs. Grant was unsure whether the
nickname “Sparky” did not also result from his quick reaction to the
taunts of young friends.[A16-117] Hyman Rubenstein thought that the
nickname derived from Jack’s speed, aggressiveness, and quick thinking.
The many accounts of Ruby’s lightninglike temper lend credence to
the theory, widely held, that his nickname was connected with his
volatility.[A16-118]
YOUNG MANHOOD (1933-43)
San Francisco (1933-37)
Jack Ruby reported that in about 1933, he and several Chicago friends
went to Los Angeles and, shortly thereafter, to San Francisco.[A16-119]
Although there is evidence that he stayed there until 1938, 1939,
or 1940,[A16-120] Ruby stated that he returned to Chicago in about
1937,[A16-121] and this appears to have been the case.[A16-122] Eva
Grant testified that Ruby went to the west coast because he believed
employment would be available there.[A16-123]
Eva, who married Hyman Magid in Chicago in 1930,[A16-124] was divorced
in early 1934, and in about June of that year joined her brother Jack
in San Francisco. She and her son, Ronald, shared an apartment with
him. In 1936, Eva married Frank Granovsky, also known as Frank Grant,
in San Francisco, and Ruby shared a four-room apartment with them and
Ronald for a short while.[A16-125]
Occupations and Activities
Ruby stated that when he and his friends arrived in Los Angeles, they
sold a handicapper’s tip sheet for horseraces at Santa Anita racetrack
which had just opened.[A16-126] Eva Grant testified that Ruby also
worked as a singing waiter in Los Angeles, but made very little
money.[A16-127]
When the group moved to San Francisco, Ruby continued to sell
“tip” sheets at Bay Meadows racetrack.[A16-128] Subsequently, he
became a door-to-door salesman of subscriptions to San Francisco
newspapers.[A16-129] Although there is some evidence that he ultimately
became chief of his crew and had several people working under
him,[A16-130] other reports indicate that this is unlikely.[A16-131]
Eva Grant testified that she also sold newspaper subscriptions but was
less proficient than her brother and relied upon him for advice and
support.[A16-132]
Although virtually all his San Francisco acquaintances knew Jack Ruby
as “Sparky,”[A16-133] there is no evidence that he engaged in violent
activities in San Francisco or was reputed to possess a vicious temper.
One friend, who stated that he resided with Ruby and Eva for about a
year, described him as a “well-mannered, likable individual who was
soft spoken and meticulous in his dress and appearance.”[A16-134]
Another friend described him as a “clean-cut, honest kid,”[A16-135]
and the manager of a crew with which Ruby worked stated that he had a
good reputation and appeared to be an “honest, forthright person.” The
crew manager reported that Ruby associated with a sports crowd, some
of whose members were involved with professional boxing, but not with
criminals. He added that Ruby had a personal liking for law enforcement
and would have wanted to become a police officer had he been larger
physically.[A16-136]
One friend reported that although Ruby always associated with Jewish
people, he never exhibited great interest in religion.[A16-137] Ruby
met Virginia Belasco, granddaughter of the prominent playwright and
actor, David Belasco, in about 1936 at a dance at the Jewish community
center in San Francisco. Miss Belasco stated that while a teenager she
saw Ruby socially on several occasions between 1936 and 1941.[A16-138]
The only other evidence concerning Ruby’s social activities while in
San Francisco is his statement to his long-time girl friend, Alice
Nichols of Dallas,[A16-139] that while in San Francisco he met the
only other woman, Virginia Fitzgerald or Fitzsimmons, that he ever
considered marrying.[A16-140]
Chicago (1937-43)
Jack Ruby stated that following his return to Chicago, he was
unemployed for a considerable period.[A16-141] However, when his mother
was admitted to Elgin State Hospital in 1937,[A16-142] she reported
that he was employed as a “traveling salesman” apparently living away
from home.[A16-143] Although there is conflicting evidence about his
ability to earn a comfortable living,[A16-144] he apparently was able
to maintain a normal existence[A16-145] and required no financial
assistance from his family or friends. He continued to be a so-called
“hustler,” scalping tickets and buying watches and other small items
for resale at discount prices.[A16-146] One of his closest Chicago
friends stated that Ruby’s sales and promotions were “shady” but
“legitimate.”[A16-147]
_Labor union activities._--Ruby reported that in “about 1937” he
became active in Local 20467 of the Scrap Iron and Junk Handlers
Union.[A16-148] At this time, his friend, attorney Leon Cooke, was
the local’s financial secretary.[A16-149] Records provided by the
Social Security Administration indicate that Ruby was employed by the
union from late 1937 until early 1940;[A16-150] he worked as a union
organizer and negotiated with employers on its behalf.[A16-151]
On December 8, 1939, the union’s president, John Martin, shot Cooke,
who died of gunshot wounds on January 5, 1940; Martin was subsequently
acquitted on the ground of self-defense.[A16-152] Although a Jack
Rubenstein is mentioned in the minutes of a union meeting on February
2, 1940,[A16-153] and Ruby is reported to have said after Cooke’s
death that he wanted to “take over” the union,[A16-154] the evidence
indicates that Ruby was so upset by Cooke’s death that he was
unable to devote himself further to union activities and left its
employ.[A16-155] Ruby reported that after Cooke’s death he adopted the
middle name “Leon,” which he used only infrequently, in memory of his
friend.[A16-156]
Since Ruby was the ultimate source of all but one of these
accounts,[A16-157] other descriptions of Ruby’s separation from the
union cannot with certainty be deemed inaccurate. These reports
indicated that Ruby might have been forced out of the union by a
criminal group, or might have left because he lacked the emotional
stability necessary for sucessful labor negotiations[A16-159] or
because he felt he was not earning enough money with the union.[A16-160]
Although the AFL-CIO investigated the ethical practices of local 20467
in 1956, placed the local in trusteeship, and suspended Paul Dorfman,
who succeeded Martin and Cooke, there is no evidence that Ruby’s union
activities were connected with Chicago’s criminal element.[A16-161]
Several longtime members of the union reported that it had a good
reputation when Ruby was affiliated with it[A16-162] and employers
who negotiated with it have given no indication that it had criminal
connections.[A16-163]
_Subsequent employment._--In 1941, Ruby and Harry Epstein organized the
Spartan Novelty Co., a small firm that sold in various northeastern
States small cedar chests containing candy and gambling devices known
as punchboards.[A16-164] Earl Ruby and two of Jack Ruby’s friends,
Martin Gimpel and Martin Shargol, were also associated in this
venture. The group had no fixed addresses, living in hotels.[A16-165]
Late in 1941, Jack Ruby returned to Chicago, where he continued his
punchboard business through the mails.[A16-166] Following the December
7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, he and several friends decided to
design and sell plaques commemorating the Day of Infamy. However, the
venture was impeded by Ruby’s perfectionistic approach to details of
design which resulted in numerous production delays.[A16-167] By the
time Ruby’s copyrighted plaque [A16-168] was finally ready for sale,
the market was flooded with similar items.[A16-169] At about this time,
Ruby also sold busts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[A16-170] In late
1942 and 1943, Ruby was employed by the Globe Auto Glass Co.[A16-171]
and Universal Sales Co.[A16-172]
Although one of Ruby’s acquaintances at this time described him as a
cuckoo nut on the subject of patriotism,[A16-173] the evidence does not
indicate that Ruby’s promotion of “Remember Pearl Harbor” plaques and
Roosevelt busts was motivated by patriotic or political considerations.
Rather, the sale of these items was, to Ruby, just another commercial
venture, but he might also have considered these sales “a good
thing.”[A16-174] Numerous friends reported that Ruby had no interest
in political affairs during this period,[A16-175] although he greatly
admired President Roosevelt.[A16-176]
_Other activities._--The evidence indicates that Ruby led a normal
social life during these years. Virginia Belasco stated that while
Ruby was selling punchboards in New York during November 1941, he
entertained her each weekend.[A16-177] Other reports indicate that Ruby
fancied himself a “ladies’ man,” enjoyed dancing, almost always had
female accompaniment and was “very gentlemanly” with women.[A16-178]
Ruby, with several friends, frequently attempted to disrupt rallies of
the German-American Bund.[A16-179] One acquaintance reported that Ruby
was responsible for “cracking a few heads” of Bund members.[A16-180]
Apparently he joined in this activity for ethnic rather than political
reasons. The young men in the group were not organized adherents
of any particular political creed, but were poolhall and tavern
companions from Ruby’s Jewish neighborhood who gathered on the spur of
the moment to present opposition when they learned that the pro-Nazi
and anti-Semitic Bund movement was planning a meeting.[A16-181]
Hyman Rubenstein testified that Ruby would fight with any person
making derogatory comments about his ethnic origins, and others have
stated that Ruby would fight with anyone he suspected of pro-Nazi or
anti-Semitic tendencies.[A16-182]
During this period Ruby, though temperamental, apparently engaged in
no unusual acts of violence. However, he did interfere on several
occasions when he thought someone was treated unfairly. A friend who
described Ruby as “somewhat overbearing regarding the rights and
feelings of others,” reported that Ruby fought two college students
who insulted a Negro piano player.[A16-183] Another friend reported
that Ruby had a “bitter” fight with a man who was abusing an older
woman.[A16-184]
Maintaining his friendship with Barney Ross, and still an ardent
sports fan, Ruby associated with various figures in the boxing world
and regularly attended the fights at Marigold Gardens.[A16-185]
He frequented the Lawndale Poolroom and Restaurant, a rallying
point for the anti-Bundists and chief “hangout” of many of Ruby’s
friends.[A16-186] In addition, Ruby, described as a “health
nut”[A16-187] who earnestly contended that he could hit harder than Joe
Louis,[A16-188] exercised at several athletic clubs.[A16-189]
Despite Ruby’s participation in “shady” financial enterprises, his
association with a labor union subsequently disciplined by the AFL-CIO,
his participation in violent anti-Bund activities, and his connection
with a poolroom, the evidence falls short of demonstrating that Ruby
was significantly affiliated with organized crime in Chicago. Virtually
all of Ruby’s Chicago friends stated he had no close connection
with organized crime.[A16-190] In addition, unreliable as their
reports may be, several known Chicago criminals have denied any such
liaison.[A16-191] The Commission finds it difficult to attach credence
to a newspaper reporter’s contrary statement that his undisclosed
“syndicate sources” revealed Ruby was connected with organized crime
and confidence games.[A16-192] Ruby was unquestionably familiar, if
not friendly, with some Chicago criminals,[A16-193] but there is no
evidence that he ever participated in organized criminal activity.
MILITARY ACTIVITIES (1943-46)
In September 1941, Jack Ruby was apparently classified 1-A[A16-194]
and declared eligible for the draft. Subsequently he appeared before
a local board and was reclassified 1-H or 3-A.[A16-195] Between
August 31, 1941, and November 19, 1942, when it was abolished, the
1-H classification applied to registrants who had reached their 28th
birthday and were, therefore, no longer liable for service.[A16-196]
The 3-A deferment applies to persons whose entry into military service
presents financial hardship to dependents. Because of the length
of time involved and the destruction of local draft board records,
Ruby’s precise status or the reason for his deferment could not be
ascertained.[A16-197] According to one somewhat unreliable report,
Ruby, immediately prior to his physical examination, feigned a hearing
disability and occasionally wore a hearing aid.[A16-198] Hyman
Rubenstein, who testified that Jack was deferred because of economic
hardship since he was “the only one home,” specifically denied the
truthfulness of this allegation.[A16-199] Early in 1943, Ruby was again
classified 1-A, and, following an unsuccessful appearance before his
appeal board, he was inducted into the U.S. Army Air Forces on May 21,
1943.[A16-200] Jack was the last of the Rubenstein brothers to enter
the service. Previously, Earl had enlisted in the Navy, Sam was in Army
Air Force Intelligence and Hyman was in the field artillery.[A16-201]
Except for 5 weeks in Farmingdale, N.Y., Ruby spent his military days
at various airbases in the South.[A16-202] He received the basic
training given all recruits and advanced training as an aircraft
mechanic.[A16-203] On August 2, 1943, he passed marksmanship tests
with the .30 caliber carbine and the .45 caliber submachinegun,
but failed with the .30 caliber rifle. On February 10, 1944, he
earned a sharpshooter’s rating for his firing of an M1 .30 caliber
carbine. His character and efficiency ratings, when determined, were
excellent.[A16-204] After attaining the rank of private first class
and receiving the good conduct medal, Ruby was honorably discharged on
February 21, 1946.[A16-205]
Two persons who recalled Ruby while he was in the Army Air Forces
asserted that he was extremely sensitive to insulting remarks about
Jews.[A16-206] When, during an argument, a sergeant called Ruby a
“Jew bastard,” Ruby reportedly attacked him and beat him with his
fists.[A16-207]
There is conflicting evidence about the zeal with which Ruby performed
his military duties. One associate indicated that Ruby, who at 34
was the oldest in his group, always worked harder than the others to
prove that he could keep up with them.[A16-208] Another recalled, by
contrast, that Ruby had “no liking for work” and carefully avoided
situations requiring him to dirty his hands.[A16-209] However, there
is no basis in the record for the inference that Ruby was in any way
anti-American.
Ruby frequently expressed to some fellow soldiers his high regard for
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[A16-210] Two independent sources reported
that he cried openly when informed of Roosevelt’s death in April
1945.[A16-211] This did not indicate any sudden political interest,
however, since none of his known military associates reported such an
interest, and Ruby’s admiration for President Roosevelt anteceded his
military days.[A16-212]
While in service, Ruby is reported to have continued his promotional
ventures. One person recalled that in 1944, Jack received punchboards
and chocolates from someone in Chicago and peddled these items through
the base to make extra money. This person also indicated that Ruby
enjoyed card and dice games in or near the barracks.[A16-213]
POSTWAR CHICAGO (1946-47)
Following his discharge from the Army Air Forces in February 1946,
Jack Ruby returned to Chicago. He joined his three brothers, who had
previously been discharged from the service,[A16-214] in the Earl
Products Co. Earl Ruby testified that he was the sole investor in the
enterprise, but each brother received an equal ownership interest
on his return from the service.[A16-215] The company manufactured
and sold small cedar chests and distributed punchboards.[A16-216] In
addition, it made aluminum salt and pepper shakers, key chains, bottle
openers, screwdrivers, and small hammers.[A16-217] Sam supervised the
manufacturing end of the business, while Earl managed the office and
advertising.[A16-218] Jack was in charge of sales, but the company was
small and he had no subordinates.[A16-219]
Because insufficient profits led to frequent arguments, Hyman soon left
Earl Products.[A16-220] Jack, who stayed with the company through
most of 1947, had many disputes with his brothers because he insisted
on selling the products of other companies, such as costume jewelry,
and he did not like traveling outside the Chicago area. Earl and Sam
finally purchased Jack’s interest, paying him more than $14,000 in
cash.[A16-221]
Although there is some evidence to the contrary,[A16-222] it is
unlikely that Ruby was in the nightclub business in Chicago during
the postwar period. Many who have reported this may have mistaken him
for Harry Rubenstein,[A16-223] who was convicted of manslaughter and
operated several such establishments.[A16-224] None of Jack Ruby’s
close friends or relatives indicated that he was in the nightclub
business.
Following his return from the Army, Ruby was described as ready to
fight with any person who insulted Jews or the military.[A16-225]
Earl Ruby testified that on one occasion in 1946, Jack returned from
downtown Chicago with his suit covered with blood. He explained at that
time that he had fought with a person who had called him a “dirty Jew
or something like that.”[A16-226]
Other evidence indicates that Ruby’s personality was not substantially
changed by his military experience. One person who met him in 1947,
reported that Ruby was a “fashionable” dresser.[A16-227] He continued
to be described as soft spoken,[A16-228] although he was also known
as hot-tempered.[A16-229] Ruby worked out regularly at an athletic
club,[A16-230] and one friend regarded him as a “Romeo,” who was quite
successful in attracting young women.[A16-231]
DALLAS (1947-63)
The Move to Dallas
During World War II, Ruby’s sister, Eva Grant, visited Dallas.[A16-232]
Having operated a restaurant on the west coast and considering
it a lucrative business, she arranged, near the end of 1945, to
lease a building under construction in Dallas, which she ran as a
nightclub.[A16-233] Part of the financing for this establishment, the
Singapore Supper Club, was provided by her brothers. Jack Ruby, who
apparently obtained the money from Earl Products, sent $1,100 as a
downpayment on the lease, Earl contributed about $1,500, and Hyman paid
for more than $2,000 worth of equipment.[A16-234]
Before she opened the Singapore in 1947, Eva Grant engaged in the
sale of metal products.[A16-235] In that year she met Paul Roland
Jones, who allegedly was seeking customers for iron pipe and whom she
referred to Hyman Rubenstein.[A16-236] Jones had, at about that time,
been convicted of attempting to bribe the newly elected sheriff of
Dallas.[A16-237] On October 24, 1947, he was arrested for violating
Federal narcotics statutes.[A16-238] Jack Ruby had visited Dallas early
in 1947 to help Eva Grant manage the Singapore,[A16-239] and 5 days
after Jones’ arrest, Jack and Hyman Rubenstein were interrogated in
Chicago by agents of the Bureau of Narcotics.[A16-240] The brothers
admitted knowing Jones but denied awareness of his connection with
narcotics. During the 2 years in which Jones was appealing his
conviction he and other criminals frequented the Singapore Club, then
operated by Jack Ruby.[A16-241]
Intensive investigation to determine whether Jack Ruby was criminally
or otherwise connected with Jones’ narcotics violation leads the
Commission to conclude Ruby probably was not involved.[A16-242] A
search of the files of the Bureau of Narcotics disclosed no record
that either Hyman or Jack had been prosecuted by Federal authorities
in 1947.[A16-243] Jack, Hyman, and Eva denied participating in any
narcotics activities. Jones and his coconspirators also denied
that Jack was a participant.[A16-244] One of Jones’ confederates
reported after the shooting of Oswald that although Jones
“propositioned” the two brothers concerning narcotics, they refused
to participate.[A16-245] Moreover, when one of the conspirators was
arrested with 48 pounds of raw opium in his possession, he implicated
Jones and another person, both of whom were convicted, but he did not
implicate Jack Ruby or his brother.[A16-246]
Late in 1947, Ruby established permanent residence in Dallas.[A16-247]
Shortly after shooting Oswald, Ruby stated that he returned to Dallas
at Eva Grant’s request, to help her operate the Singapore Supper
Club.[A16-248] However, on December 21, 1963, he reported that
although association with his sister had been the purpose of his
initial visit to Dallas, he returned there because of the failure
of his “merchandising deals” in Chicago.[A16-249] These factors, in
conjunction with his separation from Earl Products,[A16-250] probably
motivated Ruby’s move to Dallas.
