Saturday, June 25, 2011

TRANSCRIPTS OF CLAY SHAW TRIAL

Jim Garrison

PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW

198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"

EXCERPT FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1969,

B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MR. GARRISON:
May it please the Court:
Gentlemen of the Jury, you have been imposed on, to some extent unavoidably, because you have to be sequestered, and I am about to impose on you one more time, because I have to read to you a rather lengthy opening statement. The reason I have to read it is because under our law we cannot introduce evidence which has not been described, at least generally, in the opening statement, so as a result prosecuting attorneys in Louisiana have to read their opening statements in order to make sure they have touched every point of evidence that they intend to introduce. So I hope you will bear with me, and I will try and make it as painless as possible. I am going to read it verbatim, because I intend to give a copy to the Defense for their convenience as soon as I finish, and I want the copy I give them to be precisely the same as I have given you.

The State of Louisiana is required by law in all criminal trials to make an opening statement to the Jury. This statement is merely a blueprint of what the State intends to prove. It has no probative value and should not be considered as evidence in the case.

The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY. The crime of criminal conspiracy is to find in the Criminal Code of Louisiana as follows:

"CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

"Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination."

As required by the definition of criminal conspiracy, the State will prove the following overt acts:

1. A meeting of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, DAVID W. FERRIE and the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, in the apartment of DAVID W. FERRIE at 3330 Louisiana Avenue parkway in the City of New Orleans during the month of September, 1963.

2. Discussion by OSWALD, FERRIE and the defendant, SHAW of means and methods of execution of the conspiracy with regard to assassination of JOHN F. KENNEDY -- particularly, the selection and use of rifles to be fired from multiple directions simultaneously to produce a triangulation of crossfire, establishing and selecting the means and routes of escape from the assassination scene, determination of procedures and the places to be used for some of the principals to the conspiracy so as to establish alibis on the date of the assassination.

3. A "trip to the West Coast of the United States by CLAY L. SHAW during the month of November, 1963.

4. A trip by DAVID W. FERRIE from New Orleans, Louisiana to Houston, Texas on the day of November 22, 1963.

5. LEE HARVEY OSWALD taking a rifle to the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, Texas on or before November 22, 1963. The Criminal Code defines murder in the following terms:

MURDER: "Murder is the killing of a human being:

"(1)When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm."

The evidence will show that in New Orleans, in the Summer of 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD was engaged in bizarre activities which made it appear ostensibly that he was connected with a Cuban organization, although in fact the evidence indicated that there was no such organization in New Orleans. This curious activity began on June 16th, when he distributed "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" leaflets on the Dumaine Street Wharf. This distribution took place at the docking site of the United States Aircraft Carrier, the USS Wasp.

Upon request of the commanding officer of the Wasp, Officer GIROD RAY of the Harbor Police approached Oswald and informed him that he would have to stop passing out the leaflets and leave the wharf area. At this time, Officer RAY confiscated two pieces of the literature being handed out by LEE HARVEY OSWALD. One of these was a leaflet, yellow in color with black print, entitled "Hands Off Cuba!" The body of the leaflet contained an invitation to join the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. The other item taken by Officer RAY was a pamphlet entitled "The Truth About Cuba" published by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, 799 Broadway, New York 3, New York. In conjunction with Officer RAY's testimony, the State will offer into evidence copies of these two pieces of literature.

The evidence will further show that in June, 1963, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, was present at a party given in an apartment in the French Quarter of this City. Among the guests at the party was DAVID FERRIE, a man known as an accomplished airplane pilot. During the course of the party, the conversation among a small group of those present turned to President JOHN F. KENNEDY. In this group were DAVID FERRIE and the defendant, CLAY SHAW. The comment was made that PRESIDENT KENNEDY should be killed and that the job could best be done by a rifle. At this point, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, suggested that the man doing the shooting would probably be killed before he could make his escape. The defendant, after making this observation, turned to FERRIE and asked if it might not be possible to fly the gunman from the scene of the shooting to safety. DAVID FERRIE replied that this would be possible. At this point, the conversation was turned to other subjects.

Later in June of 1963, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, was observed speaking to LEE HARVEY OSWALD on the lakefront in the City of New Orleans. The defendant arrived at the lakefront in a large, black 4-door sedan, and was there met by LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who had walked to the meeting point along the lakefront from a westerly direction. The defendant and OSWALD had a conversation which lasted approximately fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of this conversation, the defendant gave OSWALD what appeared to be a roll of money which he immediately placed in his pocket. In shoving the money into his pocket, OSWALD dropped several leaflets to the ground. These leaflets were yellow in color with black printing and dealt with Cuba. The color, contents and size of these leaflets were identical with the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" leaflet taken from OSWALD earlier that month on the Dumaine Street Wharf by Harbor police Patrolman GIROD RAY. The evidence will show that on August 9, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD was arrested by members of the New Orleans Police Department as a result of his becoming involved in a fight with several Cubans who were protesting his passing out "Fair play for Cuba Committee" literature. This literature was confiscated by the New Orleans police Department. The State will offer into evidence three of the seized items, one of which is a yellow leaflet with black print entitled "Hands off Cuba!" This is the same type of leaflet taken from OSWALD at the Dumaine Street Wharf on June 16, 1963, and also the same as the leaflet dropped by OSWALD at the lakefront in the latter part of June, 1963. The State will also introduce the Bureau of Identification photograph taken of LEE HARVEY OSWALD at the time of his booking. A week later, on August 16, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD was again distributing "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets. Once again the distribution was done more as if to attract attention than to actually accomplish distribution. The actual distribution lasted only a few minutes, ending shortly after the news media departed. The State will introduce pictures and a television tape of this distribution, which took place in front of the International Trade Mart whose Managing Director at the time was the defendant, CLAY SHAW.

The State will show further, that in the latter part of August or the early part of September, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD went to Jackson, Louisiana, a small town located not far from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. While in Jackson, he talked to witnesses in reference to his getting a job at the East Louisiana State Hospital in Jackson, Louisiana and registering to vote in that parish, so as to be able to get the job. The State will introduce the witnesses who talked to LEE HARVEY OSWALD on this occasion. The State will show that shortly thereafter still in late August or early September, 1963, the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and DAVID W. FERRIE drove into Clinton, Louisiana -- which is very close to Jackson -- in a black Cadillac, parking the Cadillac near-the Voter Registrar's Office on St. Helena Street. While the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW and DAVID W. FERRIE remained in the car, LEE HARVEY OSWALD got out of the car and got in line with a group of people who were waiting to register. The State will introduce witnesses who will testify that they saw the black Cadillac parked in front of the Registrar's Office and who will identify the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and DAVID W. FERRIE as the individuals in that car. The State will introduce a witness who talked to the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, on this occasion. In asking Mr. SHAW for his identification, he was told by the defendant, that he (SHAW) was from the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, Louisiana. The State will introduce a witness who will identify LEE HARVEY OSWALD as the person he talked to in the Registrar'S Office and who will also identify the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, and DAVID W. FERRIE as the two men seated in the black Cadillac that brought LEE HARVEY OSWALD to Clinton, Louisiana. The State will also introduce into evidence a photograph of a black Cadillac car that the witnesses will identify as either the same car or one identical to the one that they saw in Clinton that day.

The evidence will show that in the month of September, 1963, the defendant, CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD participated in a meeting in which plans for the murder of President JOHN F. KENNEDY were discussed and refined. This meeting took place in DAVID FERRIE's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue parkway in the City of New Orleans. SHAW (using the name of CLEM BERTRAND) FERRIE and OSWALD (using the first name of LEON), discussed details of the conspiracy in the presence of PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after FERRIE gave assurance that RUSSO was all right. The plan brought forth was that the President would be killed with a triangulation of cross fire with at least two gunmen, but preferably three, shooting at the same time. One of the gunmen, it was indicated, might have to be sacrificed as a scapegoat or patsy to allow the other participants time to make, their escape. No one indicated to OSWALD at the meeting that he was going to be the scapegoat and there was no indication of any awareness on his part of such an eventuality. They also discussed alternate routes of escape, including the possibility of flying to other countries. The defendant and DAVID FERRIE agreed that as part of the plan they would make sure they were not at the scene of the assassination. Their plan for the day of the shooting was to be engaged in a conspicuous activity in the presence of as many people as possible. The defendant, SHAW, stated he would go to the West Coast of the United States. FERRIE, not as positive about his alibi, said he thought he might make a speech at a college in Hammond, Louisiana. As the State will show, SHAW made his way to the West Coast and FERRIE, after his long drive back from Texas, made his way to Hammond, Louisiana, where he slept, not in a hotel room, but on a bed in a college dormitory. By a month after the meeting, LEE OSWALD had moved into a rooming house in Dallas, under an assumed name. By the following month when the time for the president's parade arrived, OSWALD was on the parade route at the Texas School Book Depository, where a job had been found for him. By the night of Friday, November 22nd the president was dead, FERRIE was driving through a thunderstorm to Houston, Texas and the defendant, SHAW, was out on the West Coast. LEE OSWALD, however, was in a Dallas jail ending up as the scapegoat. As to the planning -- the conspiracy -- our jurisdiction is limited to New Orleans, although we will later offer evidence concerning the assassination in Dealey Plaza in Dallas --

MR. DYMOND: Excuse me. If the Court please, we object to this.

THE COURT: On what ground?

MR. DYMOND: The Court has repeatedly ruled that the actual assassination in Dallas has no place in this case, that there may have been 50 conspiracies, as Your Honor put it, to assassinate President Kennedy. A conspiracy within this jurisdiction is alleged the overt acts have been alleged. The State is certainly bound by the answer to the application for a bill of particulars as to overt acts. Consequently, any other allegations or any other proof as to additional acts by anyone would be outside the scope of these pleadings.

THE COURT: I need not hear further.

MR. DYMOND: -- irrelevant to the issues.

THE COURT: Objection overruled. I cannot tell the State how to run its case. If they wish to overprove their case, they may do so.


CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT


Lee Oswald






MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I wish to call the Court's attention to the case of State vs. (Peterson) --
THE COURT: What is the name of it?
MR. DYMOND: -- cited at 95 So. 2d 608; State vs. White, cited in 153 So. 2d 401, and State vs.Mann, cited in 202 So. 2d. 259, all three of which cases are to the effect that when the State answers an application for a bill of particulars setting forth certain particulars in connection with an alleged crime, that the State is bound by this answer for an application, cannot go outside the scope --
THE COURT: I will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Alcock.
Mr. ALCOCK: The State is bound, and the State -- and Mr. Dymond knows that, we have argued this point many times in the picking of this Jury -- the State is as a matter of fact bound by its answers to the bill of particulars. The State must prove one or more of those overt acts, but, as this Court rightly points out, the State may overprove its case all it wants to. If it underproves its case it is out of court, but if it overproves it, that is its own wishes and its own will. Additionally, these facts are certainly corroborative of a conspiracy which talked of triangulation of cross fire, or a scapegoat and of a patsy. These facts are purely corroborative, and I would cite to the Court State vs. Kelly, a Louisiana case which may be found at 112 So. 2d 694. There is no dispute between myself and Mr. Dymond as to the State being bound on the answers to the bill of particulars. This Court has no dispute with that, as I appreciate its comments during the picking of the Jury. The sole issue is are we going to be circumscribed by Mr. Dymond's wishes or are we going to be allowed to prove our case, and, if we want to overprove it, to overprove it, and I think the Court has properly ruled that this area may be gone into as one to be corroborative, and, No. 2 if the State wishes to overprove its case, it may.
Mr. DYMOND: If the Court please, I am not asking that the State be circumscribed by my wishes, I am asking that they be circumscribed by the law. Your Honor stated from this bench during the voir dire that the state is definitely bound and restricted by the answer to the application for particulars. Your Honor would have to make a 180-degree turn on your rulings on the voir dire to the effect that we could not even go into the question of what prospective jurors felt about what happened in Dallas, whether President Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I can remember vividly Mr. Dymond on at least two occasions, perhaps more, asking this Court point blank and directly, are you going to deny the State the right to go into Dallas? And this Court repeatedly said, "I cannot do such a thing. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. If the State wants to overprove its case, the State may overprove its case." The Court has consistently held that, contrary to what Mr. Dymond is now saying.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, unfortunately, there was one bridge we had to cross before we came to it, and that was the selection of a jury, and your Honor would not permit us to go into Dallas at all on the voir dire, and I submit that that ruling is absolutely contrary to any contention at this time that the State has a right in their evidence to go into this question.
THE COURT: I don't know if you cited the d'Ingianni Case, but I tried the d'Ingianni Case and I remember specifically the Supreme Court stating although the State is limited in its proof, if the State were to prove, say, nine other overt acts but did not prove one of the six, I would have to grant you a directed verdict, but I will agree with the State's position that they can corroborate their evidence, and I therefore overrule your objections.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of Exception, making the opening statement being made by Mr. Garrison, Counsel's objections to the content of the openinq statement, together with the reasons therefor and the ruling part of the bill.
THE COURT: Your point is, "As to the planning -- "
MR. GARRISON: As to the planning -- the conspiracy -- our jurisdiction is limited to New Orleans, although we will later offer evidence concerning the assassination in Dealey Plaza in Dallas because it confirms the existence of a conspiracy and because it confirms the significance and relevance of the planning which occurred in New Orleans.
It is the position of the State of Louisiana that, regardless of the power which might bring about the execution of a President of United States, whether it be initiated by a small group or the highest possible force, neither the planning of his murder nor any part of it, will be regarded in Louisiana as being above the law.
And so, with DAVID FERRIE now dead and LEE OSWALD now dead, the State is bringing to trial CLAY SHAW for his role -- as revealed by evidence -- in participating in the conspiracy to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY.
Returning our attention to the cluttered apartment Of DAVID FERRIE: The evidence will show that PERRY RUSSO had been a fairly close friend of DAVID FERRIE for some time prior to the meeting between the defendant, FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD The evidence further will show that PERRY RUSSO first met LEE HARVEY OSWALD at DAVID FERRIE's apartment shortly before the principal meeting between the named conspirators took place. At this meeting OSWALD, who was cleaning a bolt-action rifle with a telescopic sight, was introduced to RUSSO by FERRIE as LEON. PERRY RUSSO saw LEE HARVEY OSWALD at FERRIE's apartment at least once after the meeting of the conspirators. On this occasion OSWALD appeared to be having some difficulty with his wife and he gave RUSSO the impression he was leaving town.
RUSSO also had seen the defendant, SHAW, once before the meeting. This was at the Nashville Street Wharf at the time PRESIDENT KENNEDY was speaking there in the Spring of 1962. The defendant, SHAW, also was seen by RUSSO with DAVID FERRIE subsequent to the assassination at FERRIE's service station in Jefferson Parish. The State will also introduce other evidence to show that CLAY SHAW, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and DAVID FERRIE knew each other.
In connection with the testimony of PERRY RUSSO, the State will introduce into evidence pictures of the defendant, DAVID FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD, as well as pictures of the exterior and interior of DAVID FERRIE's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, and other corroborating evidence. In connection with photographic evidence the State will qualify PETER SCHUSTER of the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office as an expert in the field of photography.
The evidence will further show that the defendant in accordance with the plan and in furtherance of it, did in fact head for the West Coast of the United States -- ostensibly to make a speech -- on November 15, 1963. He remained there until after PRESIDENT KENNEDY's assassination on November 22, 1963, thereby establishing an alibi for himself for the day of the shooting.
The State will offer into evidence a ledger sheet of travel consultants and testimony which reflects the arrangements made by the defendant, SHAW, to go to the West Coast. This travel consultant firm -- which in 1963 was located in the International Trade Mart -- was the same firm which arranged for LEE OSWALD to go to Europe, from which he went to Russia, several years earlier. The State will show that FERRIE drove to Houston on the day of the assassination, departing from New Orleans on the evening of November 22nd -- some hours after the President was killed and two days before LEE OSWALD was killed. FERRIE drove, with two young companions, through a severe storm for the ostensible purpose of going ice skating in Houston. Upon arriving in Houston, FERRIE and his companions went to the Winterland Skating Rink where FERRIE loudly and repeatedly introduced himself to the manager of the rink. Despite the fact that he had driven all the way from New Orleans to Houston for the purpose of ice skating, DAVID FERRIE never put on any ice skates at all. While his young friends skated, FERRIE stood by the public pay phone as if waiting for a call. The evidence will further show that earlier, after LEE OSWALD's departure from New Orleans, he took a short trip to Mexico and then made his way to Dallas. On October 14, 1963, he rented a room at 1026 N. Beckley Street under the fictitious name of O. H. Lee. Two days later he went to work at the Texas School Book Depository, which was located at the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas, Texas. At the Book Depository, BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER was employed in the order filling department. FRAZIER lived in Irving, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, and was a co-worker of OSWALD's. OSWALD's wife and baby daughter also lived in Irving with MRS. RUTH PAINE, a friend of the OSWALDS. FRAZIER's sister, LINNIE MAY RANDLE, was a neighbor of MRS. PAINE's in Irving. Since OSWALD had an apartment in Dallas, he made arrangements with FRAZIER to ride to Irving with him only on weekends. OSWALD thereafter rode to Irving with BUELL FRAZIER every Friday except the one immediately preceding the assasination. OSWALD did not go to see his wife and daughter on that weekend because he said, he was working on getting his driver's license. However, that next week OSWALD once more broke his ritual with FRAZIER. On Thursday, November 21, 1963, LEE HARVEY OSWALD asked FRAZIER if he could ride to Irving that night for the purpose of picking up some curtain rods for his apartment. On Friday morning, November 22, 1963, BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER drove OSWALD from Irving to the Texas School Depository. OSWALD had with him a package wrapped in brown wrapping paper. When he inquired as to its contents, FRAZIER will testify, OSWALD replied that the package contained the curtain rods he had returned home to pick up the night before. FRAZIER will further testify that OSWALD told him that he would not be returning to Irving that night, Friday, November 22, 1963. BUELL FRAZIER will testify that he entered the Texas School Book Depository building that morning about 50 feet behind LEE OSWALD. OSWALD was still carrying the package. FRAZIER will testify that he saw OSWALD a couple of times that morning, but never saw the package again. Around noon of that day, FRAZIER went to the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository to watch the presidential motorcade which was due to pass directly in front of the Book Depository as it made its turn off Houston Street onto Elm Street. While the motorcade was passing, FRAZIER heard three shots which sounded like they came from the area of the underpass -- near the grassy knoll -- in front of the President. At the conclusion of FRAZIER's testimony, the State will introduce into evidence pictures of a paper sack found in the Texas School Book Depository, as well as pictures of Dealey Plaza as it appeared on the day of the assassination. With regard to the assassination itself, the State will establish that on November 22, 1963, President JOHN F. KENNEDY and Governor JOHN CONNALLY, who was riding in the same limousine were wounded as a result of gunshot fired by different guns at different locations.
Furthermore, the State will show that PRESIDENT KENNEDY himself was struck by a number of bullets coming from different guns at different locations -- thus showing that more than one person was shooting at the President. The evidence will show that he was struck in the front as well as the back -- and that the final shot which struck him came from in front of him, knocking him backwards in his car. Once again, since LEE OSWALD was in the Book Depository behind the President this will show that a number of men were shooting and that he was, therefore, killed as the result of consipracy.
The State, in showing that a number of guns were fired during the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY, will offer, in addition to eyewitnesses, various photographs and motion pictures of what transpired in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. First, the State will offer an 8mm color motion picture film taken by Abraham Zapruder, commonly known as the Zapruder film. This film which has not been shown to the public, will clearly show you the effect of the shots striking the President. In this connection we will also offer slides and photographs of various individual frames of this film. The State will request permission from the Court to allow you, the jury, to view this material. Thus, you will be able to see -- in color motion picture -- the President as he is being struck by the various bullets and you will be able to see him fall backwards as the fatal shot strikes him from the front -- not the back but the front. Also, the State will introduce as evidence certain other photographs and motion picture films, taken during the assassination, as listed below:
1. The "Moorman picture" which is a polaroid photograph taken by Mary Moorman in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. In addition to this picture, but in connection with it, the State will offer various blow-up prints of this photograph.
2. Various photographs taken by Mr. Philip Willis in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
3. Various photographs taken by Miss Wilma Bond in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
4. A motion picture film with slides and photographs taken by Mr. John Martin on November 22, 1963.
The State will qualify ROBERT H. WEST, the County Land Surveyor for Dallas County, Texas, as a licensed registered public surveyor and thus competent to testify as an expert as to the topographical aspects of Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. In conjunction with the testimony of Mr. WEST, the State will offer into evidence a certified survey, an aerial photograph and a mock-up of Dealey Plaza. The State will also qualify Dr. ROBERT SHAW as an expert in the field of medicine, and in connection with this tesimony we will offer x-rays and medical records concerning GOVERNOR CONNALLY's wounds and treatment at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.
The State will qualify and offer the testimony of DR. JOHN NICHOLS, a medical expert in the field of forensic medicine and pathology. In connection with his testimony the State will offer certain exhibits, x-rays and photographs into evidence. Furthermore, during the presentation of this case, the State will qualify and offer the testimony of Special Agent ROBERT A. FRAZIER of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as an expert in the field of ballistics. Special Agent LYNDAL SHANEYFELT as a photographic expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be qualified and will testify.
The State also will present eyewitness testimony, corroborating what is shown in the Zapruder film: that the President's fatal shot was received from the front and that he was thrown backward -- not forward -- from the force of this fatal shot. The eyewitness testimony will also show that the shooting came from a number of directions and that, therefore, the President was murdered, not by a lone individual behind him but as the result of conspiracy to kill him.
We will then show that a few minutes after the shooting LEE OSWALD came running down the grass in front of the Book Depository, that he climbed into a station wagon with another man at the wheel and that this station wagon pulled away and disappeared into the traffic on Elm Street.
The evidence will further show that shortly after the assassination of PRESIDENT KENNEDY, on November 25, 1963, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed DEAN A. ANDREWS, JR. in his room at Hotel Dieu Hospital in New Orleans. As a result of this interview with DEAN ANDREWS, a local attorney, the Bureau began a systematic and thorough search for a "CLAY BERTRAND." A man who identified himself as "CLAY BERTRAND" called ANDREWS the day after the President's assassination requesting him to defend LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who by then had been formally charged with the murder of JOHN F. KENNEDY. The State will introduce evidence in the course of this case showing that the defendant, CLAY SHAW, and the "CLAY BERTRAND" who called DEAN ANDREWS on behalf of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, are one and the same person.
The evidence will further show that sometime during the year 1966 the defendant CLAY SHAW, requested the U.S. Post Office to deliver mail addressed to him at his residence at 1313 Dauphine Street to 1414 Chartres Street, the residence of a long-time friend, JEFF BIDDISON. This change of address order was terminated on September 21, 1966. During the period that the change of address remained in effect, the U.S. Post Office letter carrier for that route delivered at least five letters to 1414 Chartres Street addressed to "CLEM BERTRAND," the name used by the defendant at the meeting between himself, DAVID FERRIE and LEE HARVEY OSWALD in FERRIE's apartment in mid-September, 1963. None of the letters addressed to "CLEM BERTRAND" were ever returned to the postal authorities for any reason. The period during which these letters addressed to "CLEM BERTRAND" were delivered to 1414 Chartres Street preceded by at least six months the publication of the fact that the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office was investigating the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY. In fact, it preceded the start of the investigation by the District Attorney's office. In connection with this evidence, the state will offer into evidence the US Post Office forms reflecting the change of address initiated by the defendant and testimony showing the delivery to that address of mail delivered to "CLEM BERTRAND."
It will be shown that in December 1966 the defendant, CLAY SHAW, visited the VIP room of one of the airlines at Moisant Airport and that, while there, he signed the guest register in the name of "Clay Bertrand." Eyewitness testimony will be presented and the guest book which he signed will be introduced into evidence.
The State of Louisiana will ask you to return a verdict of guilty as charged against the defendant, Clay Shaw.