A different reason has been given by Steve Guthrie, former sheriff of
Dallas. Guthrie reported that shortly after his election as sheriff in
July 1946, Paul Roland Jones, representing other Chicago criminals,
offered him a substantial amount of money to permit them to move in
and manage illegal activities in Dallas. Although he never met Ruby,
Guthrie asserted that these criminals frequently mentioned that
Ruby would operate a “fabulous” restaurant as a front for gambling
activities.[A16-251]
Despite its source, the Commission finds it difficult to accept this
report. A member of the Dallas Police Department, Lt. George E. Butler,
who was present during virtually all the conversations between Guthrie
and Jones and who performed considerable investigative work on the
case, stated that Ruby was not involved in the bribery attempt and
that he had not heard of Ruby until the investigation and trial of
Jones had been completed. He explained that Ruby’s connection with the
case stemmed from the fact that, as mentioned previously, Jones and
other criminals frequented the Singapore Supper Club.[A16-252] And 22
recordings of the conversations between Guthrie, Butler, and Jones
not only fail to mention Ruby, but indicate that Jones was to bring
from outside the Dallas area only one confederate, who was not to be
Jewish.[A16-253]
The Change of Name
Sometime in 1947, Jack Ruby’s brothers Earl and Sam, pursuant to a
joint understanding, legally changed their names from Rubenstein to
Ruby.[A16-254] Earl testified that he changed his name because everyone
called him Ruby and because a former employer advised him that it
was preferable not to use a “Jewish name” on mail orders for Earl
Products.[A16-255]
On December 30, 1947, Jack changed his name to Jack L. Ruby by securing
a decree from the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas. His petition
alleged that he sought the change because the name Rubenstein was
misunderstood and too long and because he was “well known” as Jack
L. Ruby.[A16-256] The Bureau of Narcotics report of his relationship
with Paul Roland Jones indicates that as of October 29, 1947, Jack was
known as Ruby;[A16-257] however, several persons in Dallas knew him as
Rubenstein.[A16-258]
Nightclub Operations
Except for a brief period in about 1953, when Ruby managed the Ervay
Theater, a motion picture house,[A16-259] the operation of nightclubs
and dancehalls was his primary source of income, and his basic interest
in life during the 16 years he spent in Dallas prior to shooting
Lee Oswald. When Ruby first arrived in Dallas in 1947, he and Eva
Grant jointly managed the Singapore Supper Club.[A16-260] Shortly
thereafter, she returned to the west coast. Except for sporadic trips
to Dallas, she remained there until 1959, leaving Ruby a power of
attorney.[A16-261] Ruby, who had received $14,000 from the sale of his
interest in Earl Products,[A16-262] invested a substantial amount in
the club, which Mrs. Grant described as “too nice a club for that part
of town.”[A16-263] Ruby changed the Singapore’s name to the Silver Spur
Club. It was operated primarily as a dancehall, serving beer to its
patrons.[A16-264] In about 1952, Ruby borrowed $3,700 from a friend,
Ralph Paul, to purchase the Bob Wills Ranch House[A16-265] with Martin
Gimpel, a former associate in the Spartan Novelty Co.[A16-266] The
Ranch House was run as a western-type nightclub.[A16-267]
With two establishments to run, Ruby experienced substantial financial
reversals in 1952. He abandoned his interest in the Ranch House and, on
July 1, 1952, transferred the Silver Spur to Gimpel and Willie Epstein,
who assumed some of its debts.[A16-268] Disappointed by these setbacks,
Ruby stated that he had a “mental breakdown,” and “hibernated” in
the Cotton Bowl Hotel in Dallas for 3 or 4 months, declining to see
his friends.[A16-269] Still depressed, he then returned to Chicago,
apparently intending to remain there permanently.[A16-270] However, he
stayed only 6 weeks. Gimpel and Epstein were anxious to be rid of the
Silver Spur and Ruby once again became its owner.[A16-271]
In 1953, Ruby obtained an interest in the Vegas Club, which he operated
with Joe Bonds until September 1953.[A16-272] At that time he informed
Irving Alkana, who had retained a prior ownership interest, that he was
unable to meet his obligations with respect to the club. Alkana then
assumed management of the Vegas until June 19, 1954, when, following
numerous disagreements with him, he sold Ruby his interest.[A16-273]
Ruby still owned the Vegas Club at the time of his arrest on November
24, 1963. However, when Eva Grant returned from San Francisco in 1959,
she assumed management of the club, receiving a salary but no ownership
interest.[A16-274] The Vegas, which occasionally featured striptease
acts,[A16-275] employed a dance band and served beer, wine, soft
drinks, and some prepared foods.[A16-276]
In 1954, Ruby’s Vegas associate, Joe Bonds, was convicted of sodomy and
sent to a Texas penitentiary to serve an 8-year sentence.[A16-277] In
1955, Ruby sold the Silver Spur to Roscoe “Rocky” Robinson; however,
Robinson could not obtain a license to operate the club and it was
subsequently closed.[A16-278] For a few months during this period,
Ruby also operated Hernando’s Hideaway, but this venture proved
unsuccessful.[A16-279]
Sam Ruby testified that shortly after he sold his interest in Earl
Products in mid-1955 and moved to Dallas, he loaned Jack $5,500 to
enable him to pay Federal excise taxes on the Vegas. As security for
the loan, Sam required Jack to execute a bill of sale of the Vegas.
Upon Jack’s default in payment, Sam instituted suit, claiming that he
owned the Vegas and that Jack had breached his promise to repurchase
it. The case was ultimately settled, with Jack retaining his ownership
interest in the club.[A16-280]
In late 1959, Jack Ruby became a partner of Joe Slatin in establishing
the Sovereign Club, a private club that was apparently permitted by
Texas law to sell liquor to members.[A16-281] Since Slatin was troubled
about Dallas news stories describing police raids on a private club
that permitted gambling, he felt he needed more capital.[A16-282] Ruby
invested about $6,000 which he borrowed from his brother Earl and
perhaps some of his own money.[A16-283]
The Sovereign was described as a “plush” and exclusive club, and
Ruby was apparently very anxious to attract a wealthy “carriage”
trade.[A16-284] The venture was not successful, however. The two men
could not work together, and Slatin withdrew in early 1960.[A16-285]
Ruby turned for new capital to Ralph Paul,[A16-286] who had operated
a Dallas club with Joe Bonds.[A16-287] Ruby still owed Paul $1,200 of
the $3,700 loan made in connection with the Bob Wills Ranch House,
but Paul advanced him another $2,200, which allowed him to pay the
Sovereign’s rent for 4 months. Subsequently, Ruby spontaneously gave
Paul a stock certificate representing 50 percent of the equity of the
corporation owning the club. Ruby told Paul that if the venture failed,
the Sovereign’s fixtures and other physical property would belong to
Paul.[A16-288]
Experiencing difficulty in recruiting sufficient members, Ruby soon
found himself again unable to pay the Sovereign’s monthly rent of
$550. Again he turned to Paul, who loaned him $1,650 on the condition
that he change the club’s method of operation. Paul insisted that Ruby
discontinue club memberships, even though this would prevent the sale
of liquor, and offer striptease shows as a substitute attraction.
Ruby agreed, and the Sovereign’s name was changed to the Carousel
Club.[A16-289] It became one of three downtown Dallas burlesque
clubs[A16-290] and served champagne, beer, “setups” and pizza, its only
food.[A16-291] The Carousel generally employed four strippers, a master
of ceremonies, an assistant manager, a band, three or four waitresses,
and a porter or handyman.[A16-292] Net receipts averaged about
$5,000 per month,[A16-293] most of which was allocated to the club’s
payroll.[A16-294] Late in 1963, Ruby began to distribute “permanent
passes” to the Carousel;[A16-295] however, the cards were apparently
designed solely for publicity and did not affect the club’s legal
status.
Employee Relationships
Ruby’s employees displayed a wide range of personal reactions to him.
Those associated with Ruby long enough to grow accustomed to his
violent temper and constant threats of discharge generally portray him
sympathetically.[A16-296] They reported he was genuinely interested in
their welfare and happiness. In addition, many former employees stated
that he was a pleasant or unobjectionable employer.[A16-297]
There is also considerable evidence that Ruby tended to dominate his
employees, frequently resorted to violence in dealing with them,
publicly embarrassed them,[A16-298] sometimes attempted to cheat them
of their pay,[A16-299] and delayed paying their salaries.[A16-300]
Other employees reported Ruby continually harassed his help,[A16-301]
and used obscene language in their presence.[A16-302] However
he frequently apologized, sought to atone for his many temper
tantrums,[A16-303] and completely forgot others.[A16-304]
One of the many violent incidents that were reported took place
in 1950, when Ruby struck an employee over the head with a
blackjack.[A16-305] In 1951, after his guitarist, Willis Dickerson,
told Ruby to “go to hell,” Ruby knocked Dickerson to the ground, then
pinned him to a wall and kicked him in the groin. During the scuffle,
Dickerson bit Ruby’s finger so badly that the top half of Ruby’s left
index finger was amputated.[A16-306] In approximately 1955, Ruby beat
one of his musicians with brass knuckles; the musician’s mouth required
numerous stitches.[A16-307]
During 1960, Ruby and two entertainers, Breck Wall and Joe Peterson,
entered into an agreement that the performers would produce and star
in a revue at the Sovereign in exchange for a 50-percent interest in
the club.[A16-308] After performing for 2 months, the entertainers
complained that they had received neither a share of the profits nor
evidence of their proprietary interest. Ruby responded by hitting
Peterson in the mouth, knocking out a tooth. The two men left the
Sovereign’s employ, but they subsequently accepted Ruby’s apology and
resumed their friendship with him.[A16-309]
In September 1962, Frank Ferraro, the Carousel’s handyman, became
involved in a dispute at a nearby bar. Ruby told him not to get into
a fight, and Ferraro told Ruby to mind his own business. Ruby then
followed Ferraro to another club and beat him severely. Ferraro
required emergency hospital treatment for his eye, but he decided not
to press charges since Ruby paid for his hospital care.[A16-310] In
March 1963, during an argument about wages, Ruby threatened to throw a
cigarette girl down the stairs of the Carousel.[A16-311]
Ruby’s relationship with his employees commanded much of his attention
during the months preceding the assassination. The Carousel’s
comparatively high turnover rate[A16-312] and Ruby’s intense desire to
succeed[A16-313] required him to meet numerous prospective employees,
patrons, and other persons who might help improve his business.
Ruby frequently encountered difficulties with the American Guild
of Variety Artists (AGVA), the union which represented Carousel
entertainers.[A16-314] For several years, starting in about 1961,
he unsuccessfully sought modification of AGVA’s policy permitting
“amateur” strippers,[A16-315] inexperienced girls paid less than
union-scale wages,[A16-316] to perform at union houses. Ruby apparently
believed his two competitors, the Weinstein brothers, were scheduling
amateur shows in a manner calculated to destroy his business.[A16-317]
Ruby’s discontent with AGVA grew particularly acute during the late
summer and early fall of 1963 when, in addition to meeting with AGVA
officials,[A16-318] he called upon several acquaintances, including
known criminals, who, he thought, could influence AGVA on his
behalf.[A16-319] Other problems with AGVA arose because of his policy
of continuous shows, which did not give masters of ceremonies enough
time off,[A16-320] and his alleged use of AGVA members to mingle with
patrons to promote the consumption of liquor.[A16-321]
In June 1963, Ruby visited New Orleans, where he obtained the services
of a stripper known as “Jada,”[A16-322] who became his featured
performer.[A16-323] Jada and Ruby had numerous contract disputes and
he was concerned about her high salary, recurrent absenteeism, and
diminishing drawing power.[A16-324] Moreover, he thought that Jada had
deliberately exceeded even the Carousel’s liberal standards of decency
in order to cause him to lose his license or to obtain publicity for
herself.[A16-325] On several occasions Ruby excitedly turned off the
spotlights during her act, and at the end of October 1963, he fired
her.[A16-326] However, after Jada sued out a peace bond, she apparently
recovered a week’s salary from Ruby.[A16-327]
In addition to problems with its star stripper, the Carousel was
required to employ three masters of ceremonies in rapid succession
following the departure in about September 1963, of Wally Weston, who
worked there about 15 months.[A16-328] And in early November, the band
that had played at the Vegas Club for about 8 years left the Vegas to
accept the offer of another Dallas club.[A16-329]
Financial Data and Tax Problems
Jack Ruby’s pockets and the trunk of his car served as his bank.
With a few exceptions, Ruby and his clubs rarely employed bank
accounts.[A16-330] Instead, Ruby carried his cash with him, paying the
bulk of his expenses and debts directly out of club receipts.[A16-331]
During the latter half of 1963, the Carousel, the Vegas, and Ruby each
maintained checking accounts at the Merchants State Bank in Dallas.
Balances of the latter two accounts never exceeded $275. In July
1963, the Carousel’s account had more than $500; after August 8, its
maximum balance was less than $300. Between May 31 and November 24,
1963, 53 checks were drawn on the three accounts; with the exception
of one check for $129.47, all were for less than $100.[A16-332] He
generally purchased cashier’s checks at the Merchants State Bank to
pay his monthly rental of $550 for the Carousel and $500 for the
Vegas.[A16-333] He also purchased cashier’s checks during the 3 months
prior to the assassination to pay about $1,500 to the Texas State
treasurer, $110 to Temple Shearith Israel, apparently for Jewish high
holy day tickets, and $60 to the American Society of Authors and
Publishers.[A16-334]
Records of the more than 50 banking institutions checked during the
investigation of Ruby’s financial affairs[A16-335] revealed that he
had three other dormant accounts, all with small balances.[A16-336]
Two safety deposit boxes belonging to Ruby, opened by Texas officials
pursuant to search warrants, were empty and unused for more than a year
prior to the assassination.[A16-337] Although Ruby negotiated several
loans at the Merchants State Bank,[A16-338] there is no evidence that
he was the maker or co-maker of other loans,[A16-339] and, after
investigation, the Dallas Police Department found no record that Ruby
cosigned the note of any policeman at any time.[A16-340]
Ruby’s financial records were chaotic. One accountant abandoned efforts
to prepare income tax returns and other financial statements because
of the hopeless disarray of Ruby’s data.[A16-341] The record indicates
that Ruby was frequently weeks, if not months, late in filing Federal
tax forms and that he held numerous conferences with Internal Revenue
agents who attempted to obtain the delinquent statements.[A16-342]
Ruby encountered serious difficulties with respect to State franchise
and Federal excise and income taxes. The Texas charter of the
corporation controlling the Sovereign and Carousel clubs was canceled
in 1961, because Ruby failed to pay Texas franchise taxes.[A16-343]
And, only after numerous conferences, did Ruby and representatives of
the Internal Revenue Service reach agreements on installment payments
of various Federal tax liabilities, to which Ruby more or less
adhered.[A16-344]
Ruby’s primary difficulty concerned Federal excise taxes. Advised by
an attorney that the Vegas Club, a dance hall providing food, was not
subject to Federal excise taxes because it was not a “cabaret,” Ruby
charged Vegas patrons on the assumption that no excise taxes were due.
However, his attorney reported, when Federal courts ruled that dance
halls providing “incidental” food were subject to excise taxes as
“cabarets,”[A16-345] Ruby became liable to the Federal Government for
more than 6 years of taxes, amounting, with interest, to almost exactly
$40,000.[A16-346]
Ruby also fell behind on his personal income tax payments. At the time
of his arrest he owed more than $4,400 for 1959 and 1960.[A16-347]
Remittances accompanied his 1961 and 1962 tax forms, the latter
received by the office of the Dallas District Director on September
18, 1963.[A16-348] The following table summarizes amounts which Ruby
reported as gross and net income from the Vegas Club from 1956 to 1962;
and the taxes due:[A16-349]
_Year_ _Gross income_ _Net income_ _Tax_
1962 $41,462.77 $5,619.65 [F]$1,217.75
1961 40,411.00 6,255.29 [F] 1,200.00
1960 44,482.41 9,703.90 2,221.39
1959 50,981.95 14,060.86 3,778.17
1958 37,755.65 3,274.64 586.52
1957 33,671.60 2,619.52 438.41
1956 30,695.27 7,437.01 1,527.10
[F] Estimated
On his income tax forms, Ruby did not itemize personal deductions and
claimed only his own exemption. For 1962, Ruby reported salary income
of $650 from the corporation controlling the Carousel, and $900 for
1961.[A16-350]
Ruby and officers of the Internal Revenue Service frequently
discussed methods of satisfying his large excise and income tax
liability.[A16-351] In 1960, the Government filed tax liens for more
than $20,000.[A16-352] In November 1962, the Government rejected Ruby’s
offer to pay $8,000 to compromise the assessed taxes of more than
$20,000 because he had not filed returns for other Federal taxes and
had not paid these taxes as they became due. These other taxes, for
the period September 1959 through June 1962, amounted to an additional
$20,000.[A16-353] In June 1963, Ruby submitted an offer of $3,000 to
compromise all past assessments; the offer was not acted upon prior to
November 24, 1963.[A16-354]
Other Business Ventures
In addition to nightclub management and ownership, Ruby participated
in numerous other commercial ventures. He was able to do so primarily
because work at the clubs consumed few of his daytime hours. Many
of Ruby’s ventures related to show business, others were somewhat
speculative promotions; almost all ended unsuccessfully.
While operating the Silver Spur Club, Ruby sold costume jewelry at
discount rates,[A16-355] and, in about 1951, he sold sewing machine
attachments at the Texas State Fair.[A16-356] Approximately a year
later, he managed a talented young Negro boy, “Little Daddy” Nelson.
The boy appeared at the Silver Spur, the Vegas Club, and the Bob Wills
Ranch House. In about 1953 or 1954, Ruby took “Little Daddy” and his
parents to Chicago to obtain a television appearance for him. However,
shortly after their arrival, Ruby was confronted by a second woman
claiming to be “Little Daddy’s” mother. Upon advice of counsel, Ruby
decided to abandon the venture.[A16-357]
In 1954, Ruby became interested in the sale of pizza crusts to
Dallas restaurants.[A16-358] He is also reported to have sold an
arthritic preparation[A16-359] and to have manufactured and sold
“Miniron,” a liquid vitamin formula.[A16-360] In about 1958 or
1959, Ruby attempted to build and sell log cabins at a Texas lake
resort.[A16-361] In early 1959, he investigated the possibility of
selling jeeps to Cuba.[A16-362] He is also reported to have furnished
entertainment for a Dallas hotel,[A16-363] to have promoted records
for musicians[A16-364] and to have sold English stainless steel razor
blades.[A16-365]
In October 1963 Ruby assisted the producers of a carnival show, “How
Hollywood Makes Movies,” appearing at the Texas State Fair.[A16-366]
At about this time Ruby also sought to open a new club in Dallas. He
conferred with numerous persons and placed advertisements in Dallas
newspapers in an attempt to obtain financial backing.[A16-367] Assuming
that he would be occupied by the new club, Ruby offered his oldest
brother, Hyman, a managerial post at the Carousel. However, Hyman, who
had recently lost his sales territory, declined the offer because he
felt he was too old for the nightclub business.[A16-368]
Ruby unsuccessfully attempted to sell “twistboards,” an exercising
device consisting of two square fiberboards separated by ball
bearings. Despite the contrary advice of his brother Earl,[A16-369]
Jack ordered several dozen twistboards and had 2,000 promotional
flyers published.[A16-370] He had one of his strippers demonstrate
the twistboards at the Texas Products Show during the first week of
November 1963.[A16-371]
Arrests and Violations
Between 1949 and November 24, 1963, Ruby was arrested eight times by
the Dallas Police Department. The dates, charges, and dispositions of
these arrests are as follows:[A16-372] February 4, 1949, Ruby paid a
$10 fine for disturbing the peace. July 26, 1953, Ruby was suspected
of carrying a concealed weapon; however, no charges were filed and
Ruby was released on the same day. May 1, 1954, Ruby was arrested for
allegedly carrying a concealed weapon and violating a peace bond; again
no charges were filed and Ruby was released on the same day. December
5, 1954, Ruby was arrested for allegedly violating State liquor laws
by selling liquor after hours; the complaint was dismissed on February
8, 1955.[A16-373] June 21, 1959, Ruby was arrested for allegedly
permitting dancing after hours; the complaint was dismissed on July 8,
1959. August 21, 1960, Ruby was again arrested for allegedly permitting
dancing after hours; Ruby posted $25 bond and was released on that
date. February 12, 1963, Ruby was arrested on a charge of simple
assault; he was found not guilty February 27, 1963. Finally, on March
14, 1963, Ruby was arrested for allegedly ignoring traffic summonses: a
$35 bond was posted.
When Ruby applied for a beer license in March 1961, he reported that
he had been arrested “about four or five times” between 1947 and
1953.[A16-374] Between 1950 and 1963, he received 20 tickets for motor
vehicle violations, paying four $10 fines and three of $3.[A16-375]
In 1956 and 1959, Ruby was placed on 6 months’ probation as a traffic
violator.
Ruby was also frequently suspended by the Texas Liquor Control Board.
In August 1949, when he was operating the Silver Spur, he was suspended
for 5 days on a charge of “Agents--Moral Turpitude.” In 1953 Ruby
received a 5-day suspension because of an obscene show, and, in 1954,
a 10-day suspension for allowing a drunkard on his premises.[A16-376]
On February 18, 1954, he was suspended for 5 days because of an obscene
striptease act at the Silver Spur and for the consumption of alcoholic
beverages during prohibited hours.[A16-377] On March 26, 1956, Ruby was
suspended by the liquor board for 3 days because several of his checks
were dishonored.[A16-378] On October 23, 1961, he received another
3-day suspension because an agent solicited the sale of alcoholic
beverages for consumption on licensed premises.[A16-379]
Police Associations
Although the precise nature of his relationship to members of the
Dallas Police Department is not susceptible of conclusive evaluation,
the evidence indicates that Ruby was keenly interested in policemen
and their work.[A16-380] Jesse Curry, chief of the Dallas Police
Department, testified that no more than 25 to 50 of Dallas’ almost
1,200 policemen were acquainted with Ruby.[A16-381] However, the
reports of present and past members of the Dallas Police Department
as well as Ruby’s employees and acquaintances indicate that Ruby’s
police friendships were far more widespread than those of the average
citizen.[A16-382]
There is no credible evidence that Ruby sought special favors from
police officers or attempted to bribe them.[A16-383] Although there is
considerable evidence that Ruby gave policemen reduced rates,[A16-384]
declined to exact any cover charge from them,[A16-385] and gave them
free coffee and soft drinks,[A16-386] this hospitality was not unusual
for a Dallas nightclub operator.[A16-387] Ruby’s personal attachment
to police officers is demonstrated by reports that he attended the
funeral of at least one policeman killed in action and staged a benefit
performance for the widow of another.[A16-388] Ruby regarded several
officers as personal friends, and others had worked for him.[A16-389]
Finally, at least one policeman regularly dated, and eventually
married, one of the Carousel’s strippers.[A16-390]
Underworld Ties
From the time that Ruby arrived in Dallas in 1947, he was friendly with
numerous underworld figures. One of his earliest Dallas acquaintances
was Paul Roland Jones, who was convicted of attempting to bribe the
sheriff of Dallas and engaging in the sale of narcotics.[A16-391]
Joe Bonds, one of Ruby’s partners in the Vegas Club, had a criminal
record.[A16-392]
Ruby, who enjoyed card playing[A16-393] and horse racing,[A16-394]
was friendly with several professional gamblers. In 1959, he visited
Cuba at the invitation and expense of Lewis McWillie, a professional
gambler.[A16-395] Alice Nichols reported that Ruby’s refusal to give
up gambling was one reason why she never seriously considered marrying
him.[A16-396] When Sidney Seidband, a Dallas gambler, was arrested
in Oklahoma City, his list of gambling acquaintances included Jack
Ruby.[A16-397] And other friends of Ruby have been identified as
gamblers.[A16-398] Finally, two persons of questionable reliability
have reported that Ruby’s consent was necessary before gambling or
narcotics operations could be launched in Dallas.[A16-399]
Based on its evaluation of the record, however, the Commission believes
that the evidence does not establish a significant link between Ruby
and organized crime. Both State and Federal officials have indicated
that Ruby was not affiliated with organized criminal activity.[A16-400]
And numerous persons have reported that Ruby was not connected with
such activity.[A16-401]
Travels
Despite reports that Ruby visited Havana, Las Vegas, New York, Chicago,
Honolulu, and Mexican border towns, most of his time subsequent to 1947
was spent in Dallas. Some of his travels, including his efforts in
behalf of “Little Daddy” Nelson and his visit to New Orleans in June
1963 have been discussed.[A16-402] Ruby stated that he went to Chicago
in 1952, in 1958 when his father died, and in August 1963 when he met
members of his family at O’Hare International Airport while en route
from New York to Dallas.[A16-403] His August trip to New York motivated
by his difficulties with the American Guild of Variety Artists and
his desire to obtain talent, has been completely established by hotel
records.[A16-404] Early in 1963 Ruby also traveled to Wichita, Kans.,
because of his interest in stripper Gail Raven,[A16-405] and on May 25,
1963, he apparently registered in an Oklahoma motel.[A16-406]
Although Ruby denies being in Las Vegas after 1937,[A16-407] there are
unsupported rumors that he was in that city in late 1962,[A16-408] and
the early part of November 1963.[A16-409] Reports that he was in Las
Vegas during the weekend prior to the assassination[A16-410] appear
similarly unfounded.[A16-411]
There is some uncertainty about Ruby’s trip to Havana, Cuba, in
1959. The evidence indicates that he accepted an invitation from
gambler Lewis J. McWillie, who subsequently became a violent
anti-Castroite, to visit Havana at McWillie’s expense.[A16-412] Ruby
apparently met McWillie in about 1950, when McWillie operated a Dallas
nightclub.[A16-413] McWillie, whom Ruby said he idolized,[A16-414]
supervised gambling activities at Havana’s Tropicana Hotel in 1959 and
later was employed in a managerial capacity in a Las Vegas gambling
establishment.[A16-415] Ruby testified that he went to Havana for
8 days in August 1959 and left because he was not interested in
its gambling activities.[A16-416] McWillie corroborated this story
except that he stated only that Ruby visited Havana “sometime in
1959.”[A16-417] Three Chicagoans reported seeing Ruby in Havana during
the Labor Day weekend in 1959.[A16-418] Meyer Panitz, an acquaintance
of McWillie, reported that when he met Ruby in Miami during the “summer
of 1959” Ruby stated that he was returning from a pleasure trip to
Cuba.[A16-419] The theory that the trip to Havana had conspiratorial
implications is discussed in chapter VI. There is no reliable evidence
that Ruby went to Havana subsequent to September 1959.[A16-420]
Although Ruby denied ever being in Hawaii,[A16-421] there is some
evidence that during the summer of 1961 he was in Honolulu seeking
dancing talent.[A16-422] While it is unlikely that Ruby would forget
a trip to Honolulu in 1961, there is no other indication that such a
trip, if it occurred, had any sinister motives.
CHARACTER AND INTERESTS
Family Relationships
As mentioned previously,[A16-423] Eva Grant was the only member of the
family living in Dallas when Ruby returned to that city in late 1947.
In 1948, she returned to the west coast, visiting Dallas sporadically
until 1959, when she assumed management of the Vegas.[A16-424]
Despite their recurring arguments, during which they sometimes came
to blows,[A16-425] Ruby was closer to Eva than any of his brothers or
sisters. In the summer of 1963, Eva complained bitterly to Ruby because
he gave a friend about $800 instead of paying Vegas Club bills. Eva,
citing her poor health, stated that she should be hospitalized. Ruby
rejoined that he had provided her money to enter a hospital. He then
shoved her, causing her to fall back about 8 feet and hurt her arm and
shoulder. At this point Ruby insisted he wanted her to leave the Vegas
Club.[A16-426]
Ruby frequently told Eva to submit to an operation and in early
November 1963 she consented. She was hospitalized for a week, leaving
about November 13.[A16-427] While she was in the hospital, Jack called
Earl and Sam, requesting them to convey their concern to Eva.[A16-428]
According to Eva, Jack visited her at the hospital two or three times
a day. He kept in constant touch with her throughout the weekend of
November 22.[A16-429]
Sam Ruby moved to Dallas from Chicago in July 1955, after selling
his interest in the Earl Products Co.[A16-430] His son’s asthma and
Eva’s suggestion that he work as a builder in Dallas prompted the
move.[A16-431] Apparently as a result of difficulties in collecting the
$5,500 Sam loaned Jack in 1955 to pay Federal excise taxes,[A16-432]
Jack and Sam were never particularly close to each other. However, Sam
entered into a partnership in an unsuccessful ice cream business with
Jack’s close friend, Ralph Paul.[A16-433] Jack visited Sam and his
family occasionally, especially on Jewish holidays, and from time to
time they spoke to each other by telephone.[A16-434]
Jack had sporadic contacts with his brother Earl, who remained in
Chicago until about 1960, when he moved to Detroit.[A16-435] The most
successful of the brothers, Earl often gave Jack business advice and
capital.[A16-436] He estimated, perhaps conservatively, that, when
arrested, Jack owed him $15,000.[A16-437] The evidence also indicates
that Jack borrowed at least $1,000, and probably more, from his sister
Marion in Chicago.[A16-438]
Social Relationships
There have been statements that Ruby was a homosexual. The available
evidence does not support the allegation. There is no evidence of
homosexuality on his part; Ruby did not frequent known gathering places
for homosexuals,[A16-439] many of the reports were inherently suspect
or based upon questionable or inaccurate premises,[A16-440] and Ruby
and most of his associates and employees denied the charge.[A16-441]
All the allegations were based on hearsay or derive from Ruby’s
lisp or a “feeling” that Ruby was a “sissy,” seemed “weird,” acted
effeminately, and sometimes spoke in a high-pitched voice when
angry.[A16-442] Some proceeded upon the erroneous theory that Ruby did
not date women.[A16-443]
For the better part of 11 years, Ruby dated Mrs. Alice Reaves Nichols,
a blonde divorcee, 4 years younger than he. Mrs. Nichols, secretary
to a Dallas life insurance company executive,[A16-444] testified that
she saw Ruby twice a week between 1948 and 1956, and once a week from
then until about 1959.[A16-445] Ruby discussed marriage with Mrs.
Nichols,[A16-446] but Mrs. Nichols stated that while dating Ruby she
was seeing other men and he was taking out other women.[A16-447]
Although there are sharply conflicting reports about whether Ruby dated
women who worked for him,[A16-448] the record indicates that Ruby
sought and enjoyed feminine company.[A16-449]
Affection for Dogs
Ruby was extremely fond of dogs. Numerous persons stated that he was
constantly accompanied by several of the dogs he owned.[A16-450]
Testimony at Ruby’s trial in March 1964 indicated that he referred to
his dogs as his “children.”[A16-451] He also became extremely incensed
when he witnessed the maltreatment of any of his dogs.[A16-452]
Religious Interests
Reared in the Jewish faith, Jack Ruby was not especially devout. Rabbi
Hillel Silverman, whose conservative temple Ruby favored, reported
that when Ruby’s father died in 1958, Ruby came to services twice
daily for the prescribed period of 11 months to recite the traditional
memorial prayer.[A16-453] Ruby normally attended services only on the
Jewish high holy days and he was quite unfamiliar with the Hebrew
language.[A16-454]
Ruby was apparently somewhat sensitive to his identity as a Jew.
He forbade his comedians to tell stories directed at Jews or
Jewish practices[A16-455] and, on several occasions after 1947,
he fought with persons making derogatory remarks about his ethnic
origins.[A16-456] The evidence also indicates that he was deeply upset
that an advertisement insulting President Kennedy appeared above a
Jewish-sounding name.[A16-457]
Physical Activities and Violence
While in Dallas, Ruby continued attempts to keep in excellent physical
condition. He frequently exercised at the YMCA, the Carousel, and
his apartment, where he maintained a set of weights.[A16-458] Ruby
was extremely concerned about his weight and health, including his
baldness,[A16-459] and about his appearance in general.[A16-460]
Ruby’s concern for his physical well-being was partially motivated by
practical considerations, for he was his own unofficial club bouncer.
On about 15 occasions since 1950, he beat with his fists, pistol
whipped, or blackjacked patrons who became unruly.[A16-461] At other
times, he ejected troublesome customers without a beating,[A16-462]
in many instances, justifiably.[A16-463] However, many people stated
that he employed more force than necessary, particularly because he
often ended a fracas by throwing his victim down the stairs of the
Carousel.[A16-464]
Besides acting as a bouncer, Ruby on numerous other occasions severely
beat people who were not club patrons, usually employing only his
fists. Several of these episodes have been discussed in connection with
Ruby’s relationship with his employees.[A16-465] In 1951, Ruby attacked
a man who had called him a “kike Jew” and knocked out a tooth.[A16-466]
At about that time Ruby is also reported to have knocked a man down
from behind and then to have kicked him in the face.[A16-467] In about
1958, Ruby disarmed a man who had drawn a gun on him at the Vegas,
beat him almost to death, put the gun back in the man’s pocket, and
threw him down the stairs.[A16-468] In 1958, Ruby reportedly knocked
down a man at the Vegas who was 6’3” tall and weighed 230 pounds. Ruby
was approximately 5’9” tall and weighed about 175 pounds.[A16-469]
Ruby then made the man, who had slapped his date, crawl out of the
club.[A16-470] In a fight at the Vegas, reportedly witnessed by
policemen, Ruby severely beat a heavyweight boxer who had threatened
him.[A16-471]
During 1962, several violent episodes occurred. Ruby beat a man
who refused to pay admission or leave and then shoved him down the
stairs.[A16-472] He “jostled” a woman down the stairs of the Carousel
and struck her escort, who was “much smaller” than he.[A16-473] On
one occasion, Ruby picked up a man who was arguing with his date,
knocked him to the floor, cursed him, and then removed him from the
Vegas.[A16-474] When a cabdriver entered the Carousel and inquired
about a patron who had neglected to pay his fare, Ruby struck the
cabdriver.[A16-475]
In February 1963, Ruby badly beat Don Tabon, who had made some remarks
about Ruby’s lady companion, injuring Tabon’s eye.[A16-476] Ruby was
acquitted of a charge of assault and Tabon sought no monetary relief
because he believed Ruby financially incapable of satisfying any
resulting judgment. A doctor who went to the Carousel several times
between August and November 1963, stated that on each occasion Ruby
ejected someone from the club.[A16-477]
Buddy Turman, a prizefighter and Ruby’s friend, stated that Ruby
“picked his shots.”[A16-478] According to Turman, a bouncer at the
Vegas for about a year, Ruby’s victim was frequently drunk, female,
or otherwise incapable of successfully resisting Ruby’s attack. The
evidence indicates that, unlike his youthful escapades, Ruby was often
malicious. He frequently felt contrite, however, when his anger had
passed or when his victim was an old acquaintance, and he would seek to
make amends for his violent temper.[A16-479]
With two exceptions, there is no evidence that Ruby settled disputes
with firearms. Shortly before Joe Bonds’ conviction in 1954, Ruby
is reported to have chased Bonds with a pistol.[A16-480] And, Larry
Crafard reported that about a week before the assassination, Ruby told
him to get Ruby’s gun so that an AGVA official and former employee,
Earl Norman, could be ejected.[A16-481] Although Ruby did not often
use his gun, it was frequently accessible when he was carrying large
amounts of money.[A16-482]
Generosity to Friends and the Need for Recognition
While Ruby often flared up and acted aggressively, he seemed to calm
down or forget his anger quickly, and there is also a great deal of
evidence that he was extremely generous to his friends. He loaned
money to them and apparently cared little whether the loans would
be repaid.[A16-483] He was quick to offer employment to persons
desperately in need of a job[A16-484] and he lent considerable aid to
persons seeking work elsewhere.[A16-485] Moreover, when friends or
new acquaintances had no roof over their heads, Ruby’s apartment was
frequently theirs to share.[A16-486]
Ruby’s unusual generosity may be explained in part by his extremely
emotional reaction to persons in distress, which may have resulted from
his firsthand familiarity with poverty, and by his unusual craving to
be recognized and relied upon.[A16-487] Many of Ruby’s acquaintances
described him as a “publicity hound,” “glad hander,” and “name
dropper,” one always seeking to be the center of attention.[A16-488]
Apparently the “egocentrism” of his youth[A16-489] never left Ruby.