David Ferrie




AFTER THE RECESS: (Jury returned to the box.)
THE COURT: Are the Defense and the State ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: We are ready.
MR. ALCOCK: The State is ready.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, I notice Article 765 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:
"The normal order of trial shall be as follows:
"Number 1. The selection and swearing of the jurors.
"Number 2. Reading of the indictment.
"Number 3. Reading of the defendant's plea on arraignment."
Could we have it in the record?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, as we have previously agreed, if we have not heretofore done so we now enter a plea of not guilty and waive all delays after that plea.
THE COURT: I just wanted to show you that if you forget to do it there are cases in point that it is not reversible error. I just wanted the record to show.
MR. DYMOND: We agreed to do that before anyway.
THE COURT: Is the State ready to proceed, Mr. Alcock.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Call your first witness.
MR. ALCOCK: The State calls Mr. [Edwin] Lea McGehee.
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"

PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT
FEBRUARY 6, 1969

B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
EDWIN LEA McGEHEE, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. McGehee, I want you to just relax and speak as clearly as you can. And, for the record, would you state your full name.

A: Edwin Lea McGehee.
Q: Mr. McGehee, where do you reside?
A: In Jackson, Louisiana.
Q: Approximately how far is Jackson, Louisiana, from New Orleans, Louisiana -- approximately, if you know?
A: Say about 120 miles north.
Q: And approximately how far would Jackson, Louisiana, be from Clinton, Louisiana, if you know?
A: It would be about I think 13 or 14 miles.
Q: Approximately, Mr. McGehee, if you know, how long a ride is it by automobile from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Jackson, Louisiana?
A: I don't know, it has been a good while since I took that trip; I would say two and a half hours maybe, approximately.
Q: Mr. McGehee, what is your occupation?
A: A barber.
Q: And how long have you been a barber?
A: Twelve years.
Q: And do you have a barber shop at Jackson, Louisiana?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you done most of your barbering in that City, that is, in Jackson, Louisiana?
A: Yes, the whole time.
Q: Approximately what is the population of Jackson, Mr. McGehee?
A: About 3,000 people.
Q: Back in 1963 would there have been much difference in the population then?
A: Yes, it was less than that; it would be probably 2,000 then. They incorporated some more since then.
Q: Would you say, Mr. McGehee, that -- let me ask you this question first: Did you say that you had been barbering in Jackson for 12 years? Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Then I take it that you would have been barbering there in the summer of 1963, would that be correct?
A: Right.
Q: Are you pretty well, or were you in the summer of 1963, Mr. McGehee, pretty well familiar with most of the residents of the Jackson area?
A: Yes.
Q: Would it be very often that a stranger would come into your barber shop?
A: Very seldom.
Q: Mr. McGehee, I am going to show you a photograph which I shall now mark for purposes of identification "State Exhibit No. 1" after I show it to Defense Counsel, and ask you if you recognize the person in that picture.
(Whereupon, the photograph referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "State Exhibit No. 1.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. McGehee, I am going to show you what is now marked as "State No. 1," and ask you to look at this picture and see if you recognize the person in that picture.

A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever seen that person in person?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know who that person is now?
A: Yes, I know now.
Q: Who is it?
A: Lee Oswald.
Q: Approximately when was it that you saw Lee Oswald in person?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we are going to object to the relevancy of this testimony, first of all, on the ground of R.S. 15:455, which states, in effect, that the prima facie conspiracy must be shown before a defendant is responsible for the action of others, and, secondly, on the basis of Article 773 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
THE COURT: What was the first article -- 455?
MR. DYMOND: 15:455.
THE COURT: You must have it under the old Code. The new Code is three volumes now. Do you have a cross reference to the new volume?
MR. DYMOND: This is the part that wasn't changed. Your Honor.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: New Section 10 to 12.
MR. ALCOCK: Evidentiary Order.
THE COURT: Volume 1?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: No, 10 to 12. It is the new section. They took away three of the old volumes.
MR. DYMOND: That is the part that wasn't changed. Here it is (handing volume to the Court).
THE COURT: This is the index?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: No, that is the whole thing, Judge. It also includes a separate index.
THE COURT: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, while you are studying that, I would ask you also to look at Article 773 of the Code.
THE COURT: 773?
MR. DYMOND: 773.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, the way I read the combination of both 455 and 773 is, No. 1, that the Court cannot control the State nor the Defense in the order in which they wish to present their evidence. Secondly, necessarily the trial of any case must start off at a given point. It is not always convenient. for the State to chronologically outline their case and they must connect it up.
I would ask this question of Mr. Alcock: Do you intend to connect up the evidence you are seeking to elicit from this witness?
MR. ALCOCK: I was just about to comment to the Court on that when my turn for argument came. The State has asked a total of approximately ten questions. Obviously, at this point the connection between this testimony and what might be deemed relevant isn't apparent, but I can assure the Court this testimony is relevant and will be connected up.
THE COURT: Very well. That being the case, I overrule your objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: -- making the question and Counsel's objection, the reasons for the ob- jection and the ruling of the Court together with the entire record, part of the exception.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, can you recall approximately when it was that you saw Leon Oswald?

A: This was -- as near as I can remember, it was in the -- we had some cool weather in the last of August and the early part of September. I barber by myself, and when it is cool I turn the air-conditioning off and keep the door open.
Q: Would that have been the latter part of August, early part of September, 1963?
A: Right.
Q: Now, at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald was in your barber shop, was anyone present besides yourself?
A: No.
Q: Can you recall approximately what time of day or night this was that he was in the shop?
A: This was along toward the evening.
Q: Were you able to see, Mr. McGehee, how Oswald came to the shop, whether he --
A: The door was open and I noticed this car drive up. It passed the door a little ways, not too far, where the back end was just a little past the shop, and I did not see the man get out, and the next thing I noticed, there was nobody on the street hardly, not anybody, as a matter of fact, and this man walked in the shop.
Q: Could you describe the car for us at all?
A: Yes, the car was -- it was an old car, it was battered, it was a dark colored car -- it might have been dark green -- but the make of it I just couldn't remember, it was an old car, real old.
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, to the best of your recollection and knowledge, was there anyone else in that car?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe that person?
A: There was a woman sitting on the front seat -- this is after the man was getting a haircut I glanced at the car -- and in the back seat what I noticed was -- looked like a bassinet.
Q: A baby bassinet?
A: Right.
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, had Oswald entered the shop before this car pulled up?
A: No, after.
Q: Did you ever see that car leave in front of the shop?
A: It eventually left after he left; I didn't notice if he got in the car, I didn't pay any attention.
Q: Well, approximately how long after he left the shop did the car leave?
A: Right away. I noticed -- I heard it pull off, I didn't pay no attention to it, it was gone.
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, did you give Lee Harvey Oswald a haircut on that occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: Approximately how long would that take?
A: About 15 minutes.
Q: And did you have a conversation with him at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Mr. McGehee, do you know a gentleman by the name of Reeves Morgan?
A: Right.
Q: At that time did you know him personally?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know his occupation at that time?
A: Yes, he was State Representative in my Parish.
Q: What parish would that be?
A: East Feliciana.
Q: Did you have occasion at any time to mention his name?
A: Yes, I referred Lee Oswald.
MR. DYMOND: Now, if Your Honor please, we object to any conversation which transpired outside the presence of this defendant, on the ground that it is hearsay, of course.
MR. ALCOCK: My position --
MR. DYMOND: Note my objection.
THE COURT: Let me hear Mr. Dymond first, then you, Mr. Alcock.
MR. DYMOND: I object to any conversation which allegedly transpired out of the presence of this defendant, on the ground that it is hearsay evidence.
THE COURT: I will hear you, Mr. Alcock.
MR. ALCOCK: My position is that this may be correct as far as any conversation or any words uttered by Lee Oswald, but certainly not as to this witness, he can say what he said; that is not hearsay.
THE WITNESS: I was referring to --
THE COURT: Excuse me just a minute. I am wondering if the situation doesn't exist that if it is a conspiracy of the persons named, such as Oswald was named in the conspiracy, which he is, that if someone had a conversation with a named defendant, even though he is deceased, that does not, to my mind, take it out of the general rule of hearsay. There would be no question if Oswald was presently on trial that it would be admitted and the conversation of a person with the defendant, because it would not be hearsay as to that defendant. Now the legal question posed is whether or not a statement by this witness with Oswald would be admissible against this defendant.
MR. GARRISON: I would like to comment.
THE COURT: The acts of all co-conspirators would be used against a conspirator.
MR. GARRISON: I would like to be heard.
THE COURT: You can have a proposition where a state would like to try one of the three conspirators and still have the other two not be tried, ask for a severance, and the question (is) could hearsay then be used with the two on severance against the one that is present. My first impulse is to say yes, but I will be glad to hear you.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, that proposition that you have just cited runs squarely into the teeth of the two statutes which I have previously mentioned to Your Honor, more specifically, R.S. 15:445, which requires the prima facie proof of a conspiracy before one co-conspirator is liable for the acts of the other co-conspirators.
THE COURT: Just read that article. It states --
MR. DYMOND: The same would apply on conversations. Certainly it would not be proper for Your Honor to permit hearsay testimony of conversations which could conceivably be damaging to this defendant in the eyes of the Jury, on the mere hope and supposition that the State will prove a prima facie case of conspiracy. That is the very purpose of this Act. I feel that a definite predicate in the form of showing a conspiracy is required, and that is where we have the application of 773, to the effect that the order of proof cannot be controlled by the Court --
THE COURT: That is correct.
MR. DYMOND: -- but that anything, any item of evidence which requires the laying of a foundation is not admissible until that foundation is laid. Now, the conversation that Your Honor has in mind would require the laying of a foundation, that foundation being a prima facie case of conspiracy, and until that is laid it cannot be admitted.
THE COURT: Let me put a question to you, Mr. Dymond: If by chance Oswald was on trial with Mr. Shaw, do you claim that statements he made, Oswald, would be admissible?
MR. DYMOND: They would be admissible against Oswald but certainly not against --
THE COURT: -- against all the co-conspirators?
MR. DYMOND: Unless a prima facie case of conspiracy is shown.
THE COURT: I have been assured by Mr. Alcock that he will connect up the testimony he is trying to elicit from this witness, with the conspiracy.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I would accept that, but Article 773 on just such a situation as this makes an exception to the deprivation of the right of Your Honor to control the order of proof.
THE COURT: Let me read the comment under Article 773. "The basic purpose of this Article is to allow counsel to have a free hand in the conduct of his case. Furthermore, frequently the admissibility of some evidence depends on whether other evidence is admitted. Necessarily, such related evidence cannot be introduced at the same moment (as we have here) and frequently requires the joint testimony of several witnesses."
Here is the vital, controlling sequence: "Usually, therefore, the first piece of evidence is admitted subject to being connected up or subject to the second related piece of evidence being admitted."
(Reporter's Note: The above quotation is transcribed from the notes as they lie. The reader is referred to the source.)
THE COURT: So when Mr. Alcock tells me that he is going to connect up this evidence with other related pieces of evidence to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, I will accept his statement that he is going to do that. Now you are objecting to what Oswald told this witness, that it cannot be used against Mr. Shaw. Now, ordinarily, if it was a confession, the confession applies to the person who made it, not to any other party, but in a conspiracy, any act of a conspiracy, the other person whether physically present or not is bound by that action.
MR. DYMOND: But, Your Honor --
THE COURT: But at this point you are trying to say at the time they are talking about, in August, 1963, they had not shown that there was a conspiracy even. Well, they have to start some place. If they can connect it up, I am going to go along with the State that they can connect it up.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, it may well be too late after that, and I am sure Your Honor can conceive of a situation where there could be evidence, testimony, which would be extremely harmful to our defendant if heard by the Jury. And then what happens if the State fails to connect it up? You know very well that an admonition to the Jury to disregard testimony is the most ineffective thing.
THE COURT: I agree with you on that.
Now, this Article says specifically -- it creates an exception -- that is 773: "But when the evidence requires a foundation for its admission the foundation must be laid before the evidence is admissible."
That is the last sentence of 773.
(Reporter's Note: The above quotation is transcribed from the notes as they lie. The reader is referred to the source.)
MR. DYMOND: Will you read the comment under the Article?
THE COURT: Yes, I have read the comment.
MR. DYMOND: What does the last sentence say in the comment?
THE COURT: "Usually, therefore, the first piece of evidence is admitted subject to being connected up, subject to the two related pieces of evidence being admitted."
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we all know that this is not the usual case. You can go through the volumes of the Southern Reporter and count on one hand the number of conspiracy cases. This is an unusual case where an alleged conspiracy is used as a purpose or an excuse for introducing inadmissible testimony when no conspiracy has been shown, and that is the very purpose of this Article.
THE COURT: Just give me a minute.
(Whereupon, there was a brief pause in the proceedings.)




THE COURT: Now let's get back to the basic question. You have objected to a conversation had by Mr. McGehee with Lee Harvey Oswald at the time it was had in Jackson, Louisiana.
MR. DYMOND: No, not with Lee Harvey Oswald. The conversation was supposed to have been with Reeves Morgan, State Representative.
MR. ALCOCK: No.
THE COURT: Ask the question again. Let's find out what the objection is, please. I thought the question was a conversation of the witness with Oswald.
MR. ALCOCK: It was.
MR. DYMOND: Same objection.
THE COURT: Same objection? Oswald is a defendant named in the indictment.
MR. WEGMANN: He is not a defendant named in the indictment.
MR. ALCOCK: He is dead.
MR. DYMOND: He is named as a co-conspirator.
THE COURT: He is named as a defendant in the Bill of --
MR. DYMOND: That does not make any difference.
THE COURT: It certainly does in law; whether he is dead or not, he is still listed as one of the persons who committed the crime.
MR. EDWARD WEGMANN: He is still not a defendant.
THE COURT: Let's not argue, Mr. Wegmann. What was the question?
MR. ALCOCK: The question of Mr. McGehee was whether or not he had a conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald on that occasion, and his response was yes, and I asked him if he knew a gentleman by the name of Reeves Morgan, and he said yes, and I asked him if that name came up in the conversation, and he was about to relate that answer when Mr. Dymond objected. This is not a conversation involving Reeves Morgan, this is between this witness and Lee Harvey Oswald.
THE COURT: Well, I will rule that he can state whether he did have a conversation or not, but he cannot go into the details of the conversation.
MR. ALCOCK: He can say what he said, can't he, not what Oswald said but what he said? That is certainly not hearsay. This witness is subject to cross-examination.
THE COURT: He can state what he said but not tell us what Oswald said.
MR. ALCOCK: Right. I think this is what Mr. Dymond is getting at.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Go ahead with your answer.

A: I was referring him to Mr. Reeves Morgan, who was State Representative at the time, in regards to getting a job at East Louisiana Hospital.
MR. DYMOND: Object as hearsay and ask that it be stricken.
THE COURT: What is your Objection?
MR. DYMOND: This witness is doing indirectly what Your Honor ruled he cannot do direct- ly, by stating in what connection he referred him to Reeves Morgan. That impliedly --
THE COURT: Just a minute, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: That impliedly sets forth what Lee Harvey Oswald asked this man about, and Your Honor has ruled that isn't admissible.
THE COURT: You have agreed he can state what he told him.
MR. DYMOND: What he told Oswald. That is different.
THE COURT: All right. Tell us what you told Oswald.
THE WITNESS: I told him the directions to Reeves Morgan's house, who was State Representative.
THE COURT: That is all you told him, the directions to his house?
THE WITNESS: I told him to see him about getting a job at the East Louisiana State Hospital, that he would help him, or might help him.
THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, do you know a fellow in Clinton, Louisiana, by the name of Henry Earl Palmer?

A: Right.
Q: Did you know him on that occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: What was his occupation at that time?
A: Registrar of Voters.
Q: Did you mention his name at any time?
A: Yes, I told Oswald that if he was a registered voter it would help him to obtain -- have a better chance of obtaining a job at East Louisiana State Hospital.
Q: Was the name Henry Earl Palmer mentioned?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: I object unless it is specified by whom it was mentioned, Your Honor. Your Honor has already ruled on Oswald mentioning it.
MR. ALCOCK: He has already said he did it.
THE WITNESS: I referred him to him.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: And where at that time was the Board of Registration for that Parish?

A: In Clinton.
Q: Is that Clinton, Louisiana?
A: Right.
Q: Did you have occasion, Mr. McGehee, after giving Oswald a haircut on this occasion, to ever see his picture on television?
A: Yes.
Q: When was that?
A: I was at my mother-in-law's house on the day of the assassination and -- I think it was the day -- and when they arrested Oswald and brought him to the jail -- I think it was the jail -- and that was the first time I saw his picture, and I told my wife, I said --
THE COURT: Don't tell us what you told your wife.
MR. ALCOCK: That is what he said, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
A: (Continuing) I told my wife, I said, "I recognize that man from somewhere."
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, did you have occasion subsequent to this time when you made that comment to your wife, to have a conversation with Reeves Morgan?

A: Right. That must have been about two weeks later. Mr. Reeves Morgan --
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor. He has answered the question already.
THE COURT: He stated yes. He can tell him.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: You did have a conversation with Reeves Morgan?

A: It must have been about two weeks later.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I ask that the witness be instructed to answer questions and not elaborate.
THE COURT: Mr. McGehee, the answer to the question Mr. Alcock put to you, which was did you have a conversation, you can say yes, you don't have to tell us the substance of it, what he told you; you can tell us what you told him.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: What did you tell Reeves Morgan during that conversation? Say what you said.

A: I said that the man that I saw on the T.V. was the man that I sent to him.
Q: Is that man the man that you identified in Court as Lee Harvey Oswald?
A: Right.
Q: Up until that time, Mr. McGehee, had you sent anyone else to Reeves Morgan's house?
A: He was the only one.
Q: Mr. McGehee, did you ever, subsequent to the assassination of President Kennedy, mention this incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other federal agency?
A: No.
MR. ALCOCK: I will tender the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. McGehee, you say this was in August or September of 1963?

A: Yes, sir, approximately, yes, sir.
Q: Have you searched your memory in an effort to determine whether it was August or whether it was September?
A: Yes.
Q: And I take it you are unable to do so?
A: We discussed it in the barber shop several times.
Q: And I take it that as of now you cannot tell us whether it was August or whether it was September? Is that correct, sir?
A: We had cool nights in the last of August and the early part of September, and at least not past September 15.
Q: I see.
A: It had to be in there, along in that time.
Q: In other words, it could have been as late as September 15?
A: It was more closely, I would say, the last of August and the early part of September.
Q: Well, now, what would make you arrive at that conclusion that you say that you had cool nights up until September 15?
A: Well, we always discuss the weather in the barber shop -- that is about the main topic of conversation -- and we have farmers up in Jackson, quite a number of them, and they are always saying wasn't last night cool and all like that.
Q: I take it that this was on a cool night then that you saw Lee Oswald?
A: Yes, the night was rather cool.
Q: Now, did you not testify that you had cool nights through the 15th of September?
A: Well, the last part of August we had some relatively cool nights, which was unusual for August, and we commented on that several times in the barber shop. If I had to say it, I would say the last of August.
Q: And you say you discussed this with the farmers in the barber shop? Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, now, is your testimony the testimony of the farmers in the barber shop or your testimony?
A: Both of us.
Q: Oh, I see. In other words, you are testifying here from the knowledge of the farmers in the barber shop and from yours, is that Right?
A: Well, we discussed it, and they said how cool it was and I agreed.
Q: Now let's see if you can be a little more accurate on your description of this automobile that you saw this man get out of.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was it a large automobile or a small one?
A: If I had to say what it was, it was a -- it resembled a Kaiser or a Frazer or an Old Nash.
Q: Did it appear to be old enough to have been a Kaiser or a Frazer?
A: Yes, that is what I noticed about it.
Q: I take it then from your description that in general terms you would have to describe this as a rather small automobile, while not a compact? Is that right?
A: Oh, not a compact, right.
Q: But it was a small standard sized automobile?
A: Standard sized, yes, sir.
Q: Now, did you give Oswald a haircut on this occasion? Is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you remember how he was dressed?
A: He had on a sport shirt and slacks.
Q: Did he have shoes on or not?
A: I am sure he did.
Q: Would you say he was neatly dressed?
A: Very neatly dressed.
Q: Very neatly dressed?
A: Clean shaven.
Q: I see. now, Mr. McGehee, by your voluntarily adding the words "very neatly dressed," would I be correct in assuming that his neatness actually impressed you?
A: Yes. That is the reason I referred him for the job.
Q: I see. In other words, you would say that he was a particularly neat looking individual, is that right?
A: To me, yes.
Q: Yes. And did I understand you correctly in saying that he was clean-shaven at this time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did that likewise impress you?
A: No, not impress me, I just noticed he was clean shaven. You know, when you give a man a haircut, you try to sell him a shave, too.
(LAUGHTER)
THE BAILIFF: Order in the Court.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I would guess that a barber would be very likely to remember whether a man was clean shaven, is that correct?

A: That is it.
Q: And that is your distinct recollection, is that right?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:>BR> Q: I have one or two questions just to clarify something Mr. Dymond asked you. These discussions you had with farmers were about the weather, is that correct?
A: With who?
Q: The farmers -- was about the weather?
A: Yes.
Q: These farmers didn't tell you anything about Lee Oswald coming in?
A: No, no.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: One moment, please. While the discussions that you had with the farmers concerned only the weather, it was what these farmers said that prompted you to fix the date of this visit in late August or early September, was it not, sir?

A: Well, not only the farmers at the time. Like I say, in general, you talk to anybody -- the banker -- everybody we talk to, they mentioned the weather and what cool nights we were having in August, which was unusual --
Q: I see.
A: -- and I had my door open, the air-conditioning was off and it was rather cool.
Q: I see. Just one more question, Mr. McGehee: Was there any special reason that you waited five years before saying anything about this to anybody?
A: Nobody approached me.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. McGehee, this conversation that you had with Mr. Morgan shortly after the assassination, did this visit come up in that conversation?

A: I didn't hear you, Mr. Alcock.
Q: This conversation that you had with Mr. Morgan shortly after the assassination, did this visit by Oswald come up in that conversation?
MR. DYMOND: One moment, please. Object to that, if the Court please. Unless it is restricted to what this witness said during that conversation and not including what Mr. Morgan said.
THE COURT: I agree with you.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you mention anything to Mr. Morgan shortly after the assassination about Lee Oswald being in your shop?

A: Yes, we talked about it.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down, Mr. McGehee.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Do you have any further need for this witness? I understand he is from out of town.
MR. ALCOCK: We have none.
MR. DYMOND: We have none.
THE COURT: You may leave at this time.
Mr. Alcock, I have been requested by the news media to take a recess between 3:00 and 3:15, and rather than call your next witness and interrupt the direct or the cross, we will take a recess now until ten minutes after 3:00. That is about eight minutes.
Take the Jury upstairs, Gentlemen.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)




AFTER THE RECESS:
REEVES MORGAN, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Please state your name for the record.

A: Reeves Morgan.
Q: Where do you live, Mr. Morgan?
A: Jackson, Louisiana.
Q: And how long have you lived in Jackson, Louisiana?
A: Well, let me correct that, I live outside the town of Jackson. I live in the vicinity of Jackson, we call it Jackson but it isn't actually in the town, I live out in the country about three miles, and I have been around there since 1925.
Q: What is your present occupation, Mr. Morgan?
A: Working in a foundry over there at Clinton making castings for some little bombshells, ammunition.
Q: How long have you been so employed?
A: About a year, close to a year; I imagine maybe two weeks one way or the other.
Q: What was your occupation or position prior to this?
A: Well, let me see. I was working for Crown-Zellerbach as a guard, I believe, preceding this job. No, I wasn't. Let me take that back. I was working for the East Louisiana State Hospital as a guard, and I worked for the Crown-Zellerbach before that.
Q: Have you ever been a member of the Louisiana State Legislature?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When?
A: From 1952 until 1956, and them from 1960 to '64.
Q: So I take it then in 1963 you were a member of the Louisiana Legislature?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Morgan, I will show you now a picture that the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and ask you if you recognize the individual in that picture.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know who that individual is?
A: This is the fellow that came there and introduced himself to me.
Q: What was his name?
A: Oswald.
Q: You say he came to your home and introduced himself?
MR. DYMOND: Object as a leading question, Your Honor. The witness said nothing about his home.
THE COURT: Do not repeat what he said. Ask it in the form of a question.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Where did you see this individual?

A: He came to my home.
Q: Did he introduce himself?
A: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Let me caution the witness. Mr. Reeves, do not tell us what he told you. You can testify to what you said to him, not what he said to you. Understand?
THE WITNESS: Does that apply to him introducing himself, too?
(LAUGHTER)
THE COURT: That applies to everything. Only testify what you said, not anything he said -- at least at this time.
All right. You may proceed, Mr. Sciambra.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Do you know this individual's name now?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is it?
A: Lee Harvey Oswald, but I didn't know anything except Lee Oswald until after the --
Q: When did this individual come to your home?
A: Had it figured out as the latter part of August or either the first part of September, because I made no dates or no memorandums or nothing on it.
Q: Was this in 1963?
A: '63, 1963.
Q: Would you tell the Court the circumstances surrounding Oswald's visit to your home in Jackson, Louisiana.
THE COURT: Now you are going to get into dangerous ground, because it is going to be very hard for this witness to be able to understand my admonition to him.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I will withdraw the question.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I will withdraw the question, Your Honor, and I will ask the witness:
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Tell the Court what you told Lee Harvey Oswald that day that you talked to him in your home.

A: I told him that I could not help him get a job at the hospital ahead of any of my constituents, at the East Louisiana State Hospital, but I was not going to try to prevent him from getting a job, and I told him all the procedure he would have to go to to get in position to get a job, about going and putting in his application and getting set up to take a Civil Service examination, and that you just didn't go over there and get a job and just go to work, you had to go through applications and take a Civil Service examination for a job in the electrical department or something like that. They did have some jobs over there maybe, but I didn't tell him all that, but to get into the electrical department or maintenance you had to have a Civil Service exam, and -- he was from New Orleans -- it wouldn't hurt if he was a registered voter up there, and I told him that I knew a fellow up there once trying to find out what he can from everybody around there, and I told him I knew a fellow up there whose first name was Oswald and I asked him was he any kin to him.
Q: Was he any kin to him?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: I take it then that the conversation that you had with Oswald was pertaining to a job at the East Louisiana State Hospital?

A: That was practically all we discussed.
Q: And approximately how long did you say you talked to Oswald that day?
A: Well, it wasn't too long, I would say maybe 20 minutes or 25, just talked along there. I wasn't wanting him to get the impression I was trying to rush him off or nothing.
Q: Was anybody at home when Oswald was at your house, besides yourself?
A: Yes, sir, my daughter was there.
Q: Anybody else?
A: I don't remember whether my wife was there or not; I do know my daughter was there though, but I never could place whether my wife was there at the time or not.
Q: After the assassination of President Kennedy, did you see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald on television or in the paper?
A: I saw it in the newspaper first, I believe. As well as I remember, the newspaper picture was the first one I saw.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you recognize him from?
A: From being at my house.
Q: Did you ever tell this incident to anyone?
A: Well, yes, discussed it with several people around there, and I even called the FBI and told them.
Q: When did you call the FBI?
A: I would say that it was practically the next day after I recognized it, I believe it was the next day.
Q: After the assassination?
A: No, the day after I recognized his picture. Maybe it might have been the next day after the assassination before I saw his picture, as well as I remember.
Q: Did the FBI ever send anybody to talk to you about this?
A: No, sir, they never did send anybody, because when I called them, when we got through talking I told him I was glad that they already knew he was up there in the vicinity. They already knew it. And he thanked me for my trouble of calling them.
Q: Did you have a conversation regarding this matter with a Mr. Lea McGehee?
A: Yes, I was over there in the barber shop several times after that, and we was talking about it.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I tender the witness, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Morgan, you say that this conversation took place either in late August or early September?

A: To the best of my recollection. I took no dates or set no -- I mean I didn't make any notes on the thing.
Q: Do you have any particular event or any particular thing by which you are able to fix this approximate date?
A: Well, in the first place, it was an estimation on my own part, and then in wasn't cold weather and it wasn't hot weather, because when Oswald came to my house that evening I was burning the trash out of my fireplace and it didn't feel too bad. It wasn't cold, it wasn't hot.
Q: All right.
A: It just felt good sitting there by it, and we both sat there and watched it burn.
Q: It was good cool pleasant weather? Is that right?
A: That is right. You wouldn't want it to be any better weather.
Q: Could this, Mr. Morgan, have been as late as mid-September?
A: I don't believe it could have, I don't believe it could have.
Q: You say it possibly could have?
A: I don't believe it could have been.
Q: Well, that is the kind of weather that you would have up there around mid-September, too, isn't it?
A: Well, we could, but I just in my own estimation don't believe it could have been up to the 15th, that late.
Q: The 15th is the latest you say?
A: I say it couldn't have been as late as the 15th, I don't believe, because when it happened it would have seemed closer than that.
Q: Now, Mr. Morgan, you were able to get a good look at the man whom you identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, were you not, sir?
A: Yes, sir, I looked at him about as close as I ever look at anybody that just comes in and I am not trying to pay special attention to his looks.
Q: Would you happen to remember how he was dressed, Mr. Morgan?
A: Well, yes, I remember how he was dressed pretty much.
Q: Would you tell us about that if you can?
A: He had on a dark colored shirt, as well as I remember, and some dark pants. He didn't have on any hat or cap or anything, and --
Q: Mr. Morgan, would you say at this time that he was neatly dressed?
A: Well, I would say he was, about as neat as the ordinary fellow goes around dressed. He wasn't shabby or he didn't have on no lot of neckties or fine clothes or nothing, just --
Q: Was he clean and neat looking?
A: Clean and neat, very well appearing fellow, nice appearance.
Q: Now let me ask you this, Mr. Morgan, did he have a beard at that time?
A: No, sir.
Q: Would you say he was clean-shaven?
A: Well, about like I am now I would say, maybe shaved that morning.
Q: You shaved this morning, didn't you?
A: Yes, sir, and I would figure he had shaved that morning from the way he looked.
Q: He looked to you like he had shaved that morning?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Morgan, did you get a look at the automobile in which he arrived?
A: No, sir, sure didn't.
Q: You didn't see it at all?
A: Didn't see it -- period. I didn't go no further than the door to let him in when he knocked, and when he left I didn't go any further than the door.
Q: I see. Now, Mr. Morgan, I understand that the day after you recognized from seeing a T.V. picture --
A: Not a T.V., a newspaper.
Q: Newspaper picture?
A: I believe is what I first saw it on.
Q: When you recognized that this was Lee Harvey Oswald that you had seen, you called the FBI? Is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I take it you felt it your duty to do so? Isn't that right, sir?
A: Well, I figured that they should know if there was anything in him being up there that could give them aid in finding out just what happened, and so forth and so on. I felt like the best thing for me to do was call them if anybody else got mixed up in something and had been at my house.
Q: I guess you felt it your duty as a citizen?
A: Yes, well, duty as a citizen as well as duty to myself.
Q: I see.
A: I wouldn't want them coming around later and saying he was at your house, why didn't you let us know something about it.
MR. DYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Morgan. That is all.
MR. SCIAMBRA: No further questions.
THE COURT: Do you have any further need of Mr. Morgan?
MR. DYMOND: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Morgan. You are excused from your subpoena. You may leave to return home if you wish.
(Witness excused.)




JOHN MANCHESTER, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Please state your name for the record.

A: John Manchester.
Q: What is your address, Mr. Manchester?
A: Box 42, Clinton, Louisiana.
Q: And how long have you been living there?
A: Since 1962.
Q: And what is your occupation?
A: Town Marshal, Clinton, Louisiana.
Q: And how long have you been a Town Marshal in Clinton, Louisiana?
A: Since that time.
Q: You were so employed in 1963?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In connection with your duties as Town Marshal, I call your attention to late August or early September, 1963, and ask you if anything unusual was happening in Clinton at that time?
A: Yes, sir. We had a voter registration drive going on there at that time.
Q: I am sorry. Who was sponsoring that voter registration drive?
A: Congress of Racial Equality.
THE COURT: Who is that?
THE WITNESS: CORE.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Was that all during the summer of 1963?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you speak a little louder, please, sir.
A: Yes.
Q: In connection with the voter registration drive going on, what were your duties around Clinton at that time?
A: Just to maintain law and order and to try to keep out the outside agitation that was attempting to infiltrate.
THE COURT: Speak into the microphone.
A: (Continuing) Just keep law and order, maintain law and order.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Were there many people in town for this voter registration drive?

A: They had quite a few outsiders coming in, yes, sir.
Q: Were you the only law enforcement agent on duty at the time?
A: No, sir, we had other law enforcement but it was -- I was the primary law enforcement officer to take care of this special operation.
Q: Besides local law enforcement agents, were there any other law enforcement agents in town?
A: Yes, sir, the FBI was there.
Q: What was the purpose of the FBI?
A: Well, I don't really know their purpose there other than just observing.
Q: Were you assigned to any particular location during this drive?
A: Yes, sir, I was assigned to the immediate vicinity of the Registrar of Voters' office to keep down any disturbances that might result from this voter registration drive going on.
Q: Now, where is the voter registration office located in Clinton, Louisiana?
A: It is on St. Helena Street in Clinton.
Q: Is that the main street?
A: That is the main street, it is the main highway going through Clinton.
Q: And this is where you spent most of your time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were there many strange cars in town that day, or cars that weren't familiar to you?
A: Yes, sir, there was a few strange cars, and if they were strange I would know them. I mean the town is small enough that I kept trying to keep up with all strange automobiles in that vicinity.
Q: Did you notice any strange car in particular that day in connection with where you were stationed?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Could you describe that car?
A: Yes, sir. It was a '61 or '62 Cadillac somewhere, I guess this model. It was black and it was parked in the vicinity of the Registrar's Office.
MR. SCIAMBRA: The State will mark this photograph "S-2" for purposes of identification. (Whereupon, the photograph referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "State Exhibit No. 2.")
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I ask you if you recognize the automobile in that picture.

A: Yes, sir. That is either the automobile or one just exactly like it.
Q: Approximately how far from the Registrar's Office was this automobile parked?
A: You want that in feet?
Q: Well, just an estimate.
A: I would say approximately 50 feet from the entrance to the Registrar's Office.
Q: Can you remember how this car was called to your attention?
A: Yes, sir, Mr. Palmer --
MR. DYMOND: Now I object to anything another person stated, Your Honor.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I didn't even ask --
MR. ALCOCK: He didn't ask the question. How can you object?
MR. DYMOND: He was about to testify.
MR. ALCOCK: You can anticipate.
THE COURT: When you make your objections, make them to me and let me rule.
MR. DYMOND: I made the objection after the witness commenced testifying. If I don't make it then, I might as well not make it.
THE COURT: I sustain your objection. I might suggest, Mr. Sciambra, if you change the form of the question to the effect, did he have a conversation with someone, he could say yes, but not what that person said.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Did you have a conversation with anyone in regard to this automobile?

A: Yes, sir, I did.
THE COURT: That is as far as you can go.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: As a result of this conversation, did you do anything?

A: Yes, sir, I checked this automobile out.
Q: What do you mean you "checked it out"?
A: I walked over and talked to the man that was behind the wheel of this car.
Q: How many people did you see in the car?
A: There was two men in it.
Q: Were they in the front or the back seat?
A: Both in the front seat.
Q: Can you describe the individual on the passenger side?
A: No, sir, I can't. Mister, I didn't talk to him.
Q: Which one did you talk to?
A: I talked to the driver.
Q: The driver of the automobile?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you describe the man behind the wheel of the automobile that you talked to?
A: Yes, sir. He was a big man, gray-haired, ruddy complexion, a real easy-talking man.
Q: Do you see the man in the courtroom today that you talked to?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you point him out to us.
(The witness complied.)
THE COURT: I didn't see you. Well, answer by voice, because there is nothing going in the record.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: (Indicating) Is this the individual that you pointed to?

A: Yes, sir.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Will the record please reflect the witness pointed to the Defendant before the bar, Clay Shaw.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Would you tell the Court what you said to the Defendant and what the Defendant said to you at that time.

A: I can't remember exactly the words that I used to get this man's identification. I approached him like I do anyone that I am -- I want to find out the identity of them and I ask them where they are from or what their name is.
Q: When you asked this individual where he was from, did he say anything?
A: He said he was a representative of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans.
Q: Did you ever talk to anyone from the International Trade Mart before this day?
A: No, sir, I hadn't.
Q: Was that all the conversation you had with this gentleman?
A: That was enough to satisfy me that he wasn't concerned with this.
MR. DYMOND: I object to what satisfied the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I think in his role as the Town Marshal, the purpose of him questioning, however he questioned, I think he can state as the Town Marshal that he was satisfied with the answer.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I submit he can say he felt he had asked enough questions, but to give his opinion or his impression as to the result of these questions is not within the scope of this witness's purpose on the stand.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, the testimony of the witness was to the effect that he approached this car to ask his identity or his reason for being in town because of the situation that prevailed at the time. The answer in response is perfectly logical.
THE COURT: I will permit the answer, I think it is relevant to the Jury because of his peculiar position as Town Marshal. I may sustain, but as Town Marshal I think he can give the reason he stopped him for examination. I will permit it.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we reserve a bill of exception, making the question, the answer, the objection, the Court's ruling thereon, and the entire record part of the bill.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Do you remember the question?

THE COURT: Repeat the question, or would you like to have it read? Read it back.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE COURT: And that is when you were interrupted. Would you like to continue your answer, Mr. Manchester?
MR. DYMOND: I would like to make the answer part of the bill of exception, I want to make the answer part of the bill, too.
THE COURT: Very well. Can you pick up where you left off?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
A: (Continuing) On checking anybody from out of town at this particular time, I wouldn't spend any more time with any one individual than I had to to get an identification from him.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: In other words, you were satisfied with the identification he gave you? Is that correct?

A: That is right.
Q: Now, after your conversation with him, did you have a conversation with anyone else in regard to the black Cadillac?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was that conversation with?
A: Mr. Palmer, Henry Earl Palmer.
Q: What is his name?
A: Henry E. Palmer, Registrar of Voters.
Q: And what did you tell Mr. Palmer in relationship to the Cadillac and the individual in the Cadillac?
A: I told Mr. Palmer that he didn't have anything to worry about the people in this Cadillac, that they was from International Trade Mart and they wasn't -- as far as I knew, it wasn't anything to do with this voter registration business.
Q: Now, Mr. Manchester, did you see the Defendant Shaw's picture in the paper after he was arrested by this office?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Did you recognize him then?
A: No, sir, I didn't pay that much (attention).
Q: When did you recognize him?
A: After he was -- after Mr. Shaw was charged, then I got to -- I got to putting the pieces together that I had seen this man before somewhere.
Q: Did you tell anyone about this?
A: Yes, sir, I talked to Mr. Palmer, I believe, about it.
Q: Anyone else besides Mr. Palmer?
A: Yes, sir, Lieutenant Francis Fruge, State Police.
Q: Do you remember when this was?
A: No, sir. It was some time after, a good while after he was arrested. I don't remember exactly how long it was.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I tender the witness.






HENRY EARL PALMER, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Please state your name for the record.

A: Henry Earl Palmer, P-a-l-m-e-r.
Q: That is Henry Earl Palmer?
A: Correct.
Q: What is your address, Mr. Palmer?
A: Jackson, Louisiana.
Q: And how long have you lived in Jackson?
A: Practically all my life.
Q: What is your occupation?
A: I am Registrar of Voters for the Parish of East Feliciana.
Q: And where is your office located?
A: In Clinton, Louisiana.
Q: And how long have you been Registrar of Voters in Clinton?
A: Eleven years.
Q: So I take it you were the Registrar of Voters in 1963?
A: That is correct.
Q: And where was your office located in 1963?
A: On St. Helena Street on the second floor of the old -- what is the name of that building? -- I don't remember the name -- the building right across the street from the garage there.
Q: In connection with your business as Registrar of Voters in Clinton, Louisiana, I call your attention to late August or early September of 1963, and I ask you if anything unusual was happening in Clinton at that time.
A: Yes. In August -- I don't know exactly what time, sometime the first of August -- the Civil Rights workers came into Clinton trying to raise -- to register the people.
Q: There was a voter registration drive?
A: There was a voter registration drive.
Q: Were there many people involved in this activity?
A: Yes, there was quite a number.
Q: Were they local people or people from out of town?
A: They had some out-of-town people in trying to get the local people to register.
Q: Did you notice any particular strangers --
A: Yes, I did.
Q: -- that day? When did you have occasion to notice them?
A: Well, about 10:30. I went in the office at 8:30 in the morning, and I started registering people, and at 10:30 I took a coffee break. I went down the stairs, and as I was going down I noticed two white people dressed similar to the CORE Workers outside, CORE Workers in the line.
Q: Were there many white people in line?
A: No others that I remember of, these were the only two that were conspicuous.
Q: And what did you say they were doing?
A: Very close together.
Q: When you say "very close together," do you mean spacewise or acquainted together?
A: There was tow or three people between them.
Q: So, in other words, you had no idea --
A: No idea.
Q: -- whether they were with each other?
A: That is right.
Q: After you passed these two people in line on the way down, what did you do then?
A: I started to cross the street to go to the cafe to get coffee, and as I started across the street I saw one of the local workers standing in the street, and just beyond him was a black Cadillac sitting there. Being a small town and very few Cadillacs in the town, I noticed it and noticed that there were two men sitting in the car.
Q: Now, how far was this Cadillac from the Registrar's office?
A: It was approximately 20 feet from the door east of the Registrar's office.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you a picture that the State has marked "S-2" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you can identify the automobile in this picture.
A: The car looks exactly like the one that was sitting in front of my office.
Q: And when you passed this automobile on the way to the coffee shop, approximately how far from the automobile were you?
A: I must have gotten within 16 feet of it, something along that, 16 or 20 feet.
Q: You mentioned the CORE worker standing near the automobile. Do you know this CORE Worker's name?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is his name?
A: Corrie Collins.
Q: He was working with the CORE people?
A: Yes. He had just begun; he had registered a short time before that, and he had taken over as the President of the CORE chapter in Clinton.
Q: Did you have any conversation as regards this car, with anyone?
A: Yes, when I got across the street.
Q: What did you say and who did you say it to?
THE COURT: Let me caution you, Mr. Palmer, you can state the name of the person you spoke to and you can state what you said, but you cannot state what he said in reply to what you said. Understand me?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Good. Go ahead.
A: I don't remember who I met across the street, it was somebody over in front of the barber shop, and -- Judge, I don't know how I am going to --
THE COURT: I know it is going to be difficult. Just tell us what you said, don't tell us what he said. See if you can try to do it.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Just tell us what you told him, if anything.