Yet, frequently he sought reassurance from persons he admired.[A16-490]
APPENDIX XVII
Polygraph Examination of Jack Ruby
PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS
As early as December of 1963, Jack Ruby expressed his desire to be
examined with a polygraph, truth serum, or any other scientific device
which would test his veracity.[A17-1] The attorneys who defended Ruby
in the State criminal proceedings in Texas agreed that he should take
a polygraph examination to test any conspiratorial connection between
Ruby and Oswald.[A17-2] To obtain such a test, Ruby’s defense counsel
filed motions in court and also requested that the FBI administer such
an examination to Ruby.[A17-3] During the course of a psychiatric
examination on May 11, 1964, Ruby is quoted as saying: “I want to tell
the truth. I want a polygraph * * *.”[A17-4] In addition, numerous
letters were written to the President’s Commission on behalf of Ruby
requesting a polygraph examination.[A17-5]
When Ruby testified before the Commission in Dallas County Jail on June
7, 1964, his first words were a request for a lie detector test. The
Commission hearing commenced with the following exchanges:
Mr. JACK RUBY. Without a lie detector test on my testimony, my
verbal statements to you, how do you know if I am telling the
truth?
Mr. TONAHILL [Defense Counsel]. Don’t worry about that, Jack.
Mr. RUBY. Just a minute, gentlemen.
Chief Justice WARREN. You wanted to ask something, did you, Mr.
Ruby?
Mr. RUBY. I would like to be able to get a lie detector test
or truth serum of what motivated me to do what I did at
that particular time, and it seems as you get further into
something, even though you know what you did, it operates
against you somehow, brain washes you, that you are weak in
what you want to tell the truth about and what you want to say
which is the truth.
Now Mr. Warren, I don’t know if you got any confidence in the
lie detector test and the truth serum, and so on.
Chief Justice WARREN. I can’t tell you just how much confidence
I have in it, because it depends so much on who is taking it,
and so forth.
But I will say this to you, that if you and your counsel want
any kind of test, I will arrange it for you. I would be glad to
do that, if you want it. I wouldn’t suggest a lie detector test
to testify the truth.
We will treat you just the same as we do any other witness, but
if you want such a test, I will arrange for it.
Mr. RUBY. I do want it. Will you agree to that, Joe?
Mr. TONAHILL. I sure do, Jack.[A17-6]
Throughout Ruby’s testimony before the Commission, he repeated his
request on numerous occasions that he be given an opportunity to take
a lie detector test.[A17-7] Ruby’s insistence on taking a polygraph
examination is reflected right to the end of the proceedings where in
the very last portion of the transcribed hearings Ruby states:
Mr. RUBY. All I want to do is to tell the truth, and the only
way you can know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only
way you can know it.
Chief Justice WARREN. That we will do for you.[A17-8]
Following Ruby’s insistence on a polygraph test, the Commission
initiated arrangements to have the FBI conduct such an
examination.[A17-9] A detailed set of questions was prepared for the
polygraph examination, which was set for July 16, 1964.[A17-10] A
few days before the scheduled test, the Commission was informed that
Ruby’s sister, Eva Grant, and his counsel, Joe H. Tonahill, opposed the
polygraph on the ground that psychiatric examinations showed that his
mental state was such that the test would be meaningless.[A17-11]
The Commission was advised that Sol Dann, a Detroit attorney
representing the Ruby family, had informed the Dallas office of the
FBI on July 15, 1964, that a polygraph examination would affect
Ruby’s health and would be of questionable value according to Dr.
Emanuel Tanay, a Detroit psychiatrist.[A17-12] On that same date,
Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter discussed by telephone the polygraph
examination with Defense Counsel Joe H. Tonahill, who expressed his
personal opinion that a polygraph examination should be administered to
Ruby.[A17-13] By letter dated July 15, 1964, Dallas District Attorney
Henry Wade requested that the polygraph examination cover the issue of
premeditation as well as the defensive theories in the case.[A17-14]
Against this background, it was decided that a representative of
the Commission would travel to Dallas to determine whether Jack
Ruby wanted to take the polygraph test. Since Ruby had had frequent
changes in attorneys and because he was presumed to be sane, the
final decision on the examination was his, especially in view of his
prior personal insistence on the test.[A17-15] In the jury conference
room at the Dallas jail on July 18, Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter,
representing the Commission, informed Chief Defense Counsel Clayton
Fowler, co-Counsel Tonahill and Assistant District Attorney William F.
Alexander that the Commission was not insisting on or even requesting
that the test be taken, but was merely fulfilling its commitment to
make the examination available.[A17-16] In the event Ruby had changed
his mind and would so state for the record, that would conclude the
issue as far as the Commission was concerned.[A17-17]
Chief Defense Counsel Fowler had objected to the test. He conferred
with Jack Ruby in his cell and then returned stating that Ruby insisted
on taking the examination.[A17-18] Mr. Fowler requested that (1) Dr.
Tanay, the Detroit psychiatrist, be present; (2) the results of the
test not be disclosed other than to the Commission; (3) the questions
to be asked not be disclosed to the District Attorney’s office; and (4)
the results of the test be made available to defense counsel.[A17-19]
Sheriff William Decker announced his intention to have Allan L. Sweatt,
his chief criminal deputy who was also a polygraph operator, present
to maintain custody of Jack Ruby while the examination was being
administered.[A17-20] Assistant District Attorney Alexander requested
a list of questions, a copy of the recording made by the polygraph
machine and a copy of the report interpreting the test.[A17-21] In
response to the numerous requests, the procedure was determined
that the questions to be asked of Ruby would be discussed in a
preliminary session in the presence of defense counsel, the assistant
district attorney and Chief Jailer E. L. Holman, who was to replace
Sweatt.[A17-22] The assistant district attorney would not be present
when Ruby answered the questions, but Jailer Holman was allowed to
remain to retain custody of Ruby.[A17-23] No commitment was made on
behalf of the Commission as to what disclosure would be made of the
results of the examination.[A17-24] Since Dr. Tanay was not in Dallas
and therefore could not be present,[A17-25] arrangements were made
to have in attendance Dr. William R. Beavers, a psychiatrist who had
previously examined and evaluated Ruby’s mental state.[A17-26]
At the conclusion of the lengthy preliminary proceedings, Ruby
entered the jury conference room at 2:23 p.m. and was informed that
the Commission was prepared to fulfill its commitment to offer him
a polygraph examination, but was not requesting the test.[A17-27]
On behalf of the Commission, Assistant Counsel Specter warned
Ruby that anything he said could be used against him.[A17-28]
Chief Defense Counsel Fowler advised Ruby of his objections to the
examination.[A17-29] Ruby then stated that he wanted the polygraph
examination conducted and that he wanted the results released to the
public as promptly as possible.[A17-30] Special Agent Bell P. Herndon,
polygraph operator of the FBI, obtained a written “consent to interview
with polygraph” signed by Jack Ruby.[A17-31] Herndon then proceeded to
administer the polygraph examination by breaking the questions up into
series which were ordinarily nine questions in length and consisted of
relevant interrogatories and control questions.[A17-32]
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST
During the course of the polygraph examination Jack Ruby answered the
relevant questions as follows:
Q. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?
A. No.[A17-33]
Q. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?
A. No.[A17-34]
Q. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
A. No.[A17-35]
Q. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
A. No.[A17-36]
Q. Are you now a member of any group that advocates the violent
overthrow of the United States Government?
A. No.[A17-37]
Q. Have you ever been a member of any group that advocates
violent overthrow of the United States Government?
A. No.[A17-38]
Q. Between the assassination and the shooting, did anybody you
know tell you they knew Oswald?
A. No.[A17-39]
Q. Aside from anything you said to George Senator on Sunday
morning, did you ever tell anyone else that you intended to
shoot Oswald?
A. No.[A17-40]
Q. Did you shoot Oswald in order to silence him?
A. No.[A17-41]
Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Friday night?
A. No.[A17-42]
Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday morning?
A. No.[A17-43]
Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday night?
A. No.[A17-44]
Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Sunday morning?
A. Yes.[A17-45]
Q. Were you on the sidewalk at the time Lieutenant Pierce’s car
stopped on the ramp exit?
A. Yes.[A17-46]
Q. Did you enter the jail by walking through an alleyway?
A. No.[A17-47]
Q. Did you walk past the guard at the time Lieutenant Pierce’s
car was parked on the ramp exit?
A. Yes.[A17-48]
Q. Did you talk with any Dallas police officers on Sunday,
November 24, prior to the shooting of Oswald?
A. No.[A17-49]
Q. Did you see the armored car before it entered the basement?
A. No.[A17-50]
Q. Did you enter the police department through a door at the
rear of the east side of the jail?
A. No.[A17-51]
Q. After talking to Little Lynn did you hear any announcement
that Oswald was about to be moved?
A. No.[A17-52]
Q. Before you left your apartment Sunday morning, did anyone
tell you the armored car was on the way to the police
department?
A. No.[A17-53]
Q. Did you get a Wall Street Journal at the Southwestern Drug
Store during the week before the assassination?
A. No.[A17-54]
Q. Do you have any knowledge of a Wall Street Journal addressed
to Mr. J. E. Bradshaw?
A. No.[A17-55]
Q. To your knowledge, did any of your friends or did you
telephone the FBI in Dallas between 2 or 3 a.m. Sunday morning?
A. No.[A17-56]
Q. Did you or any of your friends to your knowledge telephone
the sheriff’s office between 2 or 3 a.m. Sunday morning?
A. No.[A17-57]
Q. Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on
Friday, November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue?
A. No.[A17-58]
Q. Did you go to the synagogue that Friday night?
A. Yes.[A17-59]
Q. Did you see Oswald in the Dallas jail on Friday night?
A. Yes.[A17-60]
Q. Did you have a gun with you when you went to the Friday
midnight press conference at the jail?
A. No.[A17-61]
Q. Is everything you told the Warren Commission the entire
truth?
A. Yes.[A17-62]
Q. Have you ever knowingly attended any meetings of the
Communist Party or any other group that advocates violent
overthrow of the Government?
A. No.[A17-63]
Q. Is any member of your immediate family or any close friend,
a member of the Communist Party?
A. No.[A17-64]
Q. Is any member of your immediate family or any close friend a
member of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the
Government?
A. No.[A17-65]
Q. Did any close friend or any member of your immediate family
ever attend a meeting of the Communist Party?
A. No.[A17-66]
Q. Did any close friend or any member of your immediate family
ever attend a meeting of any group that advocates the violent
overthrow of the Government?
A. No.[A17-67]
Q. Did you ever meet Oswald at your post office box?
A. No.[A17-68]
Q. Did you use your post office mailbox to do any business with
Mexico or Cuba?
A. No.[A17-69]
Q. Did you do business with Castro-Cuba?
A. No.[A17-70]
Q. Was your trip to Cuba solely for pleasure?
A. Yes.[A17-71]
Q. Have you now told us the truth concerning why you carried
$2,200 in cash on you?
A. Yes.[A17-72]
Q. Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald?
A. No.[A17-73]
Q. Did you shoot Oswald because of any influence of the
underworld?
A. No.[A17-74]
Q. Did you shoot Oswald because of a labor union influence?
A. No.[A17-75]
Q. Did any long-distance telephone calls which you made before
the assassination of the President have anything to do with the
assassination?
A. No.[A17-76]
Q. Did any of your long-distance telephone calls concern the
shooting of Oswald?
A. No.[A17-77]
Q. Did you shoot Oswald in order to save Mrs. Kennedy the
ordeal of a trial?
A. Yes.[A17-78]
Q. Did you know the Tippit that was killed?
A. No.[A17-79]
Q. Did you tell the truth about relaying the message to Ray
Brantley to get McWillie a few guns?
A. Yes.[A17-80]
Q. Did you go to the assembly room on Friday night to get the
telephone number of KLIF?
A. Yes.[A17-81]
Q. Did you ever meet with Oswald and Officer Tippit at your
club?
A. No.[A17-82]
Q. Were you at the Parkland Hospital at any time on Friday?
A. No.[A17-83]
Q. Did you say anything when you shot Oswald other than what
you’ve testified about?
A. No.[A17-84]
Q. Have members of your family been physically harmed because
of what you did?
A. No.[A17-85]
Q. Do you think members of your family are now in danger
because of what you did?
(No response.)[A17-86]
Q. Is Mr. Fowler in danger because he is defending you?
(No response.)[A17-87]
Q. Did “Blackie” Hanson speak to you just before you shot
Oswald?
A. No.[A17-88]
INTERPRETATION OF THE TEST
A polygraph examination is designed to detect physiological responses
to stimuli in a carefully controlled interrogation. Such responses may
accompany and indicate deception.[A17-89] The polygraph instrument
derives its name from the Greek derivative “poly” meaning many and the
word “graph” meaning writings.[A17-90] The polygraph chart writings
consist of three separate markings placed on a graph reflecting
three separate physiological reactions.[A17-91] A rubber tube is
placed around the subject’s chest to record his breathing pattern on
a pneumograph.[A17-92] That device records the respiratory ratio of
inhalation and exhalation strokes.[A17-93] The second component is
called a galvanic skin response which consists of electrodes placed
on the examinee’s fingers, through which a small amount of electrical
current is passed to the skin.[A17-94] The galvanometer records the
minute changes in electrical skin response.[A17-95] The third component
consists of a cardiograph which is a tracing obtained by attaching
a pneumatic cuff around the left arm in a manner very similar to
an apparatus which takes blood pressure.[A17-96] When the cuff is
inflated, that device records relative blood pressures or change in the
heart rate.[A17-97]
From those testing devices, it is possible to measure psychological
or emotional stress.[A17-98] This testing device is the product of
observation by psychologists and physiologists who noted certain
physiological responses when people lie.[A17-99] In about 1920
law enforcement officials with psychological and physiological
training initiated the development of the instrument to serve as an
investigative aid.[A17-100]
The polygraph may record responses indicative of deception, but it
must be carefully interpreted.[A17-101] The relevant questions, as to
which the interrogator is seeking to determine whether the subject is
falsifying, are compared with control questions where the examiner
obtains a known indication of deception or some expected emotional
response.[A17-102] In evaluating the polygraph, due consideration must
be given to the fact that a physiological response may be caused by
factors other than deception, such as fear, anxiety, nervousness,
dislike, and other emotions.[A17-103] There are no valid statistics
as to the reliability of the polygraph.[A17-104] FBI Agent Herndon
testified that, notwithstanding the absence of percentage indicators of
reliability, an informed judgment may be obtained from a well-qualified
examiner on the indications of deception in a normal person under
appropriate standards of administration.[A17-105]
Ordinarily during a polygraph examination only the examiner and
the examinee are present.[A17-106] It is the practice of the FBI,
however, to have a second agent present to take notes.[A17-107] It
is normally undesirable to have other people present during the
polygraph examination because the examinee may react emotionally to
them.[A17-108] Because of the numerous interested parties involved
in Ruby’s polygraph examination, there were present individuals
representing the Commission and the Dallas district attorney, as
well as two defense counsel, two FBI agents, the chief jailer, the
psychiatrist, and the court reporter, although the assistant district
attorney and one defense counsel left when Ruby was actually responding
to questions while the instrument was activated.[A17-109] Ruby was
placed in a position where there was a minimum of distraction for him
during the test.[A17-110] He faced a wall and could not see anyone
except possibly through secondary vision from the side.[A17-111]
Agent Herndon expressed the opinion that Ruby was not affected by the
presence of the people in the room.[A17-112]
Answer by Ruby to certain irrelevant control questions suggested an
attempt to deceive on those questions. For example, Ruby answered
“No” to the question “While in the service did you receive any
disciplinary action?”[A17-113] His reaction suggested deception in his
answer.[A17-114] Similarly, Ruby’s negative answer to the query “Did
you ever over-charge a customer?” was suggestive of deception.[A17-115]
Ruby further showed an emotional response to other control questions
such as “Have you ever been known by another name”[A17-116] “Are you
married?”[A17-117] “Have you ever served time in jail?” [A17-118] “Are
your parents alive?”[A17-119] “Other than what you told me, did you
ever hit anyone with any kind of a weapon?”[A17-120] Herndon concluded
that the absence of any physiological response on the relevant
questions indicated that there was no deception.[A17-121]
An accurate evaluation of Ruby’s polygraph examination depends on
whether he was psychotic. Since a psychotic is divorced from reality,
the polygraph tracings could not be logically interpreted on such
an individual. A psychotic person might believe a false answer was
true so he would not register an emotional response characteristic of
deception as a normal person would.[A17-122] If a person is so mentally
disturbed that he does not understand the nature of the questions or
the substance of his answers, then no validity can be attached to the
polygraph examination.[A17-123] Herndon stated that if a person, on the
other hand, was in touch with reality, then the polygraph examination
could be interpreted like any other such test.[A17-124]
Based on his previous contacts with Ruby and from observing him during
the entire polygraph proceeding, Dr. William R. Beavers testified as
follows:
In the greater proportion of the time that he answered the
questions, I felt that he was aware of the questions and that
he understood them, and that he was giving answers based on an
appreciation of reality.[A17-125]
Dr. Beavers further stated that he had previously diagnosed Ruby as a
“psychotic depressive.” [A17-126]
Based on the assumption that Ruby was a “psychotic depressive,” Herndon
testified:
There would be no validity to the polygraph examination,
and no significance should be placed upon the polygraph
charts.[A17-127]
Considering other phases of Dr. Beavers’ testimony, Herndon stated:
Well, based on the hypothesis that Ruby was mentally competent
and sound, the charts could be interpreted, and if those
conditions are fact, the charts could be interpreted to
indicate that there was no area of deception present with
regard to his response to the relevant questions during the
polygraph examination.[A17-128]
In stating his opinion that Ruby was in touch with reality and
understood the questions and answers, Dr. Beavers excepted two
questions where he concluded that Ruby’s underlying delusional state
took hold.[A17-129] Those questions related to the safety of Ruby’s
family and his defense counsel.[A17-130] While in the preliminary
session Ruby had answered those questions by stating that he felt his
family and defense counsel were in danger, he did not answer either
question when the polygraph was activated.[A17-131] Dr. Beavers
interpreted Ruby’s failure to answer as a reflection of “internal
struggle as to just what was reality.”[A17-132] In addition, Dr.
Beavers testified that the test was not injurious to Ruby’s mental or
physical condition.[A17-133]
Because Ruby not only volunteered but insisted upon taking a polygraph
examination, the Commission agreed to the examination. FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover commented on the examination as follows:
It should be pointed out that the polygraph, often referred to
as “lie detector” is not in fact such a device. The instrument
is designed to record under proper stimuli emotional responses
in the form of physiological variations which may indicate
and accompany deception. The FBI feels that the polygraph
technique is not sufficiently precise to permit absolute
judgements of deception or truth without qualifications. The
polygraph technique has a number of limitations, one of which
relates to the mental fitness and condition of the examinee to
be tested.
During the proceedings at Dallas, Texas, on July 18, 1964, Dr.
William R. Beavers, a psychiatrist, testified that he would
generally describe Jack Ruby as a “psychotic depressive.”
In view of the serious question raised as to Ruby’s mental
condition, no significance should be placed on the polygraph
examination and it should be considered nonconclusive as the
charts cannot be relied upon.[A17-134]
Having granted Ruby’s request for the examination, the Commission
is publishing the transcript of the hearing at which the test was
conducted[A17-135] and the transcript of the deposition of the FBI
polygraph operator who administered the test.[A17-136] The Commission
did not rely on the results of this examination in reaching the
conclusions stated in this report.
APPENDIX XVIII
Footnotes
For references to the testimony of witnesses before the Commission, the
following citation form is used: number of volume, “H” (for “Hearings
before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy”), page number, and the name of the witness in parentheses,
e.g., 7 H 441 (O’Donnell). Commission exhibits are referred to by the
capital letters “CE” and number; deposition exhibits by the name of
the witness, the capital letters “DE,” and the number or letter of his
exhibit, e.g., CE 705; Sorrels DE 1. References to audiovisual sources
for one Dallas broadcasting station (WFAA) are cited as follows: PKT
for video tapes, PKF for films, and PKA for audio tapes. The video and
audio reels and tapes of other stations are cited by number, e.g.,
WFAA-TV reel PKT 10; KBLD-TV reel 13.
FOREWORD
[F-1] Executive Order No. 11130 is set forth as app. I.
[F-2] The White House press release is set forth as app. II.
[F-3] Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public Law 88-202) is set forth as
app. III.
[F-4] The names of all witnesses are set forth in app. V.
[F-5] The procedures of the Commission are set forth as app. VI.
CHAPTER II
[C2-1] 4 H 130 (Gov. John B. Connally, Jr.); 7 H 441 (Kenneth
O’Donnell).
[C2-2] Id. at 441, 442.
[C2-3] Id. at 442-443.
[C2-4] Id. at 442.
[C2-5] Ibid.
[C2-6] 7 H 475 (Clifton C. Carter).
[C2-7] Ibid.
[C2-8] Ibid.
[C2-9] 4 H 145-146 (Connally).
[C2-10] Ibid.; CE 1307.
[C2-11] 4 H 130 (Connally); CE 2960.
[C2-12] 7 H 442 (O’Donnell).
[C2-13] 4 H 146 (Connally).
[C2-14] Ibid.
[C2-15] 7 H 443 (O’Donnell).
[C2-16] Ibid.
[C2-17] 4 H 319-325 (Winston G. Lawson); 7 H 334-341 (Forrest V.
Sorrels). Governor Connally testified that he was not consulted about
the security arrangements in Dallas, and that he did not expect to be.
4 H 145 (Connally).
[C2-18] 4 H 319 (Lawson); 7 H 334 (Sorrels).
[C2-19] CE 769, p. 1; 4 H 320 (Lawson).
[C2-20] Details of the advance work done by Agent Lawson are set forth
in his contemporaneous memoranda; CE 707, 768, 769.
[C2-21] 4 H 321-322 (Lawson); 2 H 107 (Roy H. Kellerman).
[C2-22] 4 H 322-324, 344-346 (Lawson).
[C2-23] CE 768, p. 9; see also 7 H 339 (Sorrels).
[C2-24] CE 770.
[C2-25] 4 H 323-324 (Lawson).
[C2-26] 7 H 334 (Sorrels).
[C2-27] See id. at 335; Sorrels DE 4, p. 1.
[C2-28] CE 769, p. 2.
[C2-29] CE 1360; 4 H 336-337 (Lawson).
[C2-30] CE 768, pp. 6-13; CE 769, p. 5; 4 H 338 (Lawson).
[C2-31] Id. at 325.
[C2-32] Ibid.
[C2-33] CE 769, p. 2; 7 H 337 (Sorrels).
[C2-34] CE 768, p. 4.
[C2-35] Ibid.
[C2-36] CE 769, p. 3.
[C2-37] 7 H 338 (Sorrels); 4 H 326 (Lawson); CE 1022, p. 2; CE 769, p.
3.
[C2-38] 4 H 341 (Lawson); CE 1022, p. 3.
[C2-39] 7 H 333 (Sorrels).
[C2-40] Id. at 337.
[C2-41] Ibid.
[C2-42] 4 H 326 (Lawson).
[C2-43] CE 876 is an aerial view of Dealey Plaza and the Triple
Underpass; see also CE 2188.
[C2-44] 7 H 337 (Sorrels); CE 2114-2116.
[C2-45] Ibid.
[C2-46] CE 2967; see 7 H 337 (Sorrels); 4 H 333 (Lawson).
[C2-47] Id. at 326.
[C2-48] CE 769. p. 4; 4 H 326 (Lawson).
[C2-49] Id. at 326-327.
[C2-50] 5 H 465-466 (James J. Rowley); 4 H 329, 333 (Lawson).
[C2-51] Id. at 327-329. The adequacy of these arrangements is
considered in ch. VIII 447-449.
[C2-52] CE 1022, p. 2.
[C2-53] CE 1361.
[C2-54] CE 1362.
[C2-55] CE 1363.
[C2-56] CE 1364.
[C2-57] CE 1365.
[C2-58] CE 1366.
[C2-59] CE 1367, 1368.
[C2-60] CE 1369.
[C2-61] CE 1370.
[C2-62] CE 1371.
[C2-63] CE 1372, 1373.
[C2-64] Ibid.
[C2-65] CE 1374.
[C2-66] CE 1375, 1376.
[C2-67] 4 H 323 (Lawson); 7 H 339 (Sorrels); CE 769, p. 8.
[C2-68] CE 1377, 1378.
[C2-69] CE 1379.
[C2-70] CE 1380.
[C2-71] CE 996; see also 5 H 534 (Robert G. Klause).
[C2-72] CE 1031; 5 H 504 (Bernard W. Weissman).
[C2-73] CE 1031.
[C2-74] 4 H 130 (Connally); 7 H 444-445 (O’Donnell).
[C2-75] Id. at 445.
[C2-76] 4 H 130 (Connally); 7 H 445 (O’Donnell).
[C2-77] 7 H 472 (David F. Powers).
[C2-78] Ibid.
[C2-79] 4 H 130 (Connally); 7 H 445 (O’Donnell).
[C2-80] 2 H 63-64 (Kellerman); 7 H 459 (Lawrence F. O’Brien).
[C2-81] 7 H 443-444 (O’Donnell).
[C2-82] Id. at 456.
[C2-83] Ibid.
[C2-84] 4 H 349 (Lawson); 2 H 67 (Kellerman).
[C2-85] 5 H 561 (Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson); 4 H 130 (Connally); CE 2526.
[C2-86] 5 H 560 (Johnson); 7 H 474 (Clifton C. Carter); 2 H 146 (Rufus
W. Youngblood).
[C2-87] 7 H 461 (O’Brien); 2 H 67 (Kellerman); 4 H 339, 350 (Lawson).
[C2-88] Id. at 350; CE 1024.
[C2-89] 4 H 339-340 (Lawson).
[C2-90] 5 H 560-561 (Johnson); CE 1024, statement of Rufus W.
Youngblood.
[C2-91] 5 H 561 (Johnson); 2 H 115 (Greer).
[C2-92] See 4 H 335-336 (Lawson).
[C2-93] 4 H 132 (Connally); 2 H 135 (Clinton J. Hill); 2 H 70
(Kellerman); 4 H 326, 351 (Lawson).
[C2-94] 2 H 135-136 (Hill); 4 H 351 (Lawson).
[C2-95] CE 768, p. 5.
[C2-96] 2 H 67 (Kellerman); 4 H 327 (Lawson).
[C2-97] CE 768, p. 5; 2 H 67 (Kellerman).
[C2-98] Id. at 68; 4 H 327-328 (Lawson); 2 H 116 (Greer).
[C2-99] CE 344, 345, 346.
[C2-100] 2 H 65 (Kellerman); 2 H 114 (Greer).
[C2-101] 4 H 349 (Lawson); 2 H 66-67 (Kellerman).
[C2-102] Id. at 67.
[C2-103] Id. at 64-65.
[C2-104] CE 345.
[C2-105] 2 H 136-137 (Hill); CE 1025.
[C2-106] 4 H 130-131 (Connally); 2 H 68 (Kellerman); 2 H 115 (Greer).
[C2-107] Ibid.
[C2-108] Ibid.
[C2-109] 2 H 70 (Kellerman).
[C2-110] 4 H 338-339 (Lawson).
[C2-111] 2 H 135 (Hill).
[C2-112] Id. at 134.
[C2-113] Id. at 134-135.
[C2-114] 7 H 446 (O’Donnell); 7 H 473 (Powers).
[C2-115] 4 H 327, 329 (Lawson).
[C2-116] Ibid.; 7 H 342 (Sorrels).
[C2-117] 4 H 327 (Lawson); 2 H 135-136 (Hill).
[C2-118] Id. at 136.
[C2-119] 2 H 147 (Youngblood).
[C2-120] Id. at 148.
[C2-121] Id. at 147; 5 H 561 (Johnson); 7 H 439 (Senator Ralph W.
Yarborough).
[C2-122] 2 H 147 (Youngblood).
[C2-123] 7 H 474 (Carter); 2 H 69 (Kellerman).
[C2-124] CE 767, attachment 3; CE 1126.
[C2-125] 2 H 70 (Kellerman); 4 H 336 (Lawson).
[C2-126] CE 768, pp. 9-10.
[C2-127] 4 H 130-131 (Connally); 2 H 67, 70 (Kellerman); 2 H 115
(Greer).
[C2-128] 4 H 132 (Connally); 2 H 135 (Hill); 2 H 70 (Kellerman).
[C2-129] Ibid.
[C2-130] 4 H 132 (Connally).
[C2-131] 7 H 447 (O’Donnell); 7 H 473 (Powers); 4 H 131 (Connally).
[C2-132] 2 H 135-136 (Hill); CE 398; CE 1024, statement of Clinton J.
Hill, p. 2.
[C2-133] 2 H 135 (Hill).
[C2-134] 2 H 71 (Kellerman).
[C2-135] 2 H 147 (Youngblood).
[C2-136] CE 876; 2 H 71 (Kellerman).
[C2-137] CE 878; 2 H 71-72 (Kellerman).
[C2-138] 5 H 561 (Johnson); 4 H 132 (Connally).
[C2-139] 7 H 447 (O’Donnell); 7 H 463 (O’Brien); 7 H 473 (Powers).
[C2-140] 4 H 147 (Mrs. John B. Connally, Jr.); 4 H 131 (Connally).
[C2-141] 2 H 151 (Youngblood).
[C2-142] 7 H 473 (Powers).
[C2-143] 2 H 120 (Greer).
[C2-144] CE 1974, p. 163.
[C2-145] 2 H 119 (Greer).
[C2-146] 4 H 134 (Connally); 4 H 149 (Mrs. Connally); 7 H 448
(O’Donnell); 7 H 473 (Powers); 7 H 474 (Carter); 2 H 73 (Kellerman); 2
H 139 (Hill); 3 H 245 (Baker).
[C2-147] 5 H 160-161 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt).
[C2-148] 5 H 179-180 (Mrs. John F. Kennedy).
[C2-149] 4 H 132-133 (Connally).
[C2-150] Id. at 135-136.
[C2-151] 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally).
[C2-152] 2 H 73-74 (Kellerman).
[C2-153] 2 H 117 (Greer).
[C2-154] 2 H 74-77 (Kellerman).
[C2-155] 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally).
[C2-156] 4 H 133 (Connally).
[C2-157] 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally).
[C2-158] 4 H 133 (Connally).
[C2-159] Ibid.; 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally).
[C2-160] Ibid.; 4 H 133 (Connally).
[C2-161] 2 H 138 (Hill).
[C2-162] Ibid.
[C2-163] Id. at 138-139.
[C2-164] Ibid.
[C2-165] 7 H 473 (Powers).
[C2-166] 5 H 180 (Mrs. Kennedy).
[C2-167] CE 1024, statement of John D. Ready.
[C2-168] CE 1024, statement of George W. Hickey, Jr.
[C2-169] CE 1024, statement of Emory P. Roberts.
[C2-170] Ibid.
[C2-171] 2 H 148-149 (Youngblood).
[C2-172] Id. at 149.
[C2-173] 5 H 561 (Johnson).
[C2-174] 7 H 475 (Carter).
[C2-175] 4 H 325 (Lawson).
[C2-176] 7 H 347 (Sorrels).
[C2-177] 2 H 74 (Kellerman); 2 H 120 (Greer); 2 H 141 (Hill); 2 H 149
(Youngblood).
[C2-178] 4 H 353-354 (Lawson).
[C2-179] 4 H 161 (Jesse E. Curry).
[C2-180] CE 1974, pp. 163-164.
[C2-181] Ibid.; 2 H 151 (Youngblood); 2 H 141 (Hill); 7 H 450
(O’Donnell); 7 H 475 (Carter)
[C2-182] 2 H 151 (Youngblood); CE 1126, p. 2.
[C2-183] 6 H 144 (Doris M. Nelson); 6 H 116 (Ruth J. Standridge).
[C2-184] 3 H 358 (Dr. Charles J. Carrico).
[C2-185] 6 H 144 (Nelson).
[C2-186] 3 H 363 (Carrico); 3 H 369-371 (Dr. Malcolm O. Perry).
[C2-187] 4 H 354 (Lawson); 6 H 135 (Diana H. Bowron).
[C2-188] 2 H 142 (Hill); 2 H 82 (Kellerman).
[C2-189] 4 H 143 (Connally).
[C2-190] 6 H 116 (Standridge).
[C2-191] 2 H 79 (Kellerman); 2 H 124 (Greer); 4 H 354 (Lawson).
[C2-192] 3 H 359 (Carrico); 6 H 141 (Margaret M. Henchliffe); 6 H 136
(Bowron).
[C2-193] 3 H 358 (Carrico).
[C2-194] Ibid.
[C2-195] Id. at 359.
[C2-196] Ibid.
[C2-197] Id. at 361-362; 6 H 3 (Carrico).
[C2-198] 3 H 361 (Carrico).
[C2-199] Id. at 359-360.
[C2-200] Ibid.
[C2-201] Id. at 360.
[C2-202] Ibid.; 6 H 3 (Carrico).
[C2-203] 3 H 360 (Carrico); 3 H 368 (Perry).
[C2-204] Ibid.
[C2-205] Id. at 368-370.
[C2-206] Id. at 370.
[C2-207] Id. at 370, 372.
[C2-208] Id. at 370.
[C2-209] Id. at 371.
[C2-210] Id. at 370.
[C2-211] Id. at 371; 3 H 360 (Carrico).
[C2-212] 3 H 371 (Perry); 6 H 20 (Dr. William Kemp Clark).
[C2-213] Ibid.
[C2-214] Id. at 25.
[C2-215] Id. at 20; 3 H 371 (Perry).
[C2-216] CE 1126, p. 3.
[C2-217] 6 H 20 (Clark); 3 H 372 (Perry); 6 H 41 (Dr. Charles R.