A: I didn't tell the man anything, he told me something, and I saw a law officer there -- and I don't remember which law officer it was, but it was one of the local officers -- and I told him to get a 1028 on the car.
Q: Now, what is a 1028?
A: It is a registration, license registration check.
Q: In other words, checking out the identification of the automobile?
A: That is correct.
Q: Was this a common practice during this time?
A: Yes, it was; when there were strange cars in town we tried to find out who they were.
Q: What about strange individuals in town? Weren't you particularly interested with them at the time?
A: Very much so.
Q: Would you make it a point to notice any strangers during this time?
A: We did, everyone that came in.
MR. DYMOND: I am going to object to leading the witness.
THE COURT: Do not lead the witness, Mr. Sciambra.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Did you notice any individuals in the car?

A: Yes, I did, I saw two in the front seat.
Q: Can you describe the individual on the passenger side?
A: Well, the man on the passenger side, all I can tell you about him, he appeared -- his eyebrows were heavy and his hair needed combing. He had messed-up hair, I noticed that. That is all I could see of him.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I would like to have this marked "S-3", for purposes of identification.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-3.")
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you what the State has marked "S-3" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you recognize the individual in this picture?

A: I can't recognize the individual, but the hair and the eyebrows are similar.
Q: In other words, you would say the hair and the eyebrows are similar?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know who this person is?
A: From the picture I know, now.
Q: Who is it?
A: That is Mr. Ferrie.
Q: Can you describe the man who was behind the wheel of the automobile?
A: The man that was behind the wheel, I saw him sitting down. He appeared to be a tall man, he had broad shoulders and quite gray hair, and his complexion was -- well, it wasn't light, in other words, kind of ruddy complexion.
Q: Now do you see anyone in this courtroom today who fits the same general description of the man that you saw in the automobile in Clinton?
A: I would say that man right there (indicating) has the same kind of hair, and I can't see his shoulders from the back.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Would you have the record reflect that this witness pointed to the Defendant Clay Shaw?
THE COURT: Let it be so noted in the record.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: How far would you say you were from the man behind the wheel when you noticed him?

A: I couldn't have been over 15 or 20 feet, somewhere in that area.
Q: And how many times would you say you had an occasion to either look at that automobile or look at the individuals in the automobile that day?
A: Well, as far as the individuals, I didn't pay any more attention to them. The car was there -- let's see, I saw it when I went to coffee, when I cam back from coffee, when I went to lunch and came back from lunch, and in the afternoon when I went to coffee and came back. That was six times I saw the car.
Q: In other words, you would say the car was there from in the morning when you first went to get coffee, which was around 9:30, if I remember correctly?
A: Or 10:30; from 10:30 to approximately 3:40 or something along in there.
Q: 10:30 in the morning until 3:40 in the afternoon?
A: Correct.
Q: Did you have any conversations with any law enforcement officer or persons in relationship to the 1028 with the automobile?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And who did you have the conversation with?
A: I don't remember who it was. Whoever it was came back and --
MR. DYMOND: Object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Don't tell us what you said.
THE WITNESS: I am not going to.
A: I asked him who it was.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Did he tell you who it was?

A: Yes, he told me who it was.
Q: Now, in relationship to what he told you, did you have any comments or did you have any conversation with him?
A: I didn't understand you.
Q: In relationship to what he told you, did you say anything further to him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was it?
A: I asked him what were they doing here.
THE COURT: I can't hear you.
THE WITNESS: I asked them what those people were doing here.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Did you talk to him in reference to where the automobile was from?

A: I did.
Q: What did you say to him in that regard?
A: I asked him what the International Trade Mart representatives were doing in Clinton.
Q: Did he comment about this?
A: He did.
MR. DYMOND: Object.
THE COURT: He is not asking what he said, he said did he comment. He didn't ask the witness what he said. The answer is yes, he did. That is as far as you can go.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: After your morning coffee break, what was the next time you left the office?

A: At noon -- I left at 1:00 o'clock, we was open from 9:00 until 1:00 and open again at 2:00 till 6:00.
Q: Now, when you left for lunch were the two white people still in line?
A: Yes, sir, they were.
Q: Were the two men still in the front seat of the car?
A: I am sure they were. I noticed it was still outside, I didn't pay any more attention, I tell you, except the car was still there.
Q: Now, when did you return from lunch?
A: I came back to the office about quarter of 1:00 -- quarter of 2:00, sorry.
Q: And the automobile was still parked there?
A: The automobile was still parked there and I noticed the two men still in it.




THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Sciambra. You were talking at the same time and it is hard for the Court Reporter to get it when two people are talking. You may proceed.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Were the two men still in line?

A: They were.
Q: After your lunch break, when was the next time you left the office?
A: At approximately 3:30 I went back for coffee.
Q: Were the two men in the automobile still there?
A: I noticed them still sitting there.
Q: And when you returned from coffee after the coffee break, was the automobile --
A: They were still there.
Q: Would you tell the Court what happened when you got back in your office after the 3:30 coffee break.
A: Soon after I got back, the first white man came in the office. I asked him for his identification, and he gave me a driver's license from Livingston Parish. His name was Estes [sic] Morgan, and he didn't have enough identification to register because he couldn't prove that he was in the Parish long enough so I sent him out.
Q: When did the next white boy come in?
A: Probably one or two others came between him, and then he came. I asked him for his identification, and he pulled out a U.S. Navy ID card.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Now I show you a picture that the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you recognize the individual in this picture?
A: Yes, sir, I do.
Q: Is this the individual who came into your office that day?
A: It is.
Q: Do you know who is the individual in that picture?
A: Lee H. Oswald.
Q: Would you tell the Court what transpired when you talked to Oswald in your office.
A: When Mr. Oswald came in there and gave me the identification, ID card, I looked at the name on it, had Lee H. Oswald with a New Orleans address -- I don't remember what the address was. I asked him where he lived, and -- can I state what he said, where he lived?
MR. DYMOND: We object to anything said.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Don't tell us anything he said.

THE COURT: Don't tell us anything he said but tell us what questions you put to him, what you said to him. I know it is a little difficult, but try.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: In reference to what he was trying to do, tell us what you told him.

A: He was trying to -- wanted a job at the hospital in Jackson.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, he is trying to do indirectly what can't be done directly.
THE COURT: It is a difficult situation. Just tell us, if you will, Mr. Palmer, what you told him you had to find out from him if he told you that. Just tell us what you spoke to him about.
A: His ID card didn't identify his living in the Parish of East Feliciana, so I told him, asked him if he knew the business manager at the hospital in Jackson or if he knew the Mayor of the Town of Jackson or if he knew the Representative of the Parish. He couldn't give me any proof that he was living in the Parish long enough, but I told him he did not have to be a registered voter to get a job at the Jackson Hospital. He thanked me and left.
Q: How long did you say you talked to Oswald at that --
A: Oswald was in the office approximately 15 or 20 minutes.
Q: How many times did you see Oswald in line before you talked to him in your office?
A: He was in line when I went down for coffee and when I come back and went for lunch and when I come back and when I went for coffee in the afternoon and when I came back, and then he came in my office.
Q: And how close did you get to him on these occasions?
A: He was standing on the steps, and the steps were about four feet wide, and I had to go right by him.
Q: Approximately what time did you leave your office that day?
A: At approximately quarter to 6:00 I imagine, somewhere around in that area they quit coming in and I closed.
Q: Was the black Cadillac still parked outside when you left your office that day?
A: No, sir, it had gone.
Q: About what time did you say Oswald left your office?
A: A little after 4:00.
Q: And did you go outside any time between the time that he left the office and the time you left the office?
A: No, I never left the office any more.
Q: Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald's picture on the television or in the newspaper after the assassination?
A: I was watching the television when they put him on the first time, and recognized him.
Q: Where did you recognize him from?
A: From the man that came in my office to register.
Q: Did you see Shaw's picture in the newspaper?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: No, sir.
MR. DYMOND: Objection.
THE COURT: What is your objection?
MR. DYMOND: I will withdraw the objection.
(LAUGHTER)
THE BAILIFF: Order in court!
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Do you remember the first law enforcement agency or officer that you told this to?

A: I didn't understand that, Mr. Sciambra.
Q: Do you remember the first law enforcement officer that you told this to?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Who was that?
A: Mr. Francis Fruge.
Q: Have you ever been questioned by the FBI about this?
A: I have not.
Q: Has the FBI ever shown any interest in the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Jackson and Clinton?
MR. DYMOND: That is objected to, Your Honor, on the ground that it calls for a conclu- sion of the witness as to whether the FBI has shown interest.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Have the FBI ever contacted you?

A: They have not.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I tender the witness, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Palmer, approximately when was this voter registration drive up there in Clinton?

A: Mr. Dymond -- I believe it is Mr. Dymond, is it?
Q: Yes, that is right.
A: -- it started sometime in the last part of July.
Q: Of what year was that, sir?
A: Of 1963.
Q: 1963?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So if you tried to pin this down as to date, what would be the best estimate of date that you could give?
A: Well, Mr. Dymond, after checking back over my records after talking to Mr. Fruge and them, I can pinpoint it pretty close.
Q: And what would you say?
A: It was in the last part of August or the first part of September, right in there.
Q: I see. Now, when you say these two men whom you have described, were they sitting in this black Cadillac, Mr. Palmer?
A: Yes, sir, they were.
Q: They were?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And about how close to them did you get, sir?
A: About 15 to 20 feet.
Q: But you did get a good look at them?
A: No, sir, I didn't get a good look at them, I just saw the back of them, I didn't see the faces.
Q: You didn't see either man's face?
A: No, side view of the man on the right, and as far as the man on the left, I saw the back of his head and shoulders, just the back part right back here (indicating), that is all I can say.
Q: Well, actually I guess you only saw one eyebrow on the man with the bushy eyebrows?
A: Yes, just one eyebrow; he was turned kind of to the side, you could see that.
Q: So actually in describing these two individuals, all that you can really describe is the back of the head and the shoulders of one and the profile of the other? Is that correct?
A: That is correct, sir.
Q: And as I understand your testimony, Mr. Palmer, you are willing to say that the one whose profile you saw had mussed-up hair and one bushy eyebrow? Is that correct, sir?
A: That is correct.
Q: And the other man whom you saw had gray hair and broad shoulders?
A: Broad shoulders, and appeared tall from sitting down. He could have been a short man with a long upper waist, I couldn't tell you, all I saw was sitting --
Q: In all honesty that is as far as you can go?
A: That is as far as I can go.
Q: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Do you have any further need of this witness, Gentlemen?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Palmer, I show you a picture that the Defense has marked "D-2" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you recognize the individual in that picture.

A: Yes, sir, I do.
Q: Do you know who the individual in that picture is?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Who is it?
A: Mr. Banister.
Q: Where do you know Mr. Banister from?
A: I knew Mr. Banister in the Service in World War II.
Q: Is there any possibility that Mr. Banister could have been the person in that automobile?
A: I am sure I would have known Mr. Banister if I had seen him.
Q: Thank you.
BY THE COURT:
Q: That is Mr. Guy Banister?

A: Yes, sir.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you what the Defense has marked "D-1" for purposes of identification, and I ask you do you recognize the person in that picture.

A: No, sir.
THE COURT: I can't hear you.
THE WITNESS: Right offhand I can't. Looks like Guy Banister but I don't believe it is.
MR. SCIAMBRA: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any further questions, Mr. Dymond?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, just one further question.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Palmer, showing you again this photograph "D-2," you say it looks like Mr. Banister but you couldn't be sure? Is that right?

A: No. If it was since I -- no, I don't believe it is Guy Banister.
Q: Now, Mr. Palmer, in all honesty you would not testify, sir, that you could recognize Mr. Banister just by seeing the back of his head and his shoulders, would you, sir?
A: No, but I think if Guy Banister had been there I would have seen him, I would have recognized him.
Q: But not by just seeing the back of his head and his shoulders?
A: I don't know, but I --
MR. DYMOND: That is all, sir.
THE COURT: Step down. Any further need of this witness, gentlemen, either the State or the Defense?
MR. DYMOND: No, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Palmer, you are excused. Take the Jury upstairs. We will take a recess for about ten minutes.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)




CORRIE COLLINS, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Would you tell us your full name for the record, please.

A: My first name is Corrie, C-o-r-r-i-e.
Q: What is your last name?
A: Collins, C-o-l-l-i-n-s.
Q: State your name one more time for the Court.
A: My name is Corrie C. Collins.
Q: Where do you live, Mr. Collins?
A: I live in Baton Rouge.
Q: Beg pardon?
A: I live in Baton Rouge.
Q: How long have you lived in Baton Rouge?
A: Three years.
Q: Where did you live before you lived in Baton Rouge?
A: Clinton.
Q: And when were you living in Clinton, Louisiana?
A: Well, I lived about all my life in Clinton, Louisiana, until I moved to Baton Rouge.
Q: What is your present occupation?
A: Mailman, mail handler.
Q: Is that out of Baton Rouge?
A: That is right, at present.
Q: And how long have you been with the Postal Department?
A: Two years.
Q: You say you were living in Clinton, Louisiana, in 1963?
A: That is right.
Q: And where were you working at that time?
A: East Feliciana Hospital in Louisiana.
Q: Were you doing anything in Clinton, Louisiana, in addition to your job at the hospital at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: What was it?
A: I was Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality.
Q: For the Clinton area?
A: Right, for the Clinton Chapter.
Q: In this connection I call your attention to late August or early September, 1963, and ask you if anything unusual happened in Clinton during that period of time.
A: Yes. We were down at the --
Q: Talk into the mike, please.
A: We were down in the neighborhood of the Registrar's Office, and a big black car drove up, and in the car there were three men.
Q: Now, you say a big black car drove up. Did you see the car drive up?
A: Yes, I was there when it drove up.
Q: Where did the car park?
A: It parked in front of the Registrar's Office.
Q: How far would you say it parked from the Registrar's Office?
A: How far from the Registrar's Office?
Q: Yes.
A: I would say about 20 or 30 feet.
Q: Can you describe this car?
A: It was a Cadillac, it was dark colored, and it was a couple of years old, within a couple of years.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you what the State has marked "S-2" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you recognize the automobile in this picture.
A: This would be the same, about the same car, yes.
THE COURT: Speak a little louder so we can hear you. What was your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I can hear you. Repeat your answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, this would be the same car.
THE COURT: You are dropping your voice. Keep it on the same level.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: What was your response to this automobile?

A: What was the response to it?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, this would be the same car, yes.
Q: You mean the same kind of car?
A: Yes, same type car.
Q: Would there be any particular reason for you to be noticing strange cars in town around that time?
A: Yes, it was part of my duties. Usually during the day I would make trips at different intervals through town to check and see if there were anything unusual going on or if the people that were trying to register were having any trouble or any difficulty.
Q: And in this connection I take it you spent most of your time around the Registrar's Office?
A: Yes, in most cases.
Q: Was this car familiar to you?
A: No, it wasn't.
Q: Had you ever seen it before?
A: No, I had never seen it before.
Q: Approximately what time did the car pull up?
A: I would say between 9:30 and 10:00.
Q: Did you notice any people in the car?
A: Yes.
Q: How many people?
A: There were three people.
Q: And how were they seated in the automobile?
A: There were two in front and one in the rear.
Q: After the automobile pulled up, did these people do anything in the car?
A: Yes, one man got out.
Q: Could you tell from where in the car the man came from?
A: Yes, he got out of the rear.
Q: Out of the rear seat?
A: Right.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you what the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you can recognize the individual in this photograph.
A: Yes.
Q: Where do you recognize him from?
A: Well, immediately I recognize him from seeing him in Clinton. This is the man that did get out of the car.
Q: Do you know who that person is now?
A: Yes, I know who.
Q: Who is it?
A: It is Lee Harvey Oswald.
THE COURT: What did you say? I didn't hear his answer and I am right next to him. What was your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he is Lee Harvey Oswald.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: When Oswald got out of the back seat of the car, did you notice what the other two men in the front seat were doing?

A: They didn't get out, they remained in the car.
Q: How far from the car were you when you noticed it?
A: I would say about 20 or 30 feet.
Q: Did anyone go up to the automobile while you were looking at it?
A: Yes, Manchester went to the automobile.
Q: Now, Manchester, who is Manchester?
A: He is the Town Marshal in Clinton.
Q: Did you see what he did when he went up to the automobile?
A: Well, he talked with the -- he walked up to the driver's side and he talked with --
Q: Now, don't tell us anything he may have said.
A: No, I am not saying anything that he may have said, but he talked with the occupants of the car.
Q: How long would you say he talked to the driver of the car?
A: Well, I wouldn't have any idea how long he talked, but he did talk with them.
Q: In relationship to Manchester going up and talking to the driver of the automobile, did you have any comment?
A: Yes, we said that they are trading with the enemy, this is the statement we made.
Q: Now, what did you mean by that?
A: When the car drove up it was our assumption that they were maybe Federal men or FBI agents, and at that time Manchester was considered the enemy, so we said that they were trading with the enemy.
Q: Can you describe the men in the car in the front seat?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe the man behind the wheel?
A: Yes, heavy built, gray hair. I would say he was between 40 and 50, somewhere in that area, and he had on a light color hat.
Q: Do you see the man behind the wheel in this courtroom today?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you point to him, please?
A: (Indicating) Right here.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Would you have the record reflect that the witness pointed to the Defendant Clay Shaw?
THE COURT: Let it be so noted in the record.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Did you get a chance to see the person on the passenger side of the car?

A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe him?
A: I would say he was medium built, but the most outstanding thing about him was his eyebrows and his hair. They didn't seem real, in other words, they were unnatural, didn't seem as if they were real hair.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you a picture that the State has marked for purposes of identification "S-3," and I ask you if you can identify or do you recognize the person in this picture?
A: Yes, this is the other man that was in the car.
Q: Do you know who this person is?
A: Yes, that is David Ferrie.
Q: Did you ever see any of the men get out of the car in the front seat?
A: No, I only saw the one man get out.
Q: Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald's picture in the paper after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: Yes.
Q: From where?
A: I recognized him from having seen him in Clinton. I didn't at the particular time place just where I saw him, but I knew it was from the Clinton area that I had seen him.
Q: Did you see the Defendant Clay Shaw's picture in the paper after the arrest of him?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: Yes, I recognized him, yes, I recognized him, yes.
Q: What about Dave Ferrie?
A: Yes, I recognized him.
Q: Did you recognize him from Clinton?
A: Yes, from the Clinton area.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I will show this picture to Mr. Dymond (exhibiting photograph to Counsel).
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Is this a picture of the same person who got out of the back seat of that car?

THE COURT: Identify it first, Mr. Sciambra.
MR. SCIAMBRA: "S-1" for purposes of identification.
THE COURT: All right.
A: Yes.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: You know the individual in this picture?

A: Beg pardon?
Q: Do you know who the individual in this picture is?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is it?
A: Lee Harvey Oswald.
Q: Do you remember the first law enforcement officer that you told this to?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was it?
A: Lieutenant Fruge.
Q: Have you ever been questioned by the FBI regarding this person?
A: No.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I tender the witness, Your Honor.


CLAY SHAW




CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA versus CLAY L. SHAW
NO. 198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT
on February 7, 1969

B E F O R E: HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
. . . . Pursuant to the adjournment of Thursday, February 6, 1969, the Proceedings herein were resumed at 10:00 o'clock a.m. on Friday, February 7, 1969, appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record . . . .
THE COURT: I have been requested by Mr. Dymond of the Defense not to bring the Jury down because he wished to make an oral motion. I will be glad to entertain you, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time on behalf of the Defendant we move for permission to withdraw from the registry of the Court, or from evidence, if it is done after it is introduced in evidence, the document referred to by the State in its opening statement as the "VIP Book of Eastern Airlines" for the purpose of having Mr. Gilbert Fortier, a duly qualified handwriting expert, make an examination of the purported signature in that book.
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, the State has no objection to that, with this one proviso, that a representative of the District Attorney's Office is present at the time that Mr. Fortier does examine this document.
MR. DYMOND: We have no objection at all to that, Judge.
THE COURT: Very well. At the proper time I will so order the document to be placed in a position where your expert can make an examination of it. Do you have any further motions?
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
THE COURT: Bring the Jury, please.
(Whereupon, the Jury was recalled to the Courtroom.)
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: We are ready, Judge.
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
MR. SCIAMBRA: The State calls Mr. William Dunn.
WILLIAM DUNN, SR., a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: State your name to the Court, please.