Baxter).
[C2-218] 6 H 20 (Clark).
[C2-219] 3 H 372 (Perry); 2 H 360 (Comdr. James J. Humes).
[C2-220] 3 H 359 (Carrico).
[C2-221] 3 H 363 (Carrico); 3 H 382 (Perry); 6 H 25 (Clark).
[C2-222] 6 H 3 (Carrico).
[C2-223] 3 H 382 (Perry); 6 H 29 (Clark); 6 H 48-49 (Dr. Marion T.
Jenkins).
[C2-224] 4 H 103-104 (Dr. Robert R. Shaw).
[C2-225] 3 H 358 (Carrico).
[C2-226] Ibid.; 6 H 77-78 (Dr. Jackie H. Hunt); 6 H 74-75 (Dr. A. H.
Giesecke, Jr.); 4 H 103 (Shaw).
[C2-227] Id. at 102-103.
[C2-228] Id. at 103.
[C2-229] Id. at 104-105; CE 392; 6 H 85, 87 (Shaw).
[C2-230] Id. at 88.
[C2-231] Id. at 85.
[C2-232] 4 H 135 (Connally).
[C2-233] 6 H 97 (Dr. Charles F. Gregory).
[C2-234] 4 H 126-127 (Gregory).
[C2-235] 6 H 105-106 (Dr. George T. Shires).
[C2-236] Id. at 106.
[C2-237] 5 H 561 (Johnson); 2 H 149 (Youngblood).
[C2-238] Ibid.
[C2-239] Id. at 152; 7 H 475 (Carter).
[C2-240] 5 H 564-565 (Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson); 7 H 475 (Carter).
[C2-241] 5 H 561-562 (Johnson); 2 H 152 (Youngblood); 7 H 475 (Carter).
[C2-242] 2 H 152 (Youngblood).
[C2-243] 5 H 562 (Johnson); 7 H 451 (O’Donnell).
[C2-244] 2 H 154-155 (Youngblood).
[C2-245] Id. at 152; 7 H 451 (O’Donnell); 5 H 561 (Johnson).
[C2-246] Ibid.
[C2-247] CE 1026; CE 1024, statement of Emory P. Roberts, p. 5.
[C2-248] 5 H 562 (Johnson); 2 H 153 (Youngblood).
[C2-249] Ibid.
[C2-250] 2 H 96 (Kellerman); 2 H 126 (Greer); CE 1026.
[C2-251] 2 H 80 (Kellerman); 2 H 142 (Hill).
[C2-252] 2 H 96 (Kellerman); CE 1024, statements of David B. Grant,
Samuel E. Sulliman, Ernest E. Olsson, Jr., John J. Howlett, Andrew E.
Berger, Robert A. Steuart, and Richard E. Johnsen.
[C2-253] CE 772, p. 3.
[C2-254] CE 2554, statements of Donald J. Lawton, Roger C. Warner,
Henry J. Rybka, and William H. Patterson.
[C2-255] CE 2554, statement of Roger C. Warner, p. 2.
[C2-256] 2 H 153 (Youngblood).
[C2-257] 7 H 474 (Powers); 3 H 382 (Perry); CE 1126.
[C2-258] 7 H 452 (O’Donnell).
[C2-259] Ibid.; 2 H 142 (Hill).
[C2-260] 7 H 453-454 (O’Donnell); 7 H 468-470 (O’Brien).
[C2-261] 7 H 453 (O’Donnell); 2 H 96-97 (Kellerman).
[C2-262] 7 H 454 (O’Donnell).
[C2-263] 5 H 562-563 (Johnson).
[C2-264] 7 H 454 (O’Donnell); 2 H 154 (Youngblood).
[C2-265] 2 H 143 (Hill); 2 H 98 (Kellerman).
[C2-266] 5 H 563 (Johnson); 5 H 566 (Mrs. Johnson); 7 H 470 (O’Brien).
[C2-267] 2 H 143 (Hill); 2 H 98 (Kellerman).
[C2-268] 7 H 454 (O’Donnell); 7 H 471 (O’Brien).
[C2-269] 2 H 98 (Kellerman); 2 H 143 (Hill).
[C2-270] 2 H 98 (Kellerman).
[C2-271] 2 H 154 (Youngblood).
[C2-272] 7 H 454-455 (O’Donnell).
[C2-273] 2 H 99 (Kellerman); 2 H 143 (Hill).
[C2-274] Ibid.; 7 H 455 (O’Donnell).
[C2-275] 2 H 143 (Hill).
[C2-276] CE 1024, statement of Clinton J. Hill, p. 5.
[C2-277] 2 H 349 (Comdr. James J. Humes).
[C2-278] Ibid.
[C2-279] CE 387.
[C2-280] 2 H 351 (Humes).
[C2-281] Id. at 354.
[C2-282] Id. at 353-354.
[C2-283] 5 H 73 (Robert A. Frazier).
[C2-284] 2 H 361-362 (Humes).
[C2-285] Id. at 349; 2 H 100 (Kellerman); 2 H 143-144 (Hill).
[C2-286] 7 H 455 (O’Donnell); 2 H 144 (Hill).
CHAPTER III
[C3-1] 3 H 142-143 (Howard L. Brennan); CE 477, 478.
[C3-2] 3 H 149 (Brennan); CE 1437.
[C3-3] CE 479.
[C3-4] 3 H 142 (Brennan).
[C3-5] See id. at 142-143.
[C3-6] Id. at 143.
[C3-7] Ibid.
[C3-8] Id. at 143-144.
[C3-9] Id. at 144.
[C3-10] Ibid.
[C3-11] Ibid.
[C3-12] Id. at 145.
[C3-13] 2 H 204 (Amos Lee Euins).
[C3-14] Ibid.; see CE 365, 366.
[C3-15] 2 H 204 (Euins).
[C3-16] 6 H 310-311 (D. V. Harkness); 6 H 170 (James R. Underwood).
[C3-17] 6 H 313 (Harkness).
[C3-18] Id. at 310; CE 1974, p. 165.
[C3-19] 6 H 313 (Harkness) (Euins’ description of the man he saw is
discussed in ch. IV, p. 147).
[C3-20] 2 H 157-158 (Robert H. Jackson).
[C3-21] Id. at 158-159.
[C3-22] Id. at 159.
[C3-23] 6 H 164 (Tom C. Dillard); 6 H 156-157 (Malcolm D. Couch); 6 H
169 (Underwood).
[C3-24] 6 H 164 (Dillard).
[C3-25] Id. at 164-165; CE 480, 481, 482.
[C3-26] 6 H 156-157 (Couch).
[C3-27] Id. at 157.
[C3-28] 7 H 485-486 (Mrs. Earle Cabell).
[C3-29] Id. at 486.
[C3-30] Ibid.
[C3-31] Ibid.
[C3-32] Ibid.; 7 H 478 (Earle Cabell).
[C3-33] 7 H 487 (Mrs. Cabell).
[C3-34] 6 H 172-173 (James N. Crawford).
[C3-35] Ibid.
[C3-36] Id. at 173.
[C3-37] Ibid.
[C3-38] 6 H 176 (Mary Ann Mitchell).
[C3-39] Ibid.
[C3-40] 3 H 202-203 (James Jarman, Jr.).
[C3-41] 3 H 190 (Harold Norman).
[C3-42] 3 H 169-173 (Bonnie R. Williams),
[C3-43] Id. at 173; 3 H 190 (Norman); 3 H 202, 203 (Jarman).
[C3-44] 3 H 195 (Norman).
[C3-45] Id. at 191.
[C3-46] 3 H 175 (Williams).
[C3-47] Ibid.
[C3-48] 3 H 204 (Jarman).
[C3-49] Ibid.
[C3-50] Ibid.
[C3-51] Id. at 204-205.
[C3-52] Id. at 211.
[C3-53] Ibid.
[C3-54] Id. at 207, 211.
[C3-55] 3 H 196 (Norman).
[C3-56] Id. at 195.
[C3-57] See, e.g., the statements of eye-witnesses in CE 1428, 1432,
1433, 1435, 1436, 2084.
[C3-58] See e.g. CE 1428, 1432, 2087, 2088, 2098, 2099.
[C3-59] 6 H 249 (J. W. Foster); 6 H 254 (J. C. White).
[C3-60] 6 H 256-257 (Joe E. Murphy); Murphy DE A.
[C3-61] 6 H 257 (Murphy).
[C3-62] 6 H 250 (Foster); 6 H 255 (White); see 6 H 256 (Murphy).
[C3-63] Id. at 257.
[C3-64] 6 H 250 (Foster).
[C3-65] 6 H 241 (S. M. Holland).
[C3-66] See 6 H 224 (Austin L. Miller); 6 H 228 (Frank E. Reilly);
6 H 236-237 (Royce G. Skelton); 6 H 240-242 (Holland); CE 1416-1424
(statements of James L. Simmons, Walter Luke Winborn, Nolan H. Potter,
Curtis Freeman Bishop, Richard Calvin Dodd, Thomas J. Murphy, Clemon
Earl Johnson, Ewell William Cowsert, and George A. Davis).
[C3-67] 6 H 239-241 (Holland).
[C3-68] 6 H 253 (Foster).
[C3-69] 7 H 516 (James W. Altgens); 6 H 226 (Miller).
[C3-70] 6 H 284-285 (Lee H. Bowers, Jr.).
[C3-71] Id. at 285.
[C3-72] Id. at 285-286.
[C3-73] Id. at 287.
[C3-74] 6 H 229 (Reilly); 6 H 241-242 (Holland); 6 H 258 (Murphy);
Murphy DE A.
[C3-75] 6 H 250 (Foster); see 6 H 229 (Reilly).
[C3-76] 4 H 351 (Winston G. Lawson); 7 H 346 (Forrest V. Sorrels).
[C3-77] 4 H 351 (Lawson).
[C3-78] See 6 H 258 (Murphy).
[C3-79] 6 H 251 (Foster).
[C3-80] Id. at 251-252.
[C3-81] 6 H 225 (Miller).
[C3-82] 6 H 237-238 (Skelton).
[C3-83] 6 H 230 (Reilly).
[C3-84] 6 H 243-245 (Holland).
[C3-85] CE 1421.
[C3-86] 6 H 287 (Bowers).
[C3-87] See 6 H 251-252 (Foster).
[C3-88] 6 H 244 (Holland).
[C3-89] 6 H 225 (Miller); see also CE 1416, 1417.
[C3-90] 6 H 287-288 (Bowers); CE 1416-1419, 1423.
[C3-91] 6 H 298 (Clyde A. Haygood).
[C3-92] 5 H 67 (Robert A. Frazier); 3 H 432 (Frazier); CE 567.
[C3-93] 5 H 67 (Frazier); 3 H 435 (Frazier); CE 569.
[C3-94] 5 H 66, 71 (Frazier); CE 840.
[C3-95] 5 H 68 (Frazier).
[C3-96] Ibid.; CE 350; see 2 H 85-86, 87-89 (Roy H. Kellerman).
[C3-97] 5 H 70 (Frazier); CE 349.
[C3-98] 5 H 67-69, 72-74 (Frazier).
[C3-99] Ibid.
[C3-100] Id. at 68; 3 H 399 (Frazier).
[C3-101] 5 H 68 (Frazier).
[C3-102] 2 H 86 (Kellerman); CE 351.
[C3-103] 5 H 69 (Frazier).
[C3-104] 2 H 84-85 (Kellerman); 2 H 122 (William Robert Greer).
[C3-105] 5 H 70 (Frazier).
[C3-106] Ibid.
[C3-107] Ibid.
[C3-108] 4 H 204-205 (Jesse W. Fritz); 3 H 283-284 (Luke Mooney).
[C3-109] Id. at 284-285; CE 508.
[C3-110] 3 H 285 (Mooney); CE 510, 1974, p. 176.
[C3-111] 4 H 205 (Fritz).
[C3-112] 3 H 285 (Mooney).
[C3-113] 4 H 249-250 (J. C. Day); CE 715, 716.
[C3-114] 3 H 293-294 (Eugene Boone); 7 H 107 (Seymour Weitzman); CE
514, 515.
[C3-115] 3 H 293 (Boone); 4 H 205 (Fritz); 4 H 257 (Day); CE 718; see 7
H 161 (Richard M. Sims).
[C3-116] 4 H 258-259 (Day); 4 H 205 (Fritz); CE 141.
[C3-117] 4 H 260 (Day); 4 H 206 (Fritz).
[C3-118] 3 H 294 (Boone); 4 H 260 (Day); see 7 H 108-109 (Weitzman).
[C3-119] 6 H 116-117 (Ruth J. Standridge).
[C3-120] 6 H 121-122 (Jane C. Wester); 6 H 126 (R. J. Jimison).
[C3-121] 6 H 129-131 (Darrel C. Tomlinson).
[C3-122] Id. at 130.
[C3-123] 3 H 363 (Dr. Charles J. Carrico); 6 H 137 (Diana H. Bowron).
[C3-124] Id. at 137-138; 6 H 141 (Margaret M. Henchcliffe); 6 H 145
(Doris M. Nelson).
[C3-125] Id. at 145-146; 6 H 142 (Henchcliffe); 6 H 137-138 (Bowron).
[C3-126] 3 H 392-394 (Frazier); 4 H 260 (Day); CE 139.
[C3-127] 3 H 393-394 (Frazier); CE 541.
[C3-128] 3 H 392-393 (Frazier).
[C3-129] Id. at 392; CE 540.
[C3-130] 3 H 392-393 (Frazier).
[C3-131] 7 H 108-109 (Weltzman).
[C3-132] 3 H 395 (Frazier).
[C3-133] Ibid.
[C3-134] Id. at 395-396; 4 H 260 (Day).
[C3-135] 3 H 397 (Frazier).
[C3-136] Id. at 391.
[C3-137] Id. at 391, 421.
[C3-138] 3 H 496 (Joseph D. Nicol).
[C3-139] See generally 3 H 417-419, 429-430 (Frazier).
[C3-140] Id. at 424.
[C3-141] See app. X.
[C3-142] 3 H 429, 432, 435 (Frazier); 3 H 498, 500-502 (Nicol); CE 399,
567, 569.
[C3-143] 3 H 502 (Nicol); 3 H 434, 436 (Frazier).
[C3-144] 3 H 497 (Nicol); 3 H 435 (Frazier).
[C3-145] 5 H 73-74 (Frazier).
[C3-146] 3 H 415 (Frazier); 3 H 505 (Nicol); CE 543-545.
[C3-147] 3 H 440 (Frazier); 7 H 591 (Cortlandt Cunningham); 7 H 591
(Charles L. Killion).
[C3-148] 2 H 352-353 (Comdr. James J. Humes); 2 H 377 (Comdr. J.
Thornton Boswell); 2 H 380 (Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck).
[C3-149] 2 H 352 (Humes).
[C3-150] Id. at 357-359.
[C3-151] Id. at 359-361.
[C3-152] CE 400.
[C3-153] 2 H 379-380 (Finck).
[C3-154] 2 H 352 (Humes).
[C3-155] Ibid.
[C3-156] Ibid.
[C3-157] Ibid.; 2 H 377 (Boswell); CE 388.
[C3-158] 5 H 75-77 (Dr. Alfred G. Olivier).
[C3-159] Id. at 89; CE 861, 862.
[C3-160] 5 H 87 (Olivier).
[C3-161] Id. at 89.
[C3-162] 2 H 361 (Humes); CE 387, 391.
[C3-163] 2 H 364 (Humes); 2 H 380 (Finck).
[C3-164] Ibid.; 2 H 364 (Humes); 2 H 377 (Boswell).
[C3-165] 2 H 363 (Humes).
[C3-166] Id. at 367-368.
[C3-167] Id. at 364.
[C3-168] Ibid.; 2 H 380 (Finck); CE 385.
[C3-169] 2 H 368-369 (Humes).
[C3-170] Id. at 367.
[C3-171] Id. at 363.
[C3-172] Id. at 361-362.
[C3-173] 3 H 361 (Carrico).
[C3-174] 3 H 388 (Dr. Malcolm O. Perry); id. at 372.
[C3-175] 3 H 362 (Carrico).
[C3-176] 3 H 373 (Perry).
[C3-177] 3 H 362 (Carrico).
[C3-178] 3 H 373 (Perry).
[C3-179] 6 H 42-43 (Dr. Charles R. Baxter); 6 H 35 (Dr. Robert N.
McClelland); 6 H 48-50 (Dr. Marion T. Jenkins); 6 H 55 (Dr. Ronald C.
Jones).
[C3-180] 3 H 369 (Perry).
[C3-181] Id. at 375.
[C3-182] Id. at 375-376.
[C3-183] Id. at 375.
[C3-184] Id. at 368, 372, 375.
[C3-185] Id. at 375.
[C3-186] CE 1415. “The Doctors’ Hard Fight To Save Him,” New York
Herald Tribune, Nov. 23, 1963.
[C3-187] 5 H 76-78 (Olivier).
[C3-188] Id. at 78; CE 850.
[C3-189] See 3 H 362 (Carrico); 3 H 368 (Perry).
[C3-190] 2 H 364 (Humes); CE 385; see 5 H 60-61 (Frazier); CE 394.
[C3-191] 2 H 375 (Humes).
[C3-192] 5 H 77-78 (Olivier); CE 849.
[C3-193] 5 H 59-62 (Frazier); CE 393, 394, 395.
[C3-194] 5 H 59-62 (Frazier).
[C3-195] Id. at 59.
[C3-196] Ibid.
[C3-197] Id. at 59-60.
[C3-198] Id. at 60.
[C3-199] Ibid.
[C3-200] Ibid.
[C3-201] Ibid.
[C3-202] Ibid.
[C3-203] Ibid.
[C3-204] Id. at 61.
[C3-205] Ibid.
[C3-206] CE 395.
[C3-207] 5 H 62 (Frazier).
[C3-208] Ibid.