A: William Dunn, Sr.
Q: And where do you live, Mr. Dunn?
A: I live in Clinton.
Q: Clinton, Louisiana?
A: Clinton, Louisiana.
Q: And how long have you lived in Clinton, Louisiana?
A: Practically all my life.
Q: And what is your occupation?
A: Farming and construction work there.
Q: And how long have you been farming and doing construction work?
A: Mostly all my life.
Q: Were you doing this work in 1963?
A: I was.
Q: In connection with this word did you have occasion to do any of this work in Clinton in the summer of '63?
A: I was.
Q: Did you have any purpose to go in to Clinton, Louisiana, in addition to your regular jobs, in the summer of 1963?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What was that occasion?
A: I was working with CORE in Clinton.
Q: The Congress of Racial Equality?
A: The Congress of Racial Equality people.
Q: And this was in the summer of 1963?
A: 1963.
Q: In relationship with your dealings with CORE, what did this consist of?
A: I beg your pardon?
Q: What were you doing for CORE in Clinton, Louisiana?
A: Trying to help register people up.
Q: Was this the time when they had the registration drive going on?
A: That is right, the registration drive was going on.
Q: Did you get in to Clinton a lot?
A: I did.
Q: In the course of your activity with CORE in Clinton, Louisiana, I call your attention to late August or early September of 1963, and I ask you: Did you have occasion to see any strange cars in town at that time?
A: Yes, I did, I seen a black Cadillac parked in Clinton.
Q: Where was the black Cadillac?
A: Right in front of the Registrar's Office.
Q: Can you remember about when this was?
A: I was standing in front of the Registrar's Office door.
Q: About when was this?
A: About when it was?
Q: Yes, when.
A: Oh, in 1963, late August or early September.
Q: How can you arrive at that time?
A: I arrived because it was about a month and a half before you go to cane farming.
Q: About a month and a half before you go into cane farming. And when was the date you went to cane farming?
A: I didn't understand you.
Q: What date did you go on the cane farming?
A: Usually goes on the cane farming on the 13th of October.
Q: In other words, about a month or a month and a half before October 13, 1963?
A: Month and a half before October 13.
Q: About how far from the Registrar's Office would you say the black Cadillac was parked?
A: Maybe 20 or 30 feet.
Q: Can you describe the black Cadillac?
A: I can.
Q: Would you give us a description?
A: It was a big black Cadillac, shiny looking. I saw mostly the front of it though.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you a photograph which the State has marked "S-2" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you can identify the automobile in this photograph.
A: This looks like the car right here.
Q: Just like the car parked in front of the Registrar's Office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was there any particular reason why you happened to notice this car?
A: Yes, it was a strange car to me, I had never seen that car before there in town. Fact of the business, the car was there -- I thought it was the FBI.
Q: You thought the car was the FBI?
A: I thought it was the FBI.
Q: Were there FBI agents in the area at that time?
A: I believe it was.
Q: Would it be fair to say that in the course of this registration drive --
MR. DYMOND: I object to leading the witness, Your Honor, "Would it be fair to say."
THE COURT: Rephrase your question, if you will, Mr. Sciambra.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Were you paying attention to all strange cars in the area at the time?

A: I was, all the strange cars, I was paying close attention.
Q: Can you remember about what time of the day you got there?
A: I got there about 9:00 or 9:30.
Q: In the morning?
A: In the morning.
Q: Was the black Cadillac there when you got there?
A: No, it wasn't there when I got there.
Q: Did you see the car pull up?
A: No, I did not.
Q: What did you do when you got in Clinton that day?
A: I went on and got in the registration line.
Q: Right in the Registration Office, you say?
A: In the Registration Office, yes, near to the Registration Office, but I was in the line.
Q: Did you stay in the Registrar's Office?
A: No, I didn't stay.
Q: -- all morning?
A: I didn't stay in there, I come down and talked with some of the CORE workers I was working with.
Q: Do you remember any of the CORE workers that you talked to when you came downstairs?
A: Corrie Collins.
Q: Corrie Collins was also working for CORE?
A: That is right.
Q: Can you remember approximately where you were standing when you first noticed the black Cadillac?
A: I was standing in front of the Registration Office, just on the outside.
Q: About how far from the car were you?
A: Oh, about 20 or 30 feet.
Q: Did you notice if there were any people in the car?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: How many?
A: I knows one man was setting behind the wheel, and maybe be another one but I am not sure.
Q: In the front seat maybe another one?
A: On the front seat.
Q: But you are not sure about the other one?
A: I am not sure about the other one.
Q: What made you notice the man behind the wheel?
A: Because he was a stranger to me.
Q: How far away from the car were you when you noticed the man behind the wheel?
A: About 20 or 30 feet.
Q: Can you approximate how long you had to look at him?
A: Five or ten minutes.
Q: Can you describe the man behind the wheel?
A: I can. He was -- big shoulders, big man, and gray hair.
Q: Do you see that man in this courtroom today?
A: I do.
Q: Would you point him out, please?
A: (Indicating) Right here.
MR. SCIAMBRA: May we have the record reflect that the witness pointed to the Defendant before the bar, Clay Shaw?
THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: What was he doing in the car?

A: Just setting in the car.
Q: Did you notice anyone go up to the car?
A: No, sir, I didn't.
Q: Were there many people in line waiting to register?
A: It was.
Q: About how many people would you say were in line?
A: Oh, 25 or 30.
Q: Did you notice any strangers in the registration line?
A: I did, I noticed one young white boy in the registration line.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you a picture that the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you recognize the individual in this picture?
A: That is the boy's picture was standing in line.
Q: Do you know who this person is?
A: I do.
Q: Who is it?
A: Lee Oswald.
Q: Was there any particular reason why you happened to notice this boy?
A: He was a stranger to me, I had never seen him before.
Q: Were there many white people in line?
A: Just a few.
Q: How many would you say?
A: Maybe four or five.
Q: Did you ever talk to Oswald?
A: No, sir, I did not.
Q: About how many times would you say you passed Oswald that day?
A: Just a few times.
Q: Was he in line every time you passed him?
A: Every time I passed.
Q: Do you remember what time you got to talk to the Registrar that day?
A: About the middle of the day.
Q: And how long did you talk to the Registrar?
A: Just a short while.
Q: And who is the Registrar, or who was the Registrar at that time?
A: Palmer.
Q: Henry E. Palmer?
A: Henry E. Palmer.
Q: Can you remember about what time you left the Registrar's Office?
A: I left there about 2:00 or 2:30.
Q: Was Oswald in line when you left?
A: He was in line when I left.
Q: What did you do after you left the Registrar's Office?
A: I went on home, went to my farm.
Q: Did you ever see Oswald get out of that line?
A: No, sir, I did not.
Q: Did you see Oswald's picture in the newspaper after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: I did.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: Sure did.
Q: Where did you recognize him from?
A: I recognized him from seeing him in Clinton, my home town.
Q: Did you see Clay Shaw's picture in the paper after that?
A: I did.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: I recognize him.
Q: Where did you recognize him from?
A: Recognized him from seeing him in my home town setting in the black Cadillac.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Tender the witness, Your Honor.



MRS. BOBBIE DEDON, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Please state your name for the record.

A: Mrs. Bobbie Dedon.
Q: Mrs. Dedon, where do you live?
A: Baton Rouge.
Q: And how long have you lived in Baton Rouge?
A: About a year now.
Q: And what is your occupation?
A: Doctor's assistant.
Q: And how long have you been a doctor's assistant?
A: A year and about four months.
Q: Where were you employed in the summer of 1963?
A: East Louisiana State Hospital.
Q: And where is that?
A: Jackson.
Q: And in what capacity were you employed at the East Louisiana State Hospital?
A: At the clinic as a receptionist.
Q: In relationship to your duties as a receptionist, in regards to where the personnel office was, did you ever have occasion to talk to anyone?
A: Yes.
Q: In that relationship I call your attention to late August or early September, 1963, and I ask you if anyone asked you for instructions --
A: Yes.
Q: -- how to get to the personnel office.
A: Yes.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you a picture that the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you have ever seen the person in this picture.
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you see this person?
A: At my desk at the clinic.
Q: Can you approximately remember about what time it was?
A: September, early part of September.
Q: Do you know who this person is?
A: It is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Q: Can you remember what you talked to Lee Harvey Oswald about?
A: He wanted to know where he could go to put in an application.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object to any conversation.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Just tell us what you told Oswald.
A: I just told him directions to go to the center building which is the administration building.
Q: What was in the administration building at the time?
A: The main offices.
Q: Where would a person go to apply for a job?
A: At the administration building.
Q: Can you remember about what time of day this was?
A: It was around lunch, because I was getting ready to go to lunch.
Q: About how long did you talk to Oswald in relationship to where the personnel office was?
A: Just a few minutes.
Q: What did he do after you talked to him?
A: Just left.
Q: Was that the last time you saw him that day?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Did you see a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspaper after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you recognize him?
A: No; I knew he looked familiar.
Q: You didn't recognize him from any particular place though?
A: No.
Q: Can you remember the first law enforcement officer that you talked to in relation to this?
A: Yes, Lieutenant Fruge.
Q: Who was that?
A: Lieutenant Fruge.
Q: Louisiana State Police?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he show you any photographs?
A: Yes, he showed me a lot of photographs?
Q: Did you identify any photographs?
A: I identified Lee Harvey Oswald.
Q: You identified Lee Harvey Oswald's photograph?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you recognize the photograph at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: And where did you recognize it from?
A: From me talking to him.
Q: Were you ever questioned by the FBI in regards to this?
A: No.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I tender the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mrs. Dedon, you said you have talked with Lee Harvey Oswald for only a few minutes at your desk?

A: Yes.
Q: How many minutes would you say that was?
A: Long enough to give his directions to go around the building and to the front.
Q: Would you say three or four minutes?
A: Four or five minutes.
Q: I see, Do you recall how he was dressed that day?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Do you recall his general appearance, that is, whether he was neat looking or sloppy looking or generally how he looked?
A: No.
Q: Did he impress you as a neat individual or as a disheveled individual?
A: I didn't really -- I didn't pay that much attention to him.
Q: Did he have a beard on?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You don't remember whether he had a beard?
A: Right.
Q: You don't?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
THE COURT: Do you have any further need of Mrs. Dedon?
MR. SCIAMBRA: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If not, you are excused from the subpoena.
Call your next witness.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)



MRS. MAXINE KEMP, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Please state your name for the record.

A: Mrs. Maxine Kemp.
Q: Mrs. Kemp, where do you live?
A: Clinton.
Q: Clinton, Louisiana?
A: That is right.
Q: And how long have you lived in Clinton?
A: All my life.
Q: And what is your occupation?
A: I am classified as a typist-clerk, I am classified under Civil Service as a Typist-Clerk 3, and I act as a secretary to the Personnel Office at East Louisiana State Hospital.
Q: In other words, you work in the office, personnel office, of East Louisiana State Hospital?
A: That is right.
Q: When did you go to work at the East Louisiana State Hospital?
A: September of 1964.
Q: In connection with your duties at the hospital in September of 1964, I ask you if anything unusual happened to you?
A: I came across an application for employment.
Q: In the personnel files?
A: That is right.
Q: What was the name on this application?
A: Harvey Oswald.
Q: Now, how was the application written, was it first name last or last name first?
A: Last name first.
Q: And then first name after the last name?
A: That is right, then the middle name.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object to this, first on the ground that this application itself would, if admissible, be the best evidence, but this young lady, as I understand, didn't go to work there until September of '64 and apparently she found an application like this at the hospital when she went there, and she can't sit here now and testify as to the contents of this written application.
THE COURT: Let me find out. Mr. Sciambra, do you have the exhibit itself?
MR. SCIAMBRA: No, Your Honor, but I will clarify this with a few more questions, as to the existence of the application.
THE COURT: If the evidence is available, the best evidence is the document itself.
MR. SCIAMBRA: In a few more questions, Your Honor, that will be brought out.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: So, in other words, the application read "Oswald" --

THE COURT: No, no, wait. The objection is well taken. You cannot pursue it. The best evidence is the document itself.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: What did you do with the application after you looked at it?

A: Put it back in the file.
Q: When was the next time you went to look for the application?
A: After the investigation started.
Q: After the Garrison investigation started?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was it there?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you know what happened to the application?
A: No, sir, I do not.
Q: Do you know who took the application?
A: No, sir.
Q: Have you made efforts to find the application?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Have you been able to find the application?
A: No, sir.
Q: How could you tell me exactly how the name appears on the application?
MR. DYMOND: Now, if Your Honor please --
THE COURT: I will overrule your objection now.
MR. DYMOND: May I make the objection? I didn't state the reason yet. We object to this now, Your Honor, on the ground that this application, if it existed, that testimony concerning this application is hearsay. The best party to testify as to anything concerning this application would be the person who made it out or saw it made out.
THE COURT: Not necessarily.
MR. DYMOND: Well, that is our position, Your Honor, and our objection is based --
THE COURT: Let me ask you a question: Are you officially employed in connection with these records, as typist-clerk and secretary to the Personnel Director?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: These records would have been under your direction?
THE WITNESS: Yes, at all times.
THE COURT: And who would prepare this information?
THE WITNESS: The application?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: The person seeking employment.
THE COURT: Who was giving them the application to prepare, and whom would he give the application to?
THE WITNESS: He would give it to me or the lady --
THE COURT: Would he have given it to you?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Who else would he have given it to besides you?
THE WITNESS: Well, there are three others that work in the office; he could give it to either one of them.
THE COURT: In the ordinary course of business it would be filed in the filing cabinet together with other records?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you particularly remember seeing this card in the file?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I will permit her to testify to it. I overrule your objection. It is the best evidence available.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we object and reserve a bill of exception, making the State's question, our objection, the reasons for the objection, the testimony of this witness, and the entire record, together with our contention that the Court led the witness in connection with questioning on this document, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: Let me make one thing certain. Each time you take a bill you say "the entire record." "The entire record" means up to the time you make your exception, not the entire record?
MR. DYMOND: Right.
THE COURT: I want that understood.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Would you state to the Court exactly how the name appeared on the application.

A: "Oswald, Harvey."
Q: Did you see a middle name?
A: No, sir, I did not.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Tender the witness, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mrs. Kemp, is it the practice of East Louisiana State Hospital to keep applications for employment on file there, or do they just keep records on file?

A: We keep all applications for one year.
Q: For one year?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: All right.
A: We pull them, well, maybe every three months we go through them.
Q: Every three months when you go through them, what do you do with them?
A: Well, we destroy the ones --
Q: -- that are one year old? Is that correct?
A: If they have not been accepted for employment. If they are accepted for employment, of course, it goes in your personnel file.
MR. DYMOND: That is all, ma'am.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Do any applications happen to stay in the employment files more than a year?

A: Yes, sir, they have.
MR. SCIAMBRA: No further questions.
THE COURT: Do you have any further need of the lady?
MR. DYMOND: No.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, Helen R. Dietrich, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing (49 page of typewritten matter) is a true and correct transcription of the stenographic notes of the proceedings had herein, the same having been taken down by me and transcribed under by supervision, on the day and date hereinbefore noted, in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in the matter of State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, 198-059 1426 (30) Section "C" on the 7th day of February, 1969, before the Honorable Edward A. Haggerty, Jr., Judge, Section "C", the same being an excerpt of the proceedings as to certain witnesses contained in the index hereof.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of May, 1969.
/S/ Helen R. Dietrich
HELEN R. DIETRICH
REPORTER







As Vernon Bundy's testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw was not transcribed by the private firm of Dietrich and Pickett, Inc., a summary by James Kirkwood is offered.
From James Kirkwood, American Grotesque, 1992 ed., pp. 224-9:
When Judge Haggerty had taken to his bench after lunch and the jurors were seated in their box, the name Vernon Bundy, Jr., was called out. A 30-year-old Negro and self-admitted heroin addict, Bundy was considered by Garrison to be an important witness, being one of two who had testified at the preliminary hearing. Although by this time both Miguel Torres and John Cancler had claimed that Bundy told them he had made up the story so he might get preferential treatment, and it was known by those who followed the case that a few of Garrison's advisers had urged him to drop Bundy from the cast of characters, here he was again, two years later, wearing dark gray slacks, a white shirt without a tie and a black cardigan, ambling down the aisle of the courtroom, eyes a bit puffy, looking like a sleek thin cat who'd been through his share of back-alley survival scrapes and scraps.
Under James Alcock's direct questioning and after the preliminaries -- address, occupation (clothes presser), and information about his attending a clinic and taking the methadone treatment in order to stay off drugs -- Bundy repeated in a husky-hoarse voice his story that on a Monday in June 1963 he had taken two caps of heroin, a bottle of water, a soft drink, his cooker -- "my outfit, as we refer to it" -- along on a bus ride to the shores of Lake Pontchartrain, where he'd planned to give himself a fix.
"I was sitting on top of the steps of the seawall and was beginning to use my drugs, to empty two caps of heroin into the cooker . . . behind me I noticed a black limousine approaching. It was facing toward town on the other side of the street. A gentleman got out of the car and walked behind me, passing maybe thirty to forty feet from me. I didn't know if he was a narcotics officer or what. I didn't want him to run up on me with the heroin. I wanted to have time to throw the caps in the lake and let it dissolve. . . . I saw a man with a towel approaching from the white section of the beach. He came up to the gentleman already there. They must have stayed there only five or ten minutes, but to an addict it seemed like five or ten hours.
Alcock asked Bundy if he saw either one of these men in the courtroom. "I see one," replied Bundy. "This gentleman seated here." Vernon Bundy pointed to Clay Shaw, who sat in his chair, a cigarette in his hand, gazing calmly at his accuser. Alcock said, "Let the record show that the witness pointed out the defendant, Mr. Clay Shaw." Alcock then showed Bundy a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and the young man identified him as the other man at the lakefront.
Bundy went on to finish his story, saying the two men talked for a while but the only words he could hear were from the man he claimed was Oswald. "What am I gonna tell her?" were the words. Bundy: "The gentleman here tried to make the smaller one quiet down." Bundy said the two men kept looking at him and he, in turn, kept his eyes on them. "The gentleman here," he said, once again indicating Clay Shaw, "gave the other gentleman what looked to be like money. He didn't examine it but put it in his back pocket. Some pamphlets or sheets -- I didn't know what -- fell out of his pocket. The gentleman here who came in the car said to me, 'It's a very hot day,' and adjusted his collar. He got into his car and drove off. The young fellow went back toward Pontchartrain Beach. I got my outfit and wrapped it in the sheets that the man dropped. It said something like 'Help Cuba' of 'Free Cuba.' The sheets were yellow and black and white and black."
Alcock then showed Bundy a picture of a car, which the witness said could have been the car Clay Shaw drove up in. It had taken Bundy approximately twenty minutes to run through his story on direct.
He was then turned over to Dymond. The defense lawyer, who had been expected to rip into Bundy, started off easily by questioning the witness about the methadone treatment and then asking how long he'd been a dope addict. "Off and on since I was thirteen," was the reply. Asked how he got money to support this expensive habit, Bundy replied that certain people in his family gave him money and he worked for the rest of it. Dymond then asked if it wasn't a fact that he stole regularly to pay for his drugs. Alcock objected and the judge sustained him, saying the witness did not have to incriminate himself. Dymond argued that Bundy had admitted at the preliminary hearing that he'd stolen, indicating that he was attempting to impeach the credibility of the witness by contradictory testimony. "Aren't you a convicted burglar?" Dymond persisted. "I am not," replied Bundy, going on to qualify his answer. "It was a theft of a cigarette machine, and it was not opened --"
Dymond stopped him, but Alcock quickly objected, saying he wanted the witness to have the right to explain his answer. Judge Haggerty agreed and then Vernon Bundy, with an indignant tone to his voice, looked at Irvin Dymond and said, "As I stated before you interrupted me --" a burst of laughter in the courtroom and a call for order -- "it was not a burglary, it was a cigarette machine from the Municipal Auditorium and it was opened by another party."
Now Dymond asked Judge Haggerty to have Bundy's police record retrieved. A recess was called . . .
After recess, Dymond read into the record that Vernon Bundy had pleaded guilty to theft on May 25, 1966. The lawyer then asked Bundy if it wasn't his testimony a few minutes earlier that he had secured money to support his heroin habit from relatives and from working. "That's right," Bundy said. Now the lawyer began reading from the transcript of the preliminary hearing. This brought forth an objection from Alcock, and a lengthy hassle ensued, during which Judge Haggerty told the witness he should not have had to give up his constitutional rights during the preliminary hearing, that he should have been so informed by the three-judge panel, adding that if he had been one of the judges, Bundy would have been so informed.
After a while, however, Dymond was permitted to continue reading from the transcript. Dymond: "You were asked, 'Where were you getting the money?' Your reply was 'By working and other little hustles here and there.' Do you deny that?"
Bundy: "No, I don't. I didn't understand the question. If I saw something around and no one was looking, I would take it. I didn't steal every day." "You did steal on occasion to satisfy your habit?" Dymond then asked. "Yes," answered Bundy. And that little detour was ended.
Then Dymond returned to the morning of his fix back in 1963. It turned out Bundy's family lived in a large house, twenty or twenty-five rooms, with three bathrooms. They took in eight or ten roomers, and he shared a room with his brother. He had taken a cap of heroin Sunday night, he said, and saved the other two caps for Monday, adding, "I had planned to goof off." When Dymond delved into the trip to the lakefront and the arrival of the black limousine, Bundy suddenly made a request to the court, asking that he be allowed to give a demonstration in proof of his identification of Clay Shaw.
. . . Standing up from the witness chair, he asked to have Clay Shaw step to the rear of the courtroom. . . . "Would the gentleman approach me?" Vernon Bundy asked. . . . Bundy seemed satisfied and returned to the witness chair while Clay Shaw reoccupied his seat. When the courtroom had settled down Bundy said, "I watched his foot the way it twisted that day." Vernon Bundy wiggled his own foot. "This is one way I identified this man the next time I saw him." Bundy told of coming into the courtroom with an assistant district attorney and observing Shaw before he'd testified in the preliminary hearing, adding, "The twisting of his foot had frightened me that day on the seawall when I was about to cook my drugs."
Clay Shaw, because of his bad back, does have, at times, a labored, slightly stiff walk.
While the twisting of a foot might have frightened Mr. Bundy, there was another aspect of his experience on the seawall that did not seem to alarm him at all. And this Irvin Dymond got into, questioning him about the logic of a seasoned dope addict leaving the safety of his twenty-room home and taking a trip out to a public beach to give himself a fix, the harsh penalty for which he was well aware, and, then, to compound this recklessness, remaining on the seawall with his drugs and equipment within hearing distance of two strangers, one of whom he even thought might be a narcotics agent, when the rest of the beach, he testified, was virtually deserted. This, the defense lawyer indicated, did not add up. Anyone with common sense, especially with the suspicious self-protective nature of a veteran narcotics addict, would presumably have made fast tracks out of there -- or certainly would have dropped, thrown into the lake, or swallowed the heroin.
The witness merely said he'd simply decided to go to the lake that Monday and goof off and that's what he'd done.
Now the defense lawyer asked Bundy if he'd known [John Cancler, aka] John the Baptist. Bundy, immediately on the defensive, said they'd been on the same tier in the Parish Prison but denied ever having a conversation with him. Dymond asked, "Do you deny telling him that you knew nothing of the Clay Shaw case, that you were going to say you did so you could get a better break on your sentence?" To this Vernon Bundy replied, almost like an angry child, "I didn't say boo to John the Baptist!"
The lawyer the asked if he knew Miguel Torres, the other prisoner who claimed Bundy had spoken to him about false testimony. "No, I don't know about him," the witness declared. "Do you deny," Dymond continued, "having told him you couldn't make up your mind about placing Clay Shaw on Esplanade [a street bordering the French Quarter] or the lakefront?"
"No, I didn't," Bundy answered. "I didn't even want the District Attorney's officer to know about it. I had become friendly with a certain judge, he had helped me and got me to the hospital at Fort Worth, Texas, and I wanted him to know about it."
Bundy was soon excused. . . .






THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record that the Jury is here, the defendant is here, all counsel are present, and the State and the Defense are ready to proceed.
Is the State ready to call its next witness?
MR. ALCOCK: The State is ready.
THE COURT: If so, call your next witness.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, before we start out I would like to ask whether all the exhibits from the preliminary hearing are available here. I know there are some of those that both sides will probably need.
THE COURT: I am sure the Clerk's Office would have knowledge of that.
MR. ALCOCK: The Clerk's Office, I presume. I think they have got the folders right back in your Clerk's Office containing them, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: I would assume Your Honor wouldn't require a formal subpoena duces tecum for them to be brought in?
THE COURT: No. Call your next witness.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, prior to calling the first witness, and in conjunction with the testimony of witnesses who have testified to date, the State would like to make certain offerings of evidence. The first offer the State makes is -- I will show these to Defense Counsel (exhibiting documents to Counsel) -- S-1, which purports to be a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald.
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: Next is S-2, which purports to be a picture of a black Cadillac automobile.
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. DYMOND: To which we object on the ground it has not been sufficiently connected with this Defendant to permit its introduction in evidence.
THE COURT: I believe it is offered as being similar?
MR. ALCOCK: Similar to the Cadillac that the Defendant was allegedly in Clinton, Louisiana.
MR. DYMOND: I object to it on that basis.
THE COURT: Let it be received as similar.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we take a bill of exception, making Exhibit S-2, Counsel's objection, the ruling of the Court, the reason for the objection, and the entire record up to this time parts of the bill.
MR. ALCOCK: Exhibit S-3 purports to be a picture of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: Exhibit S-4 purports to be an application for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee identified by Officer Martello of the New Orleans Police Department.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object on the ground that it has no connection with this Defendant, more particularly in view of the fact that no prima facie case of conspiracy has been made, and this is connected only with Lee Harvey Oswald.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill, making the State's Exhibit S-4, Counsel's objection, the reasons therefor, the Court's ruling and the entire record up until now part of the bill.
MR. ALCOCK: The State offers, files and introduces into evidence Exhibit S-5, which purports to be a yellow leaflet entitled "Hands Off Cuba."
MR. DYMOND: The same objection, for the same reasons, and Counsel reserves a bill of exception making Exhibit S-5, Counsel's objection, the ruling of the Court, the reason for objection, and the entire record up to this time part of the bill.
MR. ALCOCK: Exhibit S-6, which purports to be a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald distributing Fair Play for Cuba committee leaflets in front of the International Trade Mart.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: S-7, which purports to be a scene of the same distribution.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: S-8, copy of a Hands Off Cuba leaflet taken from Lee Harvey Oswald on the Dumaine Street Wharf by Officer Girod Ray.
MR. DYMOND: Object on the ground that no prima facie case of conspiracy has been made, and Exhibit S-8 has no connection whatsoever with this defendant.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. Let it be received.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel for the Defendant reserves a bill of exception, making the State's offer of S-3, Counsel's objection, the ruling of the Court, reasons for objection, and the entire record up to this time part of the bill.
MR. ALCOCK: S-9, which purports to be a piece of literature entitled "The Truth About Cuba is in Cuba," also received by Officer Ray from Oswald on the Dumaine Street Wharf.
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. DYMOND: The same objection, for the same reasons.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the State's offer of Exhibit S-9, Counsel's objection, the ruling of the Court, reasons for objection, and the entire record up to this time part of the bill.
MR. ALCOCK: And S-10, another picture of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received. Are you ready?
MR. ALCOCK: Call Perry Raymond Russo, please.
THE COURT: Call Mr. Russo.
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: State your full name for the record, please.

A: Perry Raymond Russo.
Q: Mr. Russo, where do you reside?
A: 5807 Elysian Fields.
Q: How old are you, Mr. Russo?
A: Twenty-seven.
Q: Were you born in New Orleans?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is your educational background, Mr. Russo?
A: I have a degree in Political Science, with two years at Tulane, three years undergraduate work at Loyola University, one year at the Law School at Loyola University, and approximately two-thirds or half a year up at LSU Industrial School.
Q: Mr. Russo, referring you to the early 1960's, did you have occasion at any time during that period to meet a man by the name of David Ferrie?
A: I met him with a friend of mine at his Kenner address.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Russo I am going to show you two pictures which have been previously identified as State-3 and State-10, and ask you to examine these pictures and see whether or not you recognize the person depicted in the pictures.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who is that person?
A: Dave Ferrie.
Q: Mr. Russo, can you approximate for the Court and the Jury when you first met David Ferrie?
A: I guess about 1961.
Q: And where was it specifically that you met him?
A: I don't know the address but it was out toward the Moisant International Airport.
Q: Can you recall who was present when you first met him?
A: He was there, and a lady introduced as his mother, who was elderly, Al Landry was there, and about -- several or quite a few members of the Civil Air Patrol I guess.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, may I approach the bench just a moment?
THE COURT: You may.
(Bench conference off the record.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Russo, after this first encounter that you recall having occurred sometime in 1961, did you have occasion to see David Ferrie any after that?

A: I saw him at -- in '63 extensively, and some in '62, and a few times in '64.
Q: Approximately, Perry, how many times in '62 did you see David Ferrie, if you can approximate? I know it is difficult.
A: Only a few, I am not sure, perhaps 10, 12, 15 times.
Q: And on these occasions where would you principally see him?
A: Well, he had -- just came over to the house where I lived on Elysian Fields. I lived at 4607 Elysian Fields at that time, and he would come over at that time.
Q: Did you know where he lived in '62 and '63?
A: In '63 I knew where he lived, on Louisiana Avenue Parkway.
Q: Did you or do you know the address now?
A: I know the address now, 3330.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Russo, I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "S-11," which picture purports to show the face of a home, and I ask you if you recognize this picture.
A: Yes, that is Dave Ferrie's house.
(Whereupon, the photograph referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-11.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did he live downstairs or upstairs?

A: He lived on the second floor.
Q: Are you able to see his porch in this picture?
A: Yes, sir, it is at the top left part of the photograph.
Q: Now, Perry, coming to the year 1963 -- and let's for purposes of limitation take the first six months of 1963 -- that would be say from January to June -- approximately how often would you see David Ferrie?
A: I couldn't exactly say, approximately 10, 12, 15 times.
Q: This is 1963?
A: 1963.
Q: Now going to the summer of 1963, without giving an approximation in numbers, was it once a day, twice a week, once a month, or how many times?
A: Oh, I'm sure it would be twice a week or better.
Q: During the summer of '63?
A: During the summer of '63, right.
Q: During the course of your encounters with David Ferrie, would his appearance always be the same?
A: It varied, it varied at times.
Q: Can you explain what you mean by that?
A: Well, it was a subject that he didn't bring up, but he had strange hair or a wig, and sometimes the wig would be spotted, other times it would be combed straighter and you wouldn't notice the missing part to the wig, and then sometimes you could notice eyebrows, sometimes they were bushy and sometimes they weren't noticeable at all. Most of the time though he did wear a white shirt, as I remember, and baggy trousers, although they weren't always dirty.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you have identified State's Exhibits 10 and 3. With reference to the eyebrows in these exhibits, would this always be the condition of his eyebrows, or would there be occasions when his eyebrows were not that heavy or pronounced?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I am going to object at this time to the State leading this witness. This is an obviously leading question.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Would this always be the condition of his eyebrows?

A: No, not always, no.
Q: What other condition might they be in?
A: Well, these are very pronounced; at times they weren't so pronounced as these, (they) were lighter and you would notice the hair, and the hairdo itself also is spotty, or at least slightly spotty here.
Q: Now, if you can recall, Perry, what was the color of Ferrie's hair, if you will?
A: Reddish-brownish.
Q: All right.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, perhaps if I could have brought into Court the exhibits in the preliminary hearing, I might be able to use some of them at this time, specifically those that deal with pictures of the interior of David Ferrie's apartment.
THE COURT: Will one of the deputies go to the Clerk's Office and ask to let me have all of the exhibits from Judge Bagert in the preliminary hearing. I think these exhibits would properly be in the Property Clerk's Office.
MR. ALCOCK: No, they are in this little office right off --
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. ALCOCK: Prior to their arrival I might ask Mr. Russo some more questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, can you approximate for the Court and the Jury how many times you might have been in the Louisiana Avenue apartment of David Ferrie?

A: In his apartment?
Q: In his apartment?
A: I guess about 20 to 30 times.
Q: Do you feel, Perry, that if you were shown pictures of the interior of that apartment taken as late as 1967, you still might recognize some of the permanent features of that apartment?
A: Yes, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, on these pictures that I am now marking for identification here is a prior marking, they were used on another occasion. Perhaps if I mark them S -- whatever the next number is -- and encircle that number, we could more --
THE COURT: You might put the date and that would identify it, that as of today we know it is the exhibit for this case.
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
MR. DYMOND: Either that or you could mark them State-Such and Such -- "Trial."
MR. ALCOCK: How about "S-12T" for Trial?
THE COURT: "Trial." O.K.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-12T.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, I am going to show you a picture which I have marked for purposes of identification as "State Exhibit 12-Trial," and I ask you if you recognize anything in that picture, any structure in the picture (exhibiting photograph to witness).

A: May I see another picture first?
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you what I have marked "S-13-Trial."
A: Yes, I recognize that picture.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-13T.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: How do you recognize that picture? What does that picture recall to mind? What do you see in that picture?

A: This is the front room, or what I call the front room --
Q: Front room of whose house?
A: Oh, of Dave Ferrie's house.
Q: Perry, would this be essentially the same, would it be essentially the same --
MR. DYMOND: Object to leading the witness, if the Court please.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I show you what I have marked as "S-14-Trial," and I ask you if you recognize that picture.

A: Yes, sir.
(Whereupon, the photograph referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-14T.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: What does that picture mean to you?

A: This is the hallway, where the policeman is is the front of the building to the outside porch, and the front room is right over to the right, and this is the hallway looking forward, toward the front, toward Louisiana Avenue Parkway.
Q: Now, whose apartment is that?
A: This is Dave Ferrie's apartment.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Referring you once again to S-11, can you see any portion of S-11 in S-14T?
A: I see the front, at least part of the front porch.
Q: All right. (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I now show you what is marked for purposes of identification as "S-15T," and I ask you if you can recognize that picture.
A: This is the dining room area.
Q: Whose apartment?
A: Of Dave Ferrie.
Q: Now I show you what I have marked for purposes of identification as "S-16T," and I ask you if you recognize the person depicted in that picture.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who is that?
A: That is Dave Ferrie.
(Whereupon, the photographs referred to by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-15T" and "Exhibit S-16T.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, going back to S-12-Trial, your having viewed the other pictures, are you able to identify the scene depicted in "S-12-T"?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is that?
A: This would be the hallway.
Q: In whose apartment?
A: In Dave Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Perry, now referring you to the month of September, 1963, did you have occasion at any time during that month, without specifying at this time when, to go to the apartment of David Ferrie?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you approximate for us how many times you might have gone there in the month of September, 1963?
A: Perhaps three or four.
Q: Perry, do you recall going there sometime in the middle of the month of September, 1963?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: On this occasion, Perry, was there anyone else present in the apartment when you arrived?
A: There was.
Q: Can you approximate for us how many people were present?
A: Two.
Q: When you first arrived?
A: There were.
Q: Who were they, if you know?
A: Dave Ferrie and a man introduced as his roommate.
Q: Had you met the other man prior to that?
A: The roommate?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: And you describe for the gentlemen of the Jury the wearing apparel and outward appearance of the roommate?
A: Generally dirty and his hair was rumpled and he had light whiskers on.
Q: Now, Perry, what specifically do you mean by "light whiskers"?
A: Perhaps a three-, four-day growth of beard.
Q: Was his complexion swarthy, ruddy, or what sort of complexion did he have?
A: I don't know really.
Q: Was his beard dark or light?
A: The beard was -- well, it wasn't really a beard, it was just whiskers; it wasn't dark though.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Perry, I am going to show you what I at this time will mark for purposes of identification as "State's Exhibit 17-Trial," and after displaying to Defense Counsel, I ask you if you can recognize anyone depicted in the picture.
(Whereupon, the photograph referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-17T.")
MR. DYMOND: What was the old number?
MR. ALCOCK: S-2.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, this is the exhibit I have marked "S-17T. I ask you if you recognize any of the individuals depicted in it.

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you place an "X" over the individual that recognize in that picture.
A: (The witness complied.)
Q: From where do you first recognize this individual?
A: The first I recognize (is) from Dave Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Did you see him on this occasion that you are now relating to the Jury?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is this the roommate?
A: Introduced that way, yes, sir.
Q: Introduced as the roommate?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you see him in the other frame, or do you see anyone in the other frame that you recognize?
A: Well, I deduct (sic) it was the same man, but I wouldn't identify it from that photograph, no.
Q: All right. (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Perry, I am going to show you an exhibit which I have previously marked for identification as "S-1," and I ask you if you recognize the individual depicted in it.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And from where do you first recognize this individual?
A: He was introduced to me at Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Is that the occasion that you are relating to the Jury now?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What name?
A: Leon Oswald.
Q: Now, Perry, on this occasion approximately how long were you in the presence of the man introduced to you as the roommate?
A: Not but a short while.
Q: And, Perry, what, if anything, on this occasion was this man doing when you first entered the apartment?
A: When I first entered the apartment he was cleaning a rifle or polishing it.
Q: (Exhibiting rifle to witness) Perry, I am going to show you what I shall now mark for purposes of identification "S-18," and, after displaying it to Defense Counsel, ask you whether you recognize S-18, or recognize it to be similar to anything you have seen in the past.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Have you seen this gun or a similar gun at any time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you see it?
A: I saw it at Ferrie's apartment.
Q: And if in anyone's possession, whose possession was it in at the time?
A: It was in Oswald's possession.
Q: Perry, are you testifying that this is the same gun or --
A: No. I am not sure if it was the same gun or not.
Q: Do you see any similarities between this gun and the one you saw on that occasion?
A: The stock is similar as well as the barrel of the scope.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-18.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Perry, I am going to show you a picture which I have marked for identification as "S-19," and I ask you whether or not you have seen this picture or a similar picture at any time.

A: Yes, sir.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-19.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Where did you see that picture or a similar picture at any time?

A: Where did I see a photograph similar to this?
Q: Yes.
A: In the District Attorney's Office.
Q: Do you recognize the individual depicted in the picture?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who does it purport to be in your mind?
A: The roommate of Dave Ferrie, or the man he introduced.
Q: With reference, Perry, to the whiskers that have been drawn on this picture, do they, in your estimation, accurately reflect --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this as leading the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: What are the similarities between this picture and the roommate as you saw him on that occasion, if any?

A: Well, the eyes, the chin, general facial structure and the messed-up hair on the head, and somewhat of the whiskers.
Q: Perry, did you have another occasion within the month of September, 1963 to see the man introduced to you as Leon Oswald?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Approximately when was that and where did it occur?
A: It occurred at Dave Ferrie's apartment, and it was about in the middle of the month.
Q: Can you give me the occasion for this meeting?
A: Well, I just -- I came in, probably from Tulane from playing basketball, just dropped in and he was there at that time.
Q: Was there anyone else present at that time?
A: There were several people present.
Q: Approximately how many?
A: Eight or ten.
Q: Did you know any of the persons that were present?
A: I had been introduced to Oswald, and I knew Dave Ferrie.
Q: Dave Ferrie was present then?
A: Yes, it was his house.
Q: Would that have been at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is that in the City of New Orleans, Perry?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now can you describe any of the other persons that were present at that time?
A: There were three or four Latins or Cubans, there were a couple of young guys and there was one well-dressed man.
Q: Can you give me more of a description of the well-dressed man?
A: He had on a deep maroon jacket, white shirt I guess, and I am not real sure about the pants.
Q: Did he have on a tie?
A: No, not the way I remember him.
Q: Can you give me any description as to physical stature?
A: He was big, about six four or six five, wide-shouldered, distinguished looking.
Q: Color of hair?
A: White.
Q: Was this man there when you first arrived, Perry?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you see that man in the courtroom now?
A: I do.
Q: Would you point to him, please.
A: (The witness complied.)
Q: Is that the defendant before the bar, this man here (indicating)?
A: Yes, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: Let the record reflect that the witness has indicated the Defendant Clay Shaw.
THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Now, Perry, what, if anything, did you do after you arrived at this apartment in the presence of the Defendant?

A: Well, I was just there, I mean I don't think I drank anything at all though I was offered some coffee. I had probably small talk with Ferrie. He introduced me to several of the people.
Q: Did he introduce you to the Defendant?
A: He did.
Q: And what name were you given for the Defendant?
A: Bertrand.
Q: Any first name?
A: Clem.
Q: C-l-e-m?
A: C-l-e-m.
Q: Perry, had you seen the Defendant Clay Shaw, who was introduced to you as Clem Bertrand on that occasion, at any time prior to that time?
A: I had, approximately -- I had definitely seen him once and perhaps twice, but I am not sure of the second time.
Q: Well, the one you are sure of, where did that occur?
A: That was at the Nashville Wharf.
Q: Is that here in the City?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you recall the occasion for your having seen him on that date or that time?
A: Well, I was at school, and President Kennedy was coming to New Orleans to make a speech right at the Nashville Wharf on that occasion, because it was a new wharf, and I went over to the wharf with a Colored friend of mine -- he was in my class -- and we were running late because of getting out of class and just had to run, and we went over there, and we got in late and we were sort of -- not shoved but we were left over in the back, but we had a good visible view of President Kennedy.
Q: And where did you see the Defendant on that occasion?
A: Well, we were in the back, toward the back of the hangar, and he was there also.
Q: Did he appear to be with anyone?
A: He appeared to be with one man, right.
Q: Can you describe this man?
A: He wasn't nearly as tall; he was well dressed; that would be about all.
Q: Perry, is there any particular reason that your attention was drawn to the Defendant on this occasion?
A: Well, I had never seen a President before, and I had rushed over there with this friend of mine, and the thing that drew my eyes away from the President to the Defendant was that he was not looking at the President, he was looking around.
Q: Why would that have taken your eye? Why would that have drawn your attention?
A: Well, I had never seen a President and it was a big thing for me. I had attempted to see President Eisenhower back in '56, and I had never seen President Kennedy, although I had read quite a bit on the man, and it just struck me funny that someone wouldn't be looking at him.
Q: To your knowledge, Perry, did you see any Secret Service men there that day?
MR. DYMOND: Object unless they identified themselves to him.
MR. ALCOCK: I said to his knowledge.
THE COURT: If he knows of his own knowledge.
MR. ALCOCK: That is what I said.
A: No.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, did you notice anyone else who was not looking at the President?

A: At the Nashville Wharf?
Q: At the Nashville Street Wharf.
A: Not that I can recall.
Q: Now, Perry, approximately how far were you from the Defendant at this time when you observed him at the wharf?
A: About ten feet, 15 feet.
Q: Do you recall whether or not the person that you had gone to the wharf with, was with you at that time?
A: Would you repeat that?
Q: Do you recall whether or not the person that you went to this wharf dedication with was with you at the time that you observed the defendant?
A: I am sure he was.
Q: Do you know whether or not, of your own knowledge, that he made the same observation you did, or whether or not he --
MR. DYMOND: Object to that as hearsay, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I said of his own knowledge.
THE COURT: It is a fact, it is not hearsay.
MR. ALCOCK: It is a pretty fair deduction that he saw the same thing he saw.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I am talking about verbal observations. It is certainly hearsay. If he is asking this witness what the other man saw, the other man is certainly the best evidence of what he himself saw.
MR. ALCOCK: I have never heard of a "verbal observation," but I didn't ask for a verbal observation, I merely asked of his own knowledge does he know whether or not the other man saw the same thing he did. He can testify whether or not the other man was looking in the same direction he was. That is all I am asking.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, he can testify whether the other man was in a position to see certain things but certainly not whether he saw certain things.
THE COURT: Rephrase it that way. I will permit the question.
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Where physically was the other man in relation to you at this time?

A: Right alongside of me.
Q: Would he have been on the side between you and the Defendant, or on the other side?
A: I am not sure. He probably was on both sides at one time or another.
Q: At any time during the course of your viewing of President Kennedy, would he have been in a position to see the Defendant?
A: Would my friend?
Q: Yes.
A: To see the Defendant? Yes, sir.
Q: You don't know of your own knowledge though whether or not he saw him? Of your own knowledge. You can't say what he told you.
A: No.
Q: Perry, approximately how long did you look at the Defendant on this occasion?
A: Eight or ten minutes.
Q: And other than that one occasion, you can't specifically remember seeing the Defendant prior to the time you saw him at Ferrie's apartment, is that correct?
A: There was one other place perhaps, but I am not definitely sure. He had a hat on at that time. It was at Republican Headquarters on Camp Street, and a man with his face and looks and also build, but much slimmer, walked into the headquarters, kept his hat on. He picked up a couple of bundles and walked out, and that was about it.
Q: Perry, approximately when did you observe the Defendant on the Nashville Street Wharf?
A: When President Kennedy came. He came twice I think.
Q: Do you recall what season of the year it was?
A: Well, it was warm weather, baseball time.
Q: Now, Perry, going back to the time that you were in Ferrie's apartment and the Defendant was there, Leon Oswald was there, and Ferrie was there, what conversation transpired in the presence of the Defendant?
A: Well, it was -- just Ferrie generally monopolized the conversation. There was a lot of talk. I think I recall there were even records being played, speeches or something in Cuban or in Spanish, and people were just talking.
Q: Do you recall anything specifically that Ferrie might have said on this occasion in the presence of the Defendant?
A: Well, that they were going to kill the President, but he had said that before.
Q: He had said that to you before?
A: Right.
Q: Many times?
A: Well, during the Summer he became obsessed with Kennedy and the Cuban thing.
Q: Perry, on this occasion did all of the persons present in Ferrie's apartment leave the apartment at the same time?
MR. DYMOND: Object to leading the witness.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. ALCOCK: What is leading about that, Your Honor? I am asking whether all the people left at the same time. That is not a leading question.
MR. DYMOND: I didn't even know that they had left, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: To your knowledge, did everybody stay at Ferrie's apartment?