[C3-209] 4 H 104 (Dr. Robert R. Shaw).
[C3-210] Id. at 104-105; CE 679, 680.
[C3-211] 4 H 104 (Shaw); 6 H 85 (Shaw).
[C3-212] 4 H 136-138 (Gov. John B. Connally, Jr.).
[C3-213] Id. at 135.
[C3-214] 4 H 118, 124 (Dr. Charles F. Gregory).
[C3-215] Id. at 118-119.
[C3-216] Id. at 119-120.
[C3-217] Id. at 120-121.
[C3-218] Id. at 124.
[C3-219] 6 H 89 (Shaw).
[C3-220] 4 H 109 (Shaw).
[C3-221] 4 H 138 (Connally); 6 H 106 (Dr. George T. Shires).
[C3-222] See 5 H 87 (Olivier); 6 H 106 (Shires).
[C3-223] Ibid.; 4 H 125 (Gregory).
[C3-224] 6 H 106, 109 (Shires); 4 H 113 (Shaw); 4 H 125 (Gregory).
[C3-225] CE 684; 5 H 63 (Frazier).
[C3-226] Ibid.
[C3-227] Ibid.; CE 683.
[C3-228] 5 H 64 (Frazier).
[C3-229] Id. at 63-64.
[C3-230] Id. at 64; CE 685.
[C3-231] 5 H 64 (Frazier).
[C3-232] Ibid.
[C3-233] Ibid.; CE 686.
[C3-234] 5 H 64-65 (Frazier).
[C3-235] Ibid.
[C3-236] Id. at 65.
[C3-237] Ibid.
[C3-238] CE 687, 688; 5 H 65-66 (Frazier).
[C3-239] Ibid.
[C3-240] 5 H 93 (Dr. Arthur J. Dziemian).
[C3-241] Ibid.
[C3-242] Ibid.; see 5 H 82-83 (Olivier).
[C3-243] Id. at 81.
[C3-244] Ibid.; CE 854, 855.
[C3-245] 5 H 82 (Olivier); CE 856.
[C3-246] 5 H 82 (Olivier).
[C3-247] Id. at 82-83.
[C3-248] Ibid.
[C3-249] 4 H 121-122 (Gregory).
[C3-250] See id. at 124.
[C3-251] See 5 H 82 (Olivier).
[C3-252] Id. at 87; see id. at 82.
[C3-253] 3 H 430 (Frazier).
[C3-254] 6 H 98 (Gregory).
[C3-255] Id. at 98-99.
[C3-256] 6 H 91 (Shaw); 6 H 101-102 (Gregory); 6 H 109-110 (Shires).
[C3-257] 4 H 139-140 (Connally).
[C3-258] Id. at 138-139; CE 689.
[C3-259] 5 H 92 (Dziemian); see 5 H 84-87 (Olivier); 5 H 95-97 (Dr.
F. W. Light, Jr.).
[C3-260] 2 H 71-73 (Kellerman); 2 H 116-117 (Greer); 4 H 132-133
(Connally).
[C3-261] CE 347, 354, 699.
[C3-262] 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthier); CE 884; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L.
Shaneyfelt).
[C3-263] Id. at 139-141.
[C3-264] Id. at 153-154.
[C3-265] Id. at 142.
[C3-266] Id. at 153-154; 3 H 407 (Frazier).
[C3-267] See 5 H 93 (Dziemian).
[C3-268] 5 H 130-132 (Thomas J. Kelley); see CE 871-874.
[C3-269] 5 H 132-134 (Kelley).
[C3-270] 5 H 147 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-271] Id. at 162.
[C3-272] 5 H 134 (Kelley); 5 H 167 (Frazier).
[C3-273] 5 H 139 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-274] Id. at 149.
[C3-275] Id. at 147-148.
[C3-276] See Id. at 145.
[C3-277] Id. at 147-149.
[C3-278] Id. at 149-150.
[C3-279] Id. at 150-151.
[C3-280] Id. at 152.
[C3-281] Id. at 151.
[C3-282] Id. at 151-152.
[C3-283] Id. at 152.
[C3-284] Id. at 157.
[C3-285] Id. at 153, 156-157.
[C3-286] 5 H 168-169 (Frazier).
[C3-287] Id. at 71, 169.
[C3-288] Id. at 70, 169 (Frazier); 5 H 77 (Olivier).
[C3-289] 5 H 70-71 (Frazier).
[C3-290] Ibid.
[C3-291] Ibid.
[C3-292] Id. at 174.
[C3-293] CE 697, 698.
[C3-294] 5 H 131-132 (Kelley).
[C3-295] 3 H 359 (Carrico); 4 H 147 (Mrs. John B. Connally, Jr.); see 4
H 138-140 (Connally).
[C3-296] 5 H 169-171 (Frazier).
[C3-297] Id. at 170; 4 H 145 (Connally).
[C3-298] 5 H 170 (Frazier).
[C3-299] Ibid.
[C3-300] Id. at 167.
[C3-301] 5 H 153 (Shaneyfelt); 5 H 137 (Gauthier).
[C3-302] 5 H 153, 162 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-303] Ibid.
[C3-304] Id. at 162.
[C3-305] Id. at 162-163.
[C3-306] Id. at 163; CE 902, 903.
[C3-307] 5 H 133 (Kelley).
[C3-308] 5 H 163 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-309] 4 H 137-138 (Connally).
[C3-310] See 4 H 104-105 (Shaw).
[C3-311] 5 H 164 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-312] CE 385.
[C3-313] 5 H 78-80 (Olivier).
[C3-314] CE 399, 853; 5 H 80 (Olivier).
[C3-315] Id. at 80, 86.
[C3-316] Id. at 86.
[C3-317] Id. at 86-87; 5 H 91-92 (Dziemian).
[C3-318] Id. at 92 (Dziemian).
[C3-319] Ibid.; 5 H 83-84 (Olivier).
[C3-320] Id. at 86.
[C3-321] Id. at 80.
[C3-322] Id. at 84; 6 H 95 (Shaw).
[C3-323] 5 H 94, 97 (Light).
[C3-324] Id. at 97.
[C3-325] CE 389, 390, 885.
[C3-326] CE 388, 389.
[C3-327] See 5 H 159-160 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-328] Ibid.
[C3-329] Ibid.
[C3-330] Id. at 145, 160.
[C3-331] Id. at 160.
[C3-332] E.g. 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally); 2 H 76 (Kellerman); 2 H
118 (Greer); 2 H 149-150 (Rufus W. Youngblood); 7 H 448 (Kenneth
O’Donnell); 7 H 440 (Senator Ralph W. Yarborough); see also the reports
of numerous eyewitnesses in CE 1416-1419, 1425, 1427, 1430-1432,
1434-1436, 2084, 2087, 2090, 2098-2107.
[C3-333] E.g. 2 H 139 (Clinton J. Hill); CE 1421, 1429.
[C3-334] E.g. 2 H 194 (James R. Worrell, Jr.); 6 H 207 (Jean L. Hill);
6 H 238 (Skelton).
[C3-335] Hatcher, Jury & Weller, Firearms Investigations,
Identification and Evidence, 418 (1957).
[C3-336] See supra at p. 85.
[C3-337] CE 1024, statement of Agent Glen A. Bennett.
[C3-338] CE 2112.
[C3-339] 4 H 132-133 (Connally).
[C3-340] 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally); 5 H 152 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-341] 4 H 147 (Mrs. Connally).
[C3-342] 7 H 517, 520-521 (Altgens).
[C3-343] 5 H 158 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-344] 7 H 493 (Phillip L. Willis); 15 H 696-697 (Shaneyfelt);
Shaneyfelt DE 25.
[C3-345] 4 H 133, 135 (Connally).
[C3-346] 5 H 160 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-347] Id. at 153-154; 3 H 407 (Frazier).
[C3-348] For recollection that the second and third shots were closer
together see e.g. 2 H 73-74 (Kellerman); 2 H 118 (Greer); 2 H 150
(Youngblood); 2 H 159 (Jackson); CE 2084, 2098, 2100. For recollection
that the shots were evenly spaced see e.g. 7 H 495 (Willis). For
recollection that the first and second shots were closer together see
the statement of Cecil Ault, CE 2103.
[C3-349] 7 H 518 (Altgens).
[C3-350] 7 H 560 (Emmett J. Hudson).
[C3-351] 5 H 180 (Mrs. John F. Kennedy).
[C3-352] 6 H 238 (Skelton).
[C3-353] Ibid.
[C3-354] 6 H 252 (J. W. Foster).
[C3-355] See CE 2111.
[C3-356] 7 H 553 (James T. Tague).
[C3-357] 7 H 546 (Eddy R. Walthers).
[C3-358] Ibid.; 7 H 553 (Tague).
[C3-359] Ibid.
[C3-360] Id. at 555.
[C3-361] CE 1974, p. 166; see 6 H 298 (Haygood).
[C3-362] 15 H 700 (Shaneyfelt).
[C3-363] Ibid.
[C3-364] Ibid.
[C3-365] E.g. 2 H 76 (Kellerman); 2 H 118 (Greer); 2 H 139 (Clinton J.
Hill); 2 H 150 (Youngblood); 2 H 182-183 (Arnold L. Rowland); 2 H 160
(Jackson).
CHAPTER IV
[C4-1] See ch. III.
[C4-2] 11 H 207 (Albert Yeargan); 11 H 206 (J. Philip Lux); 7 H 364
(William Waldman).
[C4-3] 11 H 205 (Louis Feldsott).
[C4-4] 7 H 364-365 (Waldman); 7 H 370-371 (Mitchell Scibor).
[C4-5] 7 H 420 (James Cadigan); 4 H 373 (Alwyn Cole).
[C4-6] 7 H 420 (Cadigan); 4 H 359-362 (Cole).
[C4-7] 7 H 365-368 (Waldman); Waldman DE 7, 8, 9, 10; CE 773, 788.
[C4-8] CE 788, 789; 7 H 295 (Harry Holmes); 4 H 373 (Cole); 7 H 423
(Cadigan); Cadigan DE 11.
[C4-9] 7 H 366-368 (Waldman); Waldman DE 7, 10; CE 2957.
[C4-10] 7 H 365-368 (Waldman); Waldman DE 7, 8, 9, 10; CE 773, 788.
[C4-11] 7 H 361-364 (Waldman); Waldman DE 1, 3, 4.
[C4-12] Waldman DE 7.
[C4-13] 3 H 393 (Robert Frazier); CE 1977.
[C4-14] Holmes DE 3; Cadigan DE 13; 7 H 295 (Holmes); CE 2011, p. 17;
see also CE 791, 792.
[C4-15] 4 H 377-378 (Cole); CE 791, 792.
[C4-16] 4 H 379 (Cole); 7 H 425-426 (Cadigan); CE 793.
[C4-17] 2 H 457-459 (Ruth Paine); 1 H 18-19 (Marina Oswald); 5 H 388
(Marina Oswald).
[C4-18] Cadigan DE 13; CE 791; 7 H 527 (Holmes).
[C4-19] Id. at 528.
[C4-20] 3 H 300-301 (M. N. McDonald); CE 143; 7 H 54 (Gerald Hill); 7 H
21-22 (Bob Carroll); Cadigan DE 12.
[C4-21] 7 H 376 (Heinz Michaelis); CE 135, 790; 7 H 594 (David
Goldstein); Cadigan DE 12.
[C4-22] 4 H 375 (Cole); 7 H 424 (Cadigan).
[C4-23] CE 801, 802; 7 H 187-188 (Richard Stovall); 7 H 228 (Guy Rose);
CE 1986, 1989, 1990; CE 2011, p. 20.
[C4-24] CE 2011, p. 21.
[C4-25] CE 795, 1986, 1989, 1990; 7 H 187-188 (Stovall); 7 H 228
(Rose); CE 2011, pp. 22-23.
[C4-26] Compare CE 801 with 795; For a detailed description of
additional steps in the creation of the forged card, see 4 H 386-387
(Cole).
[C4-27] CE 795, 800-801, 806-812; 4 H 380-382, 385-387, 389-391 (Cole);
7 H 427 (Cadigan); 7 H 195 (Stovall).
[C4-28] CE 813. 2004; CE 2011, p. 25.
[C4-29] 4 H 394-396 (Cole).
[C4-30] CE 1828, 2012.
[C4-31] 7 H 296 (Holmes).
[C4-32] CE 817; Cadigan DE 22; 7 H 296 (Holmes); CE 1799, p. 3; CE
2011, p. 19.
[C4-33] 4 H 397-398 (Cole); 7 H 431-432 (Cadigan).
[C4-34] 1 H 64 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-35] 5 H 401 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-36] See e.g., CE 819; CE 1413, pp. 19, 35.
[C4-37] 1 H 64 (Marina Oswald); 5 H 401, 403 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-38] Ibid: 1 H 65 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-39] CE 1398.
[C4-40] CE 1945.
[C4-41] CE 2014.
[C4-42] 1 H 91 (Marina Oswald). When translated from the Russian, the
name was spelled “Alec”. Oswald himself spelled the name “Alek” in
correspondence. See note 43, infra.
[C4-43] See, e.g., CE 38, 55-56.
[C4-44] 3 H 289 (Luke Mooney); 3 H 292-293 (Eugene Boone).
[C4-45] 4 H 258 (J. C. Day); cf. 3 H 295 (Boone).
[C4-46] 4 H 259 (Day).
[C4-47] Id. at 261; 4 H 20 (Sebastian Latona).
[C4-48] Id. at 21.
[C4-49] Ibid.
[C4-50] Ibid.
[C4-51] Id. at 22, 29; see also 4 H 258-259 (Day).
[C4-52] Id. at 260-261.
[C4-53] 4 H 24 (Latona).
[C4-54] Ibid.
[C4-55] 4 H 261-262 (Day).
[C4-56] 4 H 23 (Latona); 4 H 261 (Day).
[C4-57] CE 2637.
[C4-58] 4 H 24 (Latona); CE 637-639.
[C4-59] 4 H 50 (Arthur Mandella); 15 H 745-746 (Mandella).
[C4-60] 4 H 47 (Latona); 7 H 590 (Ronald Wittmus).
[C4-61] 4 H 30 (Latona); 4 H 54 (Mandella); 7 H 590 (Wittmus).
[C4-62] 4 H 2 (Latona); 4 H 262 (Day).
[C4-63] 4 H 260 (Day).
[C4-64] 4 H 82, 85 (Paul Stombaugh); CE 674.
[C4-65] 4 H 56, 74 (Stombaugh).
[C4-66] CE 150, 673-676; 3 H 302 (McDonald); see CE 2011, p. 13. 15 H
695 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).
[C4-67] 4 H 83-87 (Stombaugh).
[C4-68] Id. at 88.
[C4-69] Id. at 87.
[C4-70] Id. at 87-88.
[C4-71] 1 H 121 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-72] 3 H 252 (T. L. Baker); 3 H 276 (Mrs. Robert Reid); 2 H 259
(William Whaley).
[C4-73] 6 H 412-413 (Mrs. Mary Bledsoe).
[C4-74] 7 H 173 (Richard Sims); 2 H 287 (Cecil McWatters); 4 H 223
(J. W. Fritz); CE 381, 381-A; CE 2005, p. I 137 B.
[C4-75] Ibid.
[C4-76] 4 H 84 (Stombaugh).
[C4-77] Id. at 83.
[C4-78] 3 H 41 (Ruth Paine); see app. XIII.
[C4-79] See footnotes 107-114. infra.
[C4-80] See ch. VI, pp. 318-321.
[C4-81] See footnotes 107-114, infra.
[C4-82] CE 712, 713; 4 H 237, 241 (Fritz); 11 H 155-156 (M. Waldo
George).
[C4-83] 1 H 15-16, 117-118 (Marina Oswald); CE 134.
[C4-84] CE 133-A.
[C4-85] CE 748; 4 H 281 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).
[C4-86] Ibid.
[C4-87] CE 133-A, 133-B, 134; 1 H 117-118 (Marina Oswald); 5 H 405, 410
(Marina Oswald); CE 750.
[C4-88] CE 749; 7 H 194 (Stovall); 7 H 231 (Rose); CE 2011, p. 26. The
recovered negative was of the picture introduced as CE 133-B.
[C4-89] 4 H 284-288 (Shaneyfelt).
[C4-90] Id. at 284.
[C4-91] Id. at 289; 15 H 693 (Shaneyfelt).
[C4-92] 4 H 237, 241 (Fritz); CE 712, 713, 714.
[C4-93] 4 H 288 (Shaneyfelt).
[C4-94] Id. at 290-294; 15 H 687-690 (Shaneyfelt).
[C4-95] 4 H 292-294 (Shaneyfelt); 15 H 689-690 (Shaneyfelt); Shaneyfelt
DE 13, 14, 18.
[C4-96] See footnote 4, 82, 83, supra.
[C4-97] CE 1406; 15 H 690-692 (Shaneyfelt); Shaneyfelt DE 20, 21, 22,
22-A.
[C4-98] 1 H 15, 118 (Marina Oswald); see p. 182, infra.
[C4-99] Michaelis DE 5; Waldman DE 7.
[C4-100] 1 H 119 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-101] Id. at 14.
[C4-102] Id. at 21; CE 1403, p. 735.
[C4-103] 1 H 21-22, 54 (Marina Oswald); but see Id. at 65; contra CE
1403, p. 736.
[C4-104] 1 H 26 (Marina Oswald); 3 H 4-5, 7, 10-11, 19 (R. Paine).
[C4-105] 1 H 26 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-106] 3 H 20-21, 25 (R. Paine); 2 H 507-508 (R. Paine).
[C4-107] 1 H 26, 52, 53, 61, 67-78, 74 (Marina Oswald); CE 2003. p. 46.
[C4-108] 1 H 26, 52 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-109] 3 H 21-25 (R. Paine); 9 H 436-443 (M. Paine).
[C4-110] 2 H 414-416 (M. Paine); 9 H 437-440 (M. Paine).