A: For the duration of the evening?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Now, approximately how long after you arrived did the first people leave?
A: Well, I didn't notice how long they stayed, you know, people stayed until they left.
Q: Perry, do you ever recall a conversation during the course of that meeting in which the Defendant participated?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, approximately how long was that after you arrived at the apartment?
A: Approximately three, four hours; I am not real sure of how much time elapsed.
Q: And, Perry, who was present at the time that the Defendant participated in a conversation that you heard?
A: It was Dave Ferrie, Oswald, and the Defendant and myself.
Q: To your knowledge, was there anyone else in the house at this time?
A: No, not that I know of.
Q: Perry, what room in the house did this conversation take place?
A: In the -- what I identified as the front room.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) I am going to show you what I have previously shown you and mark for identification "S-13' Trial," and I ask you if this is the front room you are referring to.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, Perry, at the time this conversation took place, was the furniture arrangement the same as it is in this picture, if you can recall?
A: Well, roughly. I am not -- everything was moved around to some degree, but there was a big sofa alongside of this hall next to the piano (indicating).
Q: Do you recognize any physical objects in that picture that were present at the time this conversation took place?
A: The piano, and I would suppose this small sofa, but I am not sure if it would be the exact one but something similar to that, and something similar to this coffee table that was there. Probably the lamp, but I just don't know if that is the same lamp or not, but there was a lamp there.
Q: Perry, would you mark an "X" on those items which you feel were present at the time this conversation took place?
A: (Marking photograph) And a piano stool.
Q: Now, Perry, I note that on one of these, referring to the chair, you put a question mark. What was the reason for that?
A: Well, I don't remember two stuffed (?) chairs like that being there. It could have been one that was put into the dining area, or, you know, might have been another just old one and those might have been replacements.
Q: Where, generally, Perry, during the course of the night prior to this time of the night did this party -- not this party but gathering take place?
A: Where was Ferrie?
Q: No, where were most of the guests during the course of the night?
A: Well, most of them went in the front room, that room I just looked at, and also there were eight or ten people -- there was a dining area that was attached to the front room or a section that was outstanding on the front room, and some of the people would walk into there and walk out, but essentially it was in those two rooms.
Q: Now I am going to show you what I have marked for purposes of identification, previously identified as "State-15-Trial," and I ask you if you recognize the room depicted in that picture (exhibiting photograph to witness).
A: This was the dining area.
Q: (Indicating) Is this the other area that --
A: Right, it is an adjoining area, sort of one big area broken down into two rooms, except there is a divider.
Q: Do you recognize, Perry, any physical items or objects in that room that were there on that occasion, to the best of your knowledge?
A: I think the dining table was there and I think the cabinet against the wall was there.
Q: Put an "X" on those two items.
A: (The witness complied.)
Q: All right, Perry. Now, what conversation took place at this time?
A: This was after everyone had left?
Q: Between the Defendant --
A: -- Oswald?
Q: -- Oswald, yourself and Ferrie.
A: Yes. Well, Ferrie seemed to me just a continuation of a conversation that he had had before.
Q: Now, what was that conversation?
A: Well, he had said on several occasions about killing Kennedy, how easy it would be to do it or to accomplish it.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we are going to object to any statements allegedly made by this Leon Oswald unless they were made in the presence of the man purporting to be this Defendant, on the grounds --
MR. ALCOCK: This is what I asked him. I think he is relating --
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Are you relating what actual conversation took place during the course of that night and in the presence of the Defendant earlier and later?

A: No, I thought you were asking me what went on before that night.
Q: No, I am only asking you what conversation took place in the presence of the Defendant.
A: Well, Ferrie carried around a bunch of clippings with him, clippings.
Q: Did you see these clippings?
A: Well, I saw a couple, just the outside of them, part of them, and I would see Kennedy's name on them. I just supposed the rest of them were about Kennedy, too. I saw perhaps two or three.
MR. DYMOND: Object to what the witness supposes. That is his conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained. Tell what you saw not what supposedly you saw. THE WITNESS: I saw two or three clippings from newspapers and perhaps magazines, and they had Kennedy's name on them.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: And what as David Ferrie saying at the time he had the clippings in his hand? Once again, only what was said in the presence of the Defendant.

A: Well, he paced back and forth on the floor, he carried the clippings. There was a speech of some kind of Latin or Spanish talking going on on a record. He didn't really -- he just didn't say much at that time, except that he did walk around muttering about Kennedy.
Q: Now, getting back to the conversation that transpired at the time the -- between -- just the Defendant, Oswald and yourself, Ferrie and yourself present. What was said then?
A: Well, Ferrie, his habit was to walk up and down, and he was walking up and down telling how the projected assassination could be pulled off, the assassination of President Kennedy, and during that period of time he told them about this triangulation of crossfire where there would be -- (demonstrating) this is a habit he had, was sticking his hand up and showing a three-sided triangulation or a three-cornered triangulation, and he said of these three people, for two of them to escape one would have to be captured as a scapegoat or a patsy for the other two, and that perhaps there would be a diversionary shot or all three would shoot at the President somewhere in the middle and one of them would have to be the scapegoat, but perhaps the one that was the scapegoat, there could be what he called a diversionary shot and the other two would shoot for the kill or a direct hit.
Q: Did he mention the order of shooting at all?
A: He did say that there would be -- He said the diversionary shot if fired would be fired to attract attention, and then instantly the police or whatever was around would look, and said the other two would shoot for the kill, and he said it would be just a slight delay but almost simultaneously.
Q: The last two almost simultaneously?
A: Well, except for the little small delay all three would be almost simultaneously.
Q: Referring specifically to the last two, were they to be almost simultaneously?
A: They were to be shot at the same time for the kill.
Q: What else was said, Perry?
A: Well, he told about as soon as the assassination was performed or had, he said that the escape would be by flight, said it could either -- they could either go to Mexico, I mean to Brazil, or could go to Cuba, said if they went to Brazil they would have to stop for refueling somewhere and he said Mexico.
Q: And did the Defendant at any time during this conversation make any statements?
A: Well, he -- at that time the Defendant objected to that and said no, that wouldn't be possible because --
Q: Objected to what?
A: Objected to this -- Ferrie called it availability, the availability exit would be to go to Mexico and then to Brazil, or to go directly to Cuba, and the Defendant said that was not possible because if you had to go to Brazil you would need cooperation from some place to stop and refuel, and also the ability to fly out of the area of the assassination, and he said that wouldn't be possible with -- instantly the police would be everywhere.
Q: As a result of his comment was anything further said by either Ferrie, Oswald or the Defendant?
A: Well, Oswald told them to shut up, he said --
Q: Told who to shut up?
A: Oswald told Bertrand to shut up. He said, "Shut up, Ferrie knows what he is doing he is a pilot."
Q: And then what if anything did Ferrie say?
A: What if anything -- who?
Q: After this did Ferrie say anything?
A: Well, he told about an alternative plan, that perhaps this would be the better way, this Plan B -- he didn't call it that but he said an alternate plan -- and he said what they could do was to make sure that they had alibis and were in the public eye at the time of the assassination.
Q: And what if anything did the Defendant say to this?
A: Well, the Defendant seemed -- the Defendant said that he could go on business for his company.
Q: Did he specify any particular location?
A: He said on the Coast.
Q: Did Ferrie say anything?
A: Well, Ferrie said he could make a speech at Southeastern -- Hammond or Southeastern, I am not sure which -- a speech at a college.
Q: Did Oswald say anything?
A: Oswald? No, he didn't say anything at that time.
Q: What if anything did the Defendant talk about?
A: Well, he thought -- in that exchange that I was just telling you about he felt that Ferrie was a washed-up pilot.
Q: And was anything said -- Did he make this comment?
A: I am not exactly sure of the words, because it was right before Oswald told him to shut up, because he said he knows what he is doing because he is the pilot.
Q: Was there a specific reference, Perry, to the number of people who would definitely participate in the shooting?
A: It had to be two or it had to be three. Definitely it was always one firing the diversionary shot. The three would be -- Ferrie said one of them would fire a diversionary shot and two of them would shoot to kill the President. With the two situation, one would fire a diversionary shot and attract the attention, and the number two gun would shoot to kill.
Q: Was the type of gun or guns ever mentioned?
A: No, except that it was a rifle.
Q: Did you see any weapons at all on this occasion?
A: No.
Q: Besides the rifle that you first saw when you met Oswald, did you see any other weapon in his possession at any time in Ferrie's apartment?
A: I am not sure, I am not sure.
Q: Perry, do you recall specifically whether or not on this occasion that you went to Ferrie's apartment with any person?
A: In September?
Q: On this occasion you are relating to the Jury.
A: Well, during that period of time I thought that it was approximately -- I associated with the same people, most of the time, with just a few exceptions, I associated with the same people, and probably some of those,if anybody came with me.
Q: Are you testifying that you are positive someone accompanied you on this occasion?
A: I am testifying I don't know if anyone accompanied with me on that occasion.
Q: Can you name these people who were constant companions at this time?
A: Well, Giles Peterson -- there were several people at Loyola -- Father Clancy was -- right around that time I was involving myself with the Republican Party and Mike Ogden.
Q: Anyone else, Perry?
A: Well, there were quite a few (in) athletics, there was Tommy Hopkins, his brother Harold Hopkins, there was Kenny Carter from Xavier, Joe Cook from Xavier, Kenny Carter from Loyola, Bush Larong, Isaiah King, Louis Gremillion. All of these were people that came around.
Q: Perry, at that time did you know a girl by the name of Sandra Moffett?
A: I did.
Q: Would you term her a constant companion during this time?
A: Right, she was -- for a period, I mean a long period of time she was. Sometimes I wouldn't see her for a week or perhaps two weeks, but I would see her.
Q: Was she your girlfriend at that time?
A: There were several girls I was going around with at that time.
Q: Was she one of them?
A: She was.
Q: Perry, was there anything else said between these three individuals other than what you have related to us so far?
A: No, not that I recall.
Q: Do you recall, Perry, who, after this conversation occurred, who left the apartment first?
A: At the end of the conversation.
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Do you recall, Perry, how you got home from the apartment that night?
A: No, I think -- I am not sure but I think I took a bus home.
Q: Did you have an automobile at this time?
A: Not in my possession, with me, no.
Q: But did you own one at this time?
A: I owned a bunch of old rattletraps, and during that period of time I probably had a rattletrap that wasn't working.
Q: Are you specifically telling us, Perry, that on this occasion you did not drive home in a car of yours?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Perry, about what time, if you can recall, did this -- or did you leave Ferrie's apartment on that occasion, if you can recall?
A: It would be after midnight probably. I am almost sure of that but the exact time I am not sure.
Q: After this occasion, Perry, did you have any other occasion, either at Ferrie's apartment or any other location, to see Leon Oswald?
A: I saw him at Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Approximately how long was that after this meeting?
A: A few days, not very long.
Q: And who was present on that occasion?
A: Again Dave Ferrie was.
Q: And what if anything was Oswald doing on that occasion?
A: He was not doing anything. There was a conversation between Ferrie and Oswald.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, may I have a five-minute recess at this time?
THE COURT: The Captain was going to get some coffee for the Jury at 10:20. All right, I will grant your recess. Do not discuss this case during the recess.
(Thereupon, at 10:15 o'clock a.m., a recess was taken.)


AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Is the State ready and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, sir.
MR. DYMOND: We are ready.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, going back to this occasion which you saw Oswald at Ferrie's apartment after this conversation, again, who was present on this occasion?

A: Oswald and Ferrie.
Q: And what was said on this occasion?
A: They were having a private discussion, I did not feel I was part of it, the only thing I understood from the discussion --
MR. DYMOND: I object to it as being a purported conversation between two other parties when no prima facie case for conspiracy has been proven and it is out of the presence --
THE COURT: The Court overrules that objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question propounded by the State, the answer, Counsel's objection, the ruling of the Court, and the entire record of the proceedings up to this point, a part of the bill.
THE COURT: Before you proceed, Mr. Alcock, I just want to note in the minutes of the Court, I will cite the articles and cases as my reasons for my decision at a later time. I don't want to hold it up now, but I wish to cite certain articles. You may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Continue, Mr. Russo.

A: Ferrie said that Oswald had said he was having trouble with his wife, and Ferrie told him, "I will take care of it."
Q: At this occasion or prior to this occasion, did you know that Oswald was married?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you know that?
A: He had a wedding ring on.
Q: Now, Perry, in addition to this occasion, did you again at any time see Oswald, either at Ferrie's apartment or any other location?
A: I saw him one other time.
Q: Approximately when was that?
A: Oh, a few days later, I am not exactly sure.
Q: Where was that?
A: At Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Who was present on this occasion?
A: Ferrie and Oswald.
Q: What, if anything, took place on that occasion?
A: Oswald was leaving town.
Q: And what, if anything, was said either by Oswald or Ferrie on that occasion?
A: He was leaving town, had stuff packed up, and I don't remember the exact words, but Oswald either said, or Ferrie mentioned it, that he had gone to Houston.
Q: Can you recall, Perry, anything else that was said between the two on that occasion?
MR. DYMOND: I would like the record to show the same objection, the same bill applies to this entire line of testimony.
THE COURT: The same ruling.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you recall, Perry, whether or not anything else was said between the two on that occasion?

A: No, not really.
Q: Perry, on this occasion, what was the physical appearance of Oswald?
A: I did not get a great look at him except that he was clean, he had a white shirt on, a tie he had turned sideways like that, and he was relatively clean in comparison with before.
Q: Specifically, Perry, with reference to his face, was there anything different than there was before?
A: I didn't take a great note, except that it was the same man, just walked in, and, you know, that was about it, I looked at him and left. As I remember, I didn't take a really great notice of his physical appearance except he was clean.
Q: Approximately, Perry, how long were you in his presence on this occasion?
A: That time?
Q: At that time, right.
A: Five, ten minutes at the most.
Q: Did you actually see him leave Ferrie's apartment on that occasion?
A: No.
Q: During the course of this encounter with Oswald and Ferrie, did Ferrie at any time leave the apartment and thereby just leave you and Oswald in the apartment?
A: No.
Q: How long did you remain in the apartment on that occasion?
A: About five or ten minutes.
Q: Perry, do you recall whether or not anyone was with you on that occasion?
A: No, I am almost sure I was alone.
Q: Now, Perry, going back to the occasion you saw Oswald in Ferrie's apartment, after the time you saw the Defendant present, that would be the first time you saw him after that, was anyone with you?
A: At that time, no.
Q: Referring now to the first time that you saw Oswald present in the apartment, cleaning the rifle that you have testified to, was anyone present with him?
A: The first time that I came up or went up there?
Q: Right.
A: No.
Q: Perry, subsequent to this time in the middle of September, 1966, did you have occasion to see the Defendant again before the year 1967?
A: Yes, once.
Q: Now, where was this?
A: This was at a Gulf Station on Veterans Highway.
Q: Would that be a gasoline station?
A: A gasoline station, yes.
Q: Do you recall approximately when that was?
A: It was in early 1964.
Q: And what was the occasion for your seeing him there?
A: Well, I had trouble with my automobile, and I pulled into a service station just by chance, and it happened to be Ferrie's Service Station or he was working there, and these two attendants came to the car and they asked me what was wrong, I think it was the battery, it was bad or they told me just to pull it over on the side and Dave Ferrie walked up and said, "What are you doing," and I said something, you know, "Long time no see."
Q: At this time, I don't think it appropriate that you say what was said since this was the year 1964. What, if anything, did you do or say on this occasion?
A: Well, I pulled the car up on the side, as I was instructed by the attendants, and I just sat there with the door open while they worked on the car, and I at that time saw Ferrie was sitting in the car next to mine, and he was talking with a man at that time.
Q: And do you see the man that he was talking with at that time in the courtroom?
A: I do.
Q: Would you point to him, please.
A: (Indicating.)
Q: Would that be the Defendant, Clay Shaw?
A: It is.
Q: Approximately, Perry, how long were you at that gas station?
A: I am not sure of that.
Q: Approximately how long did you look at the Defendant and Ferrie talking in this automobile?
A: I looked on and off, you know, I was really just mad about the car, and I was in a rush to get out of there, maybe three, four, five minutes.
Q: Can you recall, Perry, who was sitting behind the wheel of the car and who was sitting on the other side or the back, or wherever the other individual was sitting?
A: Oh, the Defendant was sitting at the wheel and Ferrie was sitting closer to me toward my car with the door opened on his, just slightly adjoining.
Q: Was the Defendant wearing a hat on that occasion?
A: No.
Q: Perry, did you remember on that occasion that the man that you saw talking to Ferrie was the same man that you had seen --
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as leading.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you recall ever having seen the man talking to Ferrie on a prior occasion?

A: I have seen him on a couple of occasions, one at Dave Ferrie's apartment, and one at the Nashville Wharf and perhaps another time at the Republican Headquarters.
Q: Did you at any time during the course of this encounter engage in conversation with the Defendant?
A: At the gas station?
Q: At the gas station.
A: No.
Q: Was there any reason why you didn't?
A: Well, I was in a rush, just conversation, I was not going to go over there and start a conversation when I was in a rush to get out.
Q: Perry, do you recall how you first made contact with the District Attorney's Office?
A: Oh, in February, I wrote the District Attorney's Office a letter, to New Orleans, I was living in Baton Rouge at the time.
Q: Do you recall approximately on what date that you wrote that letter?
A: About the 21st of February.
Q: Would that be 1967?
A: '67, yes.
Q: Do you recall, Perry, on what date you mailed the letter?
A: Oh, two days, approximately two days later. I didn't have a chance -- I didn't mail it that night, something came up the next day and I was involved with school and some other things, and I didn't mail it that next day either, I think I mailed it the 23rd.
Q: Perry, did you have an occasion either that day or the next day or the following day to have a conversation with Mr. Andrew Sciambra, the gentleman seated to my right?
A: On the 25th of February he came up to Baton Rouge.
Q: And what did you tell Mr. -- now, you can't say what Mr. Sciambra told you, but what did you tell Mr. Sciambra on this occasion?
A: Well, I identified photographs that he showed me, told him to my recollection how I had known the people that I had identified the photographs, and where and approximately what years and at what instances or circumstances that I -- under which I knew these people.
Q: What pictures did you identify, Perry?
A: Initially I identified -- well, Dave Ferrie, I identified Dave Ferrie, Oswald, I identified Bertrand, I identified Sergia Arcacha, I identified Emile Santana.
Q: What, if anything, Perry, did you tell Mr. Sciambra about where you knew Bertrand or Shaw from?
A: Oh, I told Mr. Sciambra the first time I had met Shaw or Bertrand was at the Nashville Wharf.
Q: Did you tell him anything in addition to that?
A: I told him that the next time that I had met him, I recollect it was at the gas station, and then finally I told him I had seen him up at Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Did you relate to him, Perry, essentially what you have related to this Jury about the time that you saw this Defendant at Ferrie's apartment?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as being much too general a question, asking him whether he related to him substantially what he told the Jury.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the objection, the testimony of the witness, the ruling of the Court, the reason for the objection, and the entire record up to this point a part of the bill.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read by the Reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Not in a great detail, but in essence, yes.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recall, Perry, I think you have testified that you identified a picture of Clay Shaw. Did you identify the picture as Clay Shaw, or what?

A: Well, at that time I never heard of the name of Shaw, and Mr. Sciambra showed me the picture and there was a bunch of pictures and I picked it up and I said, "I know this man, I met this man," and then I went on subsequently to give his name, and I said it was Bertrand, he asked me the first name, and I said it was, I had to think about it, I said I think it was Clem, and he said are you sure of that --
Q: Well, now, you can't say what Mr. Sciambra said.
A: I was asked, I told him I was sure of it, and, oh, it is hard to give one side of a conversation.
Q: Would that be C-l-e-m?
A: C-l-e-m, right.
Q: Perry, directing your attention to approximately March 21, 1967, did you ever have any conversations, without going into their substance at this time, with a man be the name of James Phelan?
A: I did.
Q: That is P-h-e-l-a-n. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Perry, did you ever tell this man that he wanted to --
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object at this time to this witness testifying as to what he told James Phelan.
THE COURT: On what grounds?
MR. DYMOND: It could very well be a self-serving declaration in addition to corroborating this witness by his own testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I assume the objection is going to be hearsay, certainly a witness can testify to what he said, and that is all I am attempting to elicit from this witness, what he told James Phelan. He is subject to cross-examination if Mr. Dymond feels it is a self-serving declaration.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the entire testimony, the objection, the reasons for the objection, the ruling of the Court, and the entire record up to this point part of the bill.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Russo, did you ever tell Mr. Phelan --

THE COURT: You are leading the witness, now, Counsel.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you recall essentially what you told Mr. Phelan on your first encounter with him in relation to the testimony that you had given at the preliminary hearing, if you can recall it?

MR. DYMOND: We object, unless the question includes a designation of when this alleged conversation took place.
MR. ALCOCK: I said March 21, on or about March 21, 1967.
THE COURT: It is a statement that the witness made to Mr. Phelan?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
THE COURT: I will permit that.
MR. DYMOND: Same objection.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you recall, Perry, what you told James Phelan on that occasion relative to what transpired at the preliminary hearing?