[C4-111] 9 H 436 (M. Paine).
[C4-112] 2 H 417 (M. Paine); 9 H 442-443 (M. Paine).
[C4-113] 7 H 229 (Rose); 7 H 548 (Eddy Walthers).
[C4-114] 4 H 57-58 (Stombaugh).
[C4-115] 3 H 27-39 (R. Paine); 1 H 51 (Marina Oswald); 6 H 401-402
(Bledsoe); 10 H 293-294 (Mrs. A. C. Johnson); 6 H 436 (E. Roberts).
[C4-116] 2 H 212-213, 217 (Frazier); 1 H 51, 124 (Marina Oswald); 3 H
40, 67, 127 (R. Paine).
[C4-117] 1 H 51 (Marina Oswald); 2 H 222 (Frazier); 3 H 40 (M. Paine);
see 3 H 28-46 (M. Paine).
[C4-118] 2 H 222-223 (Frazier); CE 2003, p. 25.
[C4-119] Ibid.
[C4-120] 2 H 247-248 (Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle); 2 H 224 (Frazier).
[C4-121] 10 H 297 (Mrs. A. C. Johnson).
[C4-122] CE 2046.
[C4-123] 3 H 72-73 (R. Paine); 9 H 424 (R. Paine); R. Paine DE 275,
276; CE 449.
[C4-124] 3 H 75-76 (R. Paine).
[C4-125] 1 H 68-69 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-126] CE 2640.
[C4-127] 3 H 46, 56-57 (R. Paine); 1 H 65 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-128] 3 H 48, 59-61 (R. Paine); 9 H 418 (R. Paine); 1 H 71 (Marina
Oswald).
[C4-129] 3 H 48, 52, 60 (R. Paine); 9 H 397, 418 (R. Paine); CE 430.
[C4-130] CE 429, 430, 434; 3 H 29, 52-53 (R. Paine); 9 H 402 (R. Paine).
[C4-131] 9 H 408, 410 (R. Paine); 3 H 20-22 (R. Paine); 1 H 26, 52-53,
67, 119 (Marina Oswald); CE 140; 2003, p. 46.
[C4-132] 3 H 47 (R. Paine).
[C4-133] Id. at 47, 62-63.
[C4-134] Id. at 48-49, 65.
[C4-135] 1 H 66-67 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-136] Ibid; 3 H 58-59, 67 (R. Paine).
[C4-137] Compare photos in CE 1305 and 1304.
[C4-138] 2 H 252 (Cortlandt Cunningham).
[C4-139] 1 H 73-74 (Marina Oswald); 3 H 68-69 (R. Paine).
[C4-140] Ibid; 3 H 78-79 (R. Paine); 7 H 229-230 (Rose).
[C4-141] 1 H 119 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-142] 3 H 79 (R. Paine).
[C4-143] Ibid; 1 H 74 (Marina Oswald).
[C4-144] Ibid; 7 H 305 (Holmes); Holmes DE 4, p. 3-4; see also 4 H 223,
229 (Fritz).
[C4-145] 1 H 72-73 (Marina Oswald); 3 H 68, 112 (R. Paine); 2 H 224-226
(Frazier).
[C4-146] 1 H 66, 72-73 (Marina Oswald); 3 H 68 (R. Paine).
[C4-147] 2 H 248 (Randle); CE 144, 446.
[C4-148] 2 H 251 (Randle); CE 144, 446.
[C4-149] 2 H 248-249 (Randle).
[C4-150] Id. at 249-250.
[C4-151] Id. at 249.
[C4-152] 2 H 225-226 (Frazier).
[C4-153] Id. at 226.
[C4-154] Ibid.
[C4-155] Ibid.
[C4-156] Id. at 228.
[C4-157] Id. at 220.
[C4-158] Id. at 228.
[C4-159] Id. at 230.
[C4-160] 6 H 376-377 (Jack Dougherty).
[C4-161] See e.g. 6 H 383 (Eddie Piper); 3 H 164-165 (Bonnie Ray
Williams); 3 H 188 (Harold Norman); 3 H 200 (James Jarman, Jr.); 3 H
218-219 (Roy Truly); 6 H 328 (William Shelley); 6 H 348-349 (Charles
Givens); 6 H 358-359 (Troy West); 6 H 364-365 (Danny Arce); 6 H 337
(Billy Lovelady); CE 1381, pp. 2, 9, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 33-34, 37, 39,
43, 50, 58, 59, 67, 71, 77, 82, 86, 89, 96, 97, 105.
[C4-162] 2 H 226 (Frazier); 2 H 249-250 (Randle).
[C4-163] 3 H 395 (Frazier); CE 139.
[C4-164] CE 1304; 2 H 240 (Frazier).
[C4-165] Id. at 241.
[C4-166] Id. at 243.
[C4-167] CE 2009.
[C4-168] 2 H 249-250 (Randle).
[C4-169] 2 H 239 (Frazier).
[C4-170] 2 H 248-249 (Randle); see CE 2008.
[C4-171] Ibid.
[C4-172] 2 H 243 (Frazier).
[C4-173] Id. at 229.
[C4-174] See CE 142; 4 H 266 (Day).
[C4-175] 4 H 266-267 (Day); 7 H 143-145 (Robert Lee Studebaker);
Studebaker DE F; CE 1302.
[C4-176] 3 H 395 (Frazier); CE 142, 626.
[C4-177] CE 1301, 1302.
[C4-178] See CE 508, 723, 726; 4 H 265-266 (Day); 3 H 285-286, 289
(Luke Mooney).
[C4-179] 4 H 267 (Day).
[C4-180] See app. X, pp. 565-566; 4 H 3-8 (Latona).
[C4-181] Id. at 4-5, 8.
[C4-182] Id. at 7.
[C4-183] Id. at 47; 7 H 590 (Wittmus).
[C4-184] 4 H 50-51 (Mandella).
[C4-185] 4 H 5, 47 (Latona); 4 H 50-51 (Mandella); 15 H 745-746.
[C4-186] 4 H 44-45 (Latona).
[C4-187] Id. at 7; 2 H 228 (Frazier).
[C4-188] See CE 677 which indicates it was picked up by R. L.
Studebaker of the Dallas Police Force on November 22, 1963; 4 H 89-90
(Cadigan).
[C4-189] Id. at 93.
[C4-190] Id. at 95.
[C4-191] Id. at 93, 94, 97.
[C4-192] Id. at 93-94, 97, 99, 100.
[C4-193] CE 1077, 364; 4 H 93 (Cadigan).
[C4-194] Id. at 94-96, 99-100.
[C4-195] Ibid.
[C4-196] Id. at 96; CE 1965.
[C4-197] 3 H 215-218 (Truly).
[C4-198] 4 H 77-78 (Stombaugh).
[C4-199] Id. at 81.
[C4-200] Id. at 78.
[C4-201] Ibid.
[C4-202] Id. at 81.
[C4-203] Ibid.
[C4-204] 3 H 214 (Truly).
[C4-205] Id. at 214-215; 6 H 328 (Shelley).
[C4-206] Id. at 215; 6 H 328 (Shelley).
[C4-207] See infra, p. 143.
[C4-208] 4 H 269, 272, 277 (Day); CE 654, 733, 734; 7 H 147
(Studebaker); Studebaker DE J; CE 1309.
[C4-209] 4 H 269, 270-271, 277 (Day); CE 641, 733, 734; 7 H 141-143,
147 (Studebaker); Studebaker DE A, B, C, D, E, J; CE 1306, 1308.
[C4-210] 4 H 251, 277 (Day); CE 481, 482, 653, 733, 734; 7 H 141-143,
147 (Studebaker); Studebaker DE A, B, D, E, J.
[C4-211] 7 H 141 (Studebaker); 7 H 391 (Shelley); 3 H 232, 236 (Truly).
[C4-212] 7 H 149 (Studebaker).
[C4-213] CE 733; 734; 1312; 7 H 147 (Studebaker); Studebaker DE J.
[C4-214] CE 1302; see pp. 134-135 supra.
[C4-215] 4 H 31, 38, 42 (Latona).
[C4-216] Id. at 42.
[C4-217] Id. at 32, 34.
[C4-218] 3 H 231 (Truly); 7 H 391-392 (Shelley).
[C4-219] 3 H 232 (Truly); 7 H 149 (Studebaker); 7 H 392 (Shelley).
[C4-220] 7 H 391 (Shelley); 3 H 236 (Truly).
[C4-221] 7 H 391-392 (Shelley).
[C4-222] 4 H 269 (Day); CE 1302.
[C4-223] 4 H 39 (Latona).
[C4-224] Id. at 38, 39 (Latona).
[C4-225] Id. at 39.
[C4-226] Ibid.
[C4-227] Id. at 38-39.
[C4-228] 4 H 269-270 (Day); 4 H 31, 38-39, 42 (Latona).
[C4-229] CE 313; pp. 17-18.
[C4-230] 4 H 51, 52, 54 (Mandella); 15 H 745-746 (Mandella); CE 662.
[C4-231] Id. at 47; 7 H 590 (Wittmus).
[C4-232] 4 H 42-44 (Latona); CE 1980, 3135.
[C4-233] 6 H 347, 349 (Givens).
[C4-234] Id. at 354.
[C4-235] Id. at 349.
[C4-236] Ibid.
[C4-237] Id. at 349-350, 353.
[C4-238] Id. at 350-351.
[C4-239] Id. at 351; 3 H 223 (Truly).
[C4-240] 6 H 351 (Givens).
[C4-241] CE 1381.
[C4-242] 6 H 342-345 (Frankie Kaiser); 6 H 332 (Shelley); 6 H 335 (Nat
Pinkston); 3 H 233-235 (Truly); Kaiser DE A; CE 506.
[C4-243] CE 1966, 3141, 6 H 344 (Kaiser); 6 H 335 (Pinkston).
[C4-244] 6 H 344 (Kaiser); 6 H 335 (Pinkston).
[C4-245] Ibid; 6 H 332-333 (Shelley); 3 H 215 (Truly).
[C4-246] 6 H 332-333 (Shelley).
[C4-247] See ch. III.
[C4-248] 3 H 144-148 (Howard Brennan); 7 H 354 (Forrest Sorrels).
[C4-249] 3 H 141-144 (Brennan); CE 477-479.
[C4-250] 3 H 149-157 (Brennan); CE 479.
[C4-251] 3 H 142 (Brennan).
[C4-252] Id. at 143.
[C4-253] Id. at 143-144.
[C4-254] Id. at 145; 6 H 322-323 (J. Herbert Sawyer); 3 H 197 (Norman);
3 H 207 (Jarman); 7 H 349 (Sorrels); 7 H 540-544 (W. E. Barnett).
[C4-255] 6 H 321 (Sawyer); Sawyer DE A; CE 1974, p. 24-25.
[C4-256] CE 2005.
[C4-257] 3 H 144 (Brennan).
[C4-258] CE 1991.
[C4-259] CE 1945, 1950, 1951; CE 1944, p. 3.
[C4-260] 11 H 471 (Francis Martello); CE 1413, pp. 19, 35.
[C4-261] CE 1981.
[C4-262] CE 1974, p. 59.
[C4-263] Id. at 181.
[C4-264] Id. at 74.
[C4-265] 3 H 144 (Brennan).
[C4-266] CE 481, 715, 733, 734.
[C4-267] CE 715, 733, 734.
[C4-268] See 5 H 167 (Frazier); CE 1301.
[C4-269] 3 H 144 (Brennan).
[C4-270] See e.g., CE 481, 482, 485.
[C4-271] 3 H 174 (Williams); 3 H 190-191 (Norman); 3 H 204 (Jarman); CE
485, 486, 494.
[C4-272] CE 485, 486, 494.
[C4-273] See CE 485, 486, 494, 715, 733, 734, 1312.
[C4-274] 3 H 146, 156 (Brennan); 3 H 197 (Norman); but see, 7 H 349
(Sorrels).
[C4-275] 3 H 184-185 (Brennan).
[C4-276] 3 H 197 (Norman); 3 H 207 (Jarman).
[C4-277] 3 H 197 (Norman).
[C4-278] 3 H 207 (Jarman).
[C4-279] 3 H 147-148 (Brennan); 7 H 355 (Sorrels).
[C4-280] 3 H 148 (Brennan); but see 7 H 354-355 (Sorrels).
[C4-281] 3 H 155 (Brennan).
[C4-282] CE 2006; 3 H 155-156 (Brennan).
[C4-283] Id. at 155.
[C4-284] Id. at 148.
[C4-285] Ibid; see also id. at 155.
[C4-286] Id. at 148: 7 H 354 (Sorrels).
[C4-287] 6 H 193-194 (Ronald Fischer); 6 H 203-205 (Robert Edwards).
[C4-288] 6 H 192 (Fischer); 6 H 202-203 (Edwards).
[C4-289] 3 H 141 (Brennan).
[C4-290] 6 H 193 (Fischer).
[C4-291] Ibid.
[C4-292] Ibid.
[C4-293] Ibid.
[C4-294] Id. at 194.
[C4-295] Ibid.
[C4-296] Ibid.
[C4-297] Ibid.
[C4-298] Id. at 197-198.
[C4-299] Id. at 197.
[C4-300] Id. at 198.
[C4-301] Ibid.
[C4-302] Id. at 198-199.
[C4-303] 6 H 203 (Edwards).
[C4-304] Id. at 203-204.
[C4-305] See ch. III, p. 64.
[C4-306] 2 H 203 (Amos Euins); CE 365.
[C4-307] 2 H 204-207 (Euins).
[C4-308] CE 367.
[C4-309] 6 H 170 (James Underwood).
[C4-310] 2 H 208 (Euins).
[C4-311] 7 H 349 (Sorrels).
[C4-312] 7 H 519 (James Altgens).
[C4-313] Ibid; CE 369, 203.
[C4-314] 5 H 158-159 (Shaneyfelt); 7 H 519 (Altgens); CE 900.
[C4-315] CE 1408.
[C4-316] 6 H 338-339 (Lovelady); CE 1407.
[C4-317] 2 H 233 (Frazier); 6 H 328 (Shelley).
[C4-318] Ibid; CE 369.
[C4-319] 3 H 244 (Baker).
[C4-320] Id. at 245.
[C4-321] Ibid.
[C4-322] Ibid.
[C4-323] Id. at 246.
[C4-324] Ibid.
[C4-325] Id. at 247.
[C4-326] Ibid.
[C4-327] Id. at 248.
[C4-328] Ibid.
[C4-329] Id. at 248-249.
[C4-330] Id. at 249.
[C4-331] CE 1118.
[C4-332] 3 H 249 (Baker).
[C4-333] Ibid.
[C4-334] 3 H 223 (Truly).
[C4-335] Ibid.
[C4-336] 3 H 249-250 (Baker).
[C4-337] Id. at 255-256; 3 H 222-223 (Truly).
[C4-338] CE 1118.
[C4-339] 7 H 591 (Truly).
[C4-340] 3 H 224 (Truly); 3 H 250 (Baker); CE 498.
[C4-341] 3 H 250, 255 (Baker).
[C4-342] Ibid.
[C4-343] Id. at 250; CE 1118.
[C4-344] 3 H 223-224 (Truly).
[C4-345] 3 H 255 (Baker).
[C4-346] Id. at 250.
[C4-347] Ibid.
[C4-348] Ibid.
[C4-349] Id. at 255.
[C4-350] Id. at 251.
[C4-351] 3 H 225 (Truly).
[C4-352] Ibid.; 3 H 251 (Baker).
[C4-353] 3 H 225 (Truly); 3 H 251 (Baker).
[C4-354] Id. at 252 (Baker).
[C4-355] 3 H 225 (Truly).
[C4-356] Ibid.
[C4-357] 3 H 247-248 (Baker).
[C4-358] 3 H 228 (Truly).
[C4-359] 3 H 252 (Baker).
[C4-360] Id. at 254; see also 3 H 240 (Truly).
[C4-361] 3 H 254 (Baker); Truly, however stated that the second run was
timed at 1 minute 15 seconds, 3 H 240 (Truly).
[C4-362] 7 H 592 (John Howlett).
[C4-363] 7 H 592-593 (Baker); 3 H 247-248 (Baker).
[C4-364] Id. at 253.
[C4-365] Id. at 252; accord, 3 H 228 (Truly).
[C4-366] Id. at 223.
[C4-367] Ibid.
[C4-368] 3 H 254 (Baker).
[C4-369] 3 H 226 (Truly); see also 3 H 254 (Baker).
[C4-370] 3 H 226-227 (Truly).
[C4-371] 6 H 379 (Dougherty); see also 3 H 229 (Truly).
[C4-372] 6 H 380 (Dougherty).
[C4-373] 6 H 382-386 (Piper).
[C4-374] 3 H 180 (Williams).
[C4-375] Ibid; 3 H 193 (Norman); 3 H 206 (Jarman); 3 H 231 (Truly); CE
490, 492.
[C4-376] 3 H 201-206 (Jarman); 3 H 89-97 (Norman); 3 H 171-176
(Williams).
[C4-377] 3 H 201-206 (Jarman); 3 H 89-97 (Norman); 3 H 171-176
(Williams); 6 H 378 (Dougherty); CE 1381, pp. 27, 49, 70, 101-102.
[C4-378] 6 H 388 (Victoria Adams).
[C4-379] Ibid.
[C4-380] 6 H 329 (Shelley); 6 H 339 (Lovelady).
[C4-381] Ibid.; 6 H 329 (Shelley).
[C4-382] 6 H 329 (Shelley).
[C4-383] Id. at 329-330; 6 H 338-340 (Lovelady).
[C4-384] Id. at 340.
[C4-385] 3 H 273 (Mrs. Reid).
[C4-386] Ibid.
[C4-387] Id. at 274.
[C4-388] Ibid.
[C4-389] Ibid.
[C4-390] Ibid.
[C4-391] Id. at 278; CE 1118.