A: I was shown a transcript or a memoranda, rather, of an initial interview which Mr. Sciambra conducted in Baton Rouge the previous month, and there were certain discrepancies pointed out in that as opposed to the preliminary hearing testimony, and so I told him, I attempted to --
MR. DYMOND: We call for the production of this memorandum to which the witness has referred. We are entitled to follow him on that.
MR. ALCOCK: I will produce the memorandum, Your Honor. At this time I have a Xerox copy of this memorandum; however, some areas are rather indistinct, and perhaps if I could send someone to the office for a more legible copy, it might better suit the purpose of the Court.
THE COURT: Do you think we could get Mr. Hull to do that for us?
MR. ALCOCK: I can ask some more questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, do you recall where this conversation with James Phelan took place?

A: It took place at 311 East State Street, Baton Rouge.
Q: And what is that?
A: That was my home at that time.
Q: Do you recall approximately what time of day or night it took place?
A: It was -- it took place in the evening.
Q: What do you call "evening"?
A: From 6:00 to 10:00, 6:00 to 12:00.
Q: And, Perry, who was present during the course of this conversation?
A: There were several people intermittently present, there was one man that came up with Mr. Phelan, I think his name was Matt Herron, he was a photographer, and there was Mr. Phelan, myself, the neighbors from next door, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Fiser, and for a few minutes, anyway, and there were several other people that came in and left, stayed a few minutes and left.
Q: Were you living at that location at the time?
A: 311 East State, yes, I was going to school.
Q: Did you have any roommates at that time?
A: Steve Derby.
Q: Do you recall whether or not he was there?
A: He was there just for a little while.
Q: You mentioned that the persons were there intermittently, and what do you mean by that?
A: Well, a Phil O'Neill for one passed over, he just dropped in, stayed a little while and left, several other friends of mine up there at that time just came on over and they stayed a few minutes and they would leave.
Q: Besides yourself and James Phelan, was there anyone there the entire time that you spoke to Phelan?
A: Well, was there anyone else present the entire length of Mr. Phelan's stay?
Q: That's right, besides yourself and Mr. Phelan.
A: Not talking, Matt Herron was there taking photographs.
Q: Other than yourself, Herron and Phelan, was there anyone within earshot the entire time that Mr. Phelan was there?
A: No.
Q: Approximately how long was Phelan in your apartment?
A: Approximately three hours.
Q: Perry, did you know that Phelan was coming to your apartment?
A: I knew that he was supposed to have been there or supposed to have been at my place the day before, something -- he did not arrive the day before, he did arrive that day, I had communicated with the District Attorney's Office and had found out that he was coming, and that he would try to be there on such a day, which he never showed up, he came the next day.
Q: You say you communicated with the District Attorney's Office. Was there any particular individual within the office, without saying what he said, that you communicated with?
A: Andrew Sciambra.
Q: Would that be the man to my right here?
A: Right.
MR. ALCOCK: I can't proceed much further without the statement.
THE COURT: Well, how long do you think it will take Mr. Hull to get back with it?
MR. ALCOCK: He has long legs, it's not too far, he should be back at any time. I have copies, but some of the portions are indistinct, and they cannot be read.
THE COURT: I might suggest if you wish, Mr. Alcock, you get on the phone and call your office and see if they are having any difficulty in getting the copies. That might help the situation.
MR. ALCOCK: Very well, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Tell Mr. Alcock we have them. Do you want time to study that, Mr. Dymond?
MR. DYMOND: We would like to look this over, yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't believe you can proceed until he has an opportunity to read the exhibit, and how many pages is it?
MR. ALCOCK: Seven pages, 3500 words, as I recall.
MR. DYMOND: Six pages, Judge.
THE COURT: Take the Jury upstairs. The Court will be in recess. Would you advise me when you are ready to proceed, I will be in recess.
MR. DYMOND: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Gentlemen, I understand the status of the case as of this moment is that Xerox copies, that the State has the copies, the Defense has copies, and a copy has been given to the witness to read and it is about five minutes to 12:00 and the agents are here and I will ask Mr. Russo to continue reading this statement during the noon recess.
Gentlemen, I am going to turn you over to the Sheriff's representative and I must admonish you one more time not to discuss the case amongst yourselves until it is finally given to you for decision.
(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)




THE COURT: I trust you gentlemen had a good night. Let it be noted in the record that the Jury is here, the Defendant is here, all counsel are present. Is the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. ALCOCK: The State is ready.
MR. DYMOND: We are ready.
MR. ALCOCK: The State would ask it be allowed -- a subpoena duces tecum had been issued yesterday, and we have a return today, and in conjunction with that I would like to call Mr. Ryan to the stand.
THE COURT: Mr. Ryan, step up, please.
JOSEPH P. RYAN, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: State your full name and occupation.

A: My name is Joseph P. Ryan, Director, Office of Personnel, New Orleans Post Office.
Q: How long have you been employed by the Post Office, Mr. Ryan?
A: Twenty-nine years.
Q: Mr. Ryan, did you come to Court today prepared to honor the subpoena duces tecum served upon the Post Office yesterday by the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office?
A: I am ready.
Q: May I see what you have brought with you in response to the subpoena, may I have a few moments, Your Honor, to peruse it?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: I notice in glancing over the material that you have submitted to us in response to our subpoena duces tecum, referring you specifically to Post Office Department Form 3546, with which you have provided us, you have provided us with a copy of this back part, and would it be possible also to get a copy of the front, we can make it in our office.

A: Yes, I see no reason why not.
MR. ALCOCK: Other than that, the State is satisfied with the return on the subpoena duces tecum.
THE COURT: Are you going to take these from him and put them in the record?
MR. ALCOCK: It has not been introduced into evidence, this is just our subpoena to him for our use in the case. If you want to keep them --
THE COURT: Do you wish to mark them for identification purposes?
MR. ALCOCK: Not now.
THE COURT: You are satisfied with the return?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you any questions, Mr. Dymond?
MR. DYMOND: No questions.
THE COURT: For the record, that was a return on a subpoena duces tecum served on the Postmaster, Paul V. Burke, and this return was made by his representative, Mr. Ryan. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: We are ready.
THE COURT: Let's call Mr. Russo.



PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been sworn and having testified previously, resumed the stand for a continuation of the CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, on direct examination yesterday did you tell the entire story as you recollected it in connection with the meeting which you say took place on Louisiana Avenue Parkway in September of 1963?

A: To Sciambra in Baton Rouge?
Q: No, on your direct testimony yesterday, when questioned by Mr. Alcock.
A: Well, what -- I don't know the -- exactly what information you want.
Q: I want to know whether you gave a complete account of this party and what has been termed a conspiratorial meeting when you testified on this direct examination under questioning by Mr. Alcock.
A: Well, I don't know, I answered the questions, I tried to answer the questions he asked. I don't know if there were any omissions in there, though.
Q: To your knowledge, in his questioning did he leave out anything?
A: Not apparently.
Q: In other words, you are not able to name anything that he did not cover in his questioning of you concerning this meeting and party. Is that right?
A: No, not immediately.
Q: I see. Now, Mr. Russo, during the meeting which you say took place after the other guests left, did you contribute anything at all to the conversation?
A: No, I was mot of the time going in and going back out down the street, down to the street a lot of times. I didn't hear the entire conversation.
Q: So you were in and out then during this time when you say these people were talking. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And of course you would not know what went on when you were out of the room, would you?
A: Right, no.
Q: Would I be correct then in saying, Mr. Russo, that you only heard portions or fragments of the conversation which took place there in view of the fact that you were in and out of the room?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you would not purport to have heard the entire conversation as a matter of continuity, would you?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, referring to what you did hear of this conversation between the parties whom you say were Leon Oswald, Clem Bertrand and David Ferrie, was there ever any actual agreement to kill John F. Kennedy?
MR. ALCOCK: I object to the question.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection. That is a question for the Jury to decide.
MR. ALCOCK: My objection is based upon the fact that agreement can be reached between persons using different words, it is a meeting of the minds, and as the Court points out, this is something for the Jury to determine. This man can't state whether or not there had been agreement between these men, and additionally --
MR. DYMOND: I will break the question down, if the Court, please.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: In your presence, did David Ferrie ever agree to kill the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy?

A: He said, "We will kill him."
Q: He had said that many times before, had he not?
A: Right.
Q: As a matter of fact, he had made that direct statement to you alone, had he not?
A: Right.
Q: Did Leon Oswald ever, in your presence, agree to kill the President of the United States?
A: No.
Q: Did Clem Bertrand ever agree to kill the President of the United States?
A: No.
Q: Would I be correct in saying then that you never hear anyone actually agree to kill the President of the United States?
A: Well, when you say "agree," it is the problem, that is the word "agree," you know, I mean, all I do is hear people talking about it, I don't know if they agreed or not. It would seem to me they were in agreement as far as certain things were concerned, I don't know if they actually -- I can't remember either any of the three ever saying yes, this is how we will do it, let's do it this way.
Q: Did you ever hear anybody say, "We will do it"?
A: Dave Ferrie, "We will get him."
Q: "I will get him" or "We will get him," the same he had said many times before?
A: "We will get him," he didn't say, "We will do it."
Q: When was the first time you ever heard Dave Ferrie say that?
A: Oh, sometime in the Summer.
Q: Several months before this meeting that you have reference to. Is that correct?
A: Well, it was between, you know, June and July or August.
Q: When Ferrie told you this individually, as you have testified, did you ever agree with Ferrie that it was a good idea, tacitly go along with him?
A: I told him that it would be extremely difficult to do something like that, and that he didn't have much hope of success.
Q: Did you ever verbally indicate disagreement with the idea, Mr. Russo, when Ferrie told you this privately?
A: Well, I told him it would not be possible.
Q: But you never did say that it was not a good idea or affirmatively state that you would not help him, did you?
A: Well, all he was doing was lecturing, and he would state this -- there are two things, the front and the back of the auditorium, this idea of his, where the back man fires a shot just to attract attention, a real quick shot, and almost instantly a man in front fires a dead-end shot for the speaker, that would be in the front of the auditorium, and it was not much of a conversation, he just stated the facts. I said, "Well, that is impossible."
Q: And it was quite common for Ferrie to lecture in this way as you have put it, was it not?
A: Right.
Q: In all fairness, would you say he may have been just lecturing at this meeting?
A: I can't really say he was lecturing or not. He seemed to be talking with the Defendant and also with Oswald, with some exchange from him.
Q: Just as he had talked to you on previous occasions. Is that right?
A: On one occasion, yes.
Q: And actually there was some exchange on that occasion and you told him that you didn't think it would be possible and so forth, was there not?
A: Right.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, Dave Ferrie was what you would term an emotional man, was he not?
A: No.
Q: He didn't get excited and talk about things and repeat himself upon many occasions?
A: Well, he repeated himself on quite a few occasions, but he had a very good analytic brain, and, no, he did not get very emotional about things, he would talk at great length, at times he would get a little -- where he would be trying to prove a point and use his hands to get over the subject, whether it be about -- well, whatever he wanted to talk about.
Q: You would term him an opiniated man, would you not?
A: Opiniated, yes.
Q: Was he vociferous about his opinions, did he speak about them a great deal, he expressed his opinions a great deal, tried to convert people to his opinions a great deal?
A: In certain areas.
Q: What do you mean when you say "In certain areas," any particular --
A: He had a peculiar philosophy where his interests were. He had a peculiar philosophy in politics, he had, to me, a strange philosophy as far as the rationale of religious convictions, he talked a great deal about scientific things, but, I don't know what he talked about most of the time, he talked a little bit about cancer, he talked a little bit about -- quite a bit about hypnosis, things of this sort, those are the things that interested him and he did talk about them at some length, but at that time he was trying to prove a point, not really trying to convert someone, but he did know quite a bit about the subject that he talked about.
Q: Being the opiniated man that you say that Ferrie was and with this tendency to ex- press his opinions as you have described, is it not a fact that he would not be out of character at a party of this kind saying that the President should be killed and "We will get him," as he said many times before?
A: Are you asking me was he out of character for that?
Q: That is correct, yes.
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: In other words, that was something that you, knowing David Ferrie, would have more or less expected, isn't that right?
A: More or less.
Q: What you heard that night came as no great shock to you, did it?
A: No, I agree.
Q: As a matter of fact, Mr. Russo, if you had really taken this as a serious threat upon the life of President Kennedy, wouldn't you have gone and reported it to the FBI or the Secret Service, if you had really thought the President was going to be killed as a result of this?
A: Probably if it was the first time I ever met Dave Ferrie I would have, but this was preceded by 18 or 20 months.
Q: But in view of the fact that you knew Dave Ferrie, you didn't take it seriously, isn't that right?
A: Well, Dave Ferrie was the type of person you really didn't know whether you could take him seriously or not. In many instances he backed up what he would claim. If I could reflect back to Kenner, on that discussion on politics, where I was a Freshman or a Sophomore in college, I felt that I knew quite a bit about everything there was to know about political theory, and he just put me in my seat, he quoted book, chapter and verse, and later I found out he was right, I didn't look at the book and turn to Page 368, Paragraph 2, but in several ways he did back up what he said, and his hypnosis, he backed that up, I am sure it was not fake, I don't think it was fake or anything, and you couldn't really tell because some of the fantastic things that he said at the same time you could not -- I just sat there, I didn't have any real opinion whether he would back anything he said up, but I would not be surprised if he did because he had backed things up before.
Q: Actually, though, it was your knowledge or intimate knowledge of Dave Ferrie that kept you from taking this seriously enough to report it. Isn't that correct?
A: Let me just explain my position with Dave Ferrie. In other words --
MR. ALCOCK: I don't think that connects with the evidence in this case, he did report it to us.
MR. DYMOND: The witness is under cross-examination, I will get to the date of reporting, I full well realize he reported it to the District Attorney's office.
THE COURT: You may proceed. Mr. Russo was about to explain his answer, and you can go ahead.
A: In other words, Dave Ferrie was a character, not indifferent to it, but almost, out of -- somewhat I avoided the man mentally because he had a brilliant mind and he could sort of envelop and strangle a conversation or influence direction of thought because he might be able to prove it was wrong, and he did claim quite a few things that I didn't know if he backed up or not, he claimed he was in the Bay of Pigs to me, and I heard somewhere that he claimed that he was not. I don't know if he was in the Bay of Pigs, he claimed he flew down to Mexico and Cuba, these things I don't know, I could not test, but the problem with Ferrie was that along with the claims he had this appearance, he had no -- it looked to me no apparent purpose but on the other side of the coin he did back up the things, things that just -- when I came into contact with him, he did back these things up, he was well read in religious matters, he could quote book, chapter and verse on political stuff and things that I was interested in, and he did back himself up in this area, and he also had a medical lab. Now, I couldn't understand a man having a medical lab and not really knowing what he is doing down there, but he said he was a doctor or he had extensive knowledge in surgery and things of that sort, and what could he back up and what couldn't he, and I just pretended to be indifferent to his claims and talks and things like that, it just went in one ear and out the other, as far as validity I didn't know which way to take it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: And for approximately four years you were indifferent to what you heard going on at this meeting, weren't you?

A: Approximately.
Q: And would you say it would be accurate to say this went in one ear and out the other?
A: Well, no, I am using that in the sense that what he was saying, whether or not to accept it, whether to accept it literally as to what he was claiming to do or what he had claimed to have done before, but between those, that period of time, Oswald died a couple of days right after Kennedy got shot, and when the FBI got on the television and said it was all over with, they had solved the crime or the Dallas police or whoever it was said that, quite a few people said that, I considered it a closed case, no one else was involved, interested, and I couldn't really point to Ferrie and say he was, I did not -- the FBI said everybody is cleared except Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby was not a fried of his or was not involved, and I --
Q: Mr. Russo, knowing yourself that you do, would you have remained indifferent for four years to what you considered a serious formulated plan to kill the President?
A: The plan, you know, as I told you, I was walking in and out, and the reason that I initially got into the thing was because of the D.A.'s office, which was mentioned in Baton Rouge, well, mentioned the name of Dave Ferrie, or his picture came in the paper, one of them, and the day before, I think it was the day before he died I wrote a letter, but I never mailed it until a couple of days later, and that is when it appeared to me that other people, Dave Ferrie for one, might be involved in the killing of President Kennedy.
Q: And you had been indifferent toward this thing for about four years up until that time, had you not, sir?
A: No one, right, no one contacted me.
Q: Actually, you had not really worried about it, had you?
A: No, I didn't worry about it.
Q: Actually you didn't really worry about it right after you heard it, did you?
A: When Oswald was arrested, I told a couple of friends that I knew him, or ir looked like I knew him, I thought it was the same guy, or when he was shot, one or the other, and then of course all the hurrah on the news and television and newspapers that he was the only man, I was finding out what the Warren Commission was saying -- that was next year.
Q: I am talking about the period between mid-September and November 22, 1963, you did not worry about this, did you?
A: Oh, between that period of time?
Q: Right.
A: No.
Q: As an American citizen, wouldn't you have worried, wouldn't you have been concerned if you had thought there was brewing a plot to kill your President?
A: Well, if I could answer it this way, Mr. Dymond, Judge Perez recently said something about, a year or so ago, that he felt there was a plot to kill him, and unless someone were to name a person, unless Judge Perez were to name a person that was involved, this man looked like -- I am going to arrest him and charge him with so and so, and if he were connected, I have heard people say that Judge Perez would be better dead than alive, better under the swamp than on top of it, I heard that on several occasions and quite often back in '63 and the prior years there was quite a few things that the schools were being -- the schools were being desegregated, there was a lot of hurrah about that and quite often I heard the remark, "If I had a gun I would shoot President Kennedy," or the no good so-and-so should be dead, so between September and November of 1963, again I put the remark on the shelf.
Q: Now, although you were a Republican, Russo, and I don't know whether you agreed or disagreed with President Kennedy's policy, but you certainly did not want to see him dead, did you?
A: No, sir.
Q: And as an American citizen, wouldn't you have worried between mid-September of '63 and November of '63 if you had actually thought that there was in existence a plan to kill your President?
A: Well, in mid-September, if I had thought again, again if I had met Dave Ferrie for the first time then I would probably have called the New Orleans Police or somebody and told them this is what I heard, take it for what it is worth, but I had known Dave Ferrie for a little while before.
Q: And because of your knowledge of Dave Ferrie, you didn't do that, you didn't see fit to do it, you didn't think it was necessary. Is that right?
A: That is one of the reasons.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you say that there were ten or 12 people at this party before the crowd started to disintegrate.
A: About eight or ten.
Q: About eight or ten. Can you give me the names of any of those people other than Clem Bertrand, David Ferrie, Leon Oswald, and yourself?
A: Oh, there was this -- well, there were two Spanish-looking guys who I remember.
Q: You can't say who they were?
A: The were introduced, one name that I remember and the other name I am not sure, there was Julian, a Manuel.
Q: Of course you realize both of those are very common Latin names.
A: Yes.
Q: And you can't give us the names of any other people there?
A: No.
Q: Weren't you mingling in this crowd, wouldn't you associate with these people?
A: Not really.
Q: Were you standing off to yourself, or what?
A: No, essentially I would be talking or probably watching Dave Ferrie walk up and down when I was inside. Of course at that time that you are talking about I was inside.
Q: Were you fascinated about what you heard going on, why would that attract your attention?
A: Well, Dave Ferrie monopolized the conversation, he gave it impetus and direction, so to speak, and, for example, one night I was standing on the corner of Canal and Decatur and along comes Ferrie and some others, and I later on get the impression from talking to Allen Landry that they were going out to find something to do or something, and you could not exactly know what you could expect from Ferrie the next time, so he paces up and down the floor and talks about Kennedy.
Q: Hearing Ferrie talk is nothing new for you, you heard this on many occasions, had you not?
A: Well, I might answer that question a little bit better, he did have a fascinating way of talking or a mind, anyway.
Q: In other words, would it be a fair statement for me to say that there is no one alive and available to testify about this party that you can name except yourself and the man whom you have termed Clem Bertrand --
MR. ALCOCK: That is difficult for this man to answer.
MR. DYMOND: That he can name, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: He named two, he does not know if they are alive or dead.
THE COURT: I think the objection is well taken, I can't repeat his testimony, Mr. Dymond, he just gave you the names of two persons.
MR. DYMOND: He gave me two very common Latin names, and if the Court please, there are probably millions of Julians and Manuels.
THE COURT: Just like John and Robert.
MR. ALCOCK: He named some other persons, Your Honor, I don't want to go into.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: So you don't know of anybody else you can name who could be called here to confirm that party or meeting, do you, Mr. Russo?

A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, in the Sciambra memorandum, I take it you know what I am talking about when I refer to it like that?
A: Yes.
Q: In the Sciambra memorandum, you refer to this Leon Oswald as having dirty-blond hair. Do you say that that was an error when that was placed in there?
A: I had made a correction on that yesterday.
Q: Is it your testimony that you never mentioned the description "dirty-blond hair"?
MR. ALCOCK: I object, I am objecting to the question, Mr. Russo from the stand corrected that yesterday.
MR. DYMOND: Certainly I am not deprived of the right to cross-examine.
MR. ALCOCK: Not over and over the same subject.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it your testimony that in your conversation with Mr. Sciambra on the 25th of February in Baton Rouge, 1967, that you never gave the description "dirty-blond hair"?

A: Well, yesterday when I was correcting the memorandum, I think I said that the impression I gave to Sciambra in Baton Rouge, said he was a dirty beatnik style, I don't think I mentioned hair color, though I might have, it was probably toward the brown side, I don't think I could have said dirty-blond, although that would make it brown.
Q: You are saying you did not mention hair color at all or the dirty blond is incorrect, an incorrect relation of what you said with respect to hair?
A: I am saying probably both, but if it -- his hair was messed up, probably was not the color, but I don't think we did, I don't recall that we did go into the color, but if we did it would have been a brownish, of course dirty blond would be synonymous with brown.
Q: If you were asked to describe Leon Oswald's hair at this time, how would you describe it?
A: Brown.
Q: Brown, light brown or dark brown?
A: Oh, just brown.
Q: Just brown. Did you ever tell Mr. Sciambra that the man had a husky beard?
A: I made a correction on that, we talked about the beard, and as far as that word may have come up in trying to pull a word out of the air, trying to get a word to fit it, we never did to this day -- don't have a word because it was not a beard and not whiskers, it was something else, and we had a photo, I had to pull a word out to describe it.
Q: Are you still unable to give us a word to describe the beard?
A: No, but I would be open to suggestion about that.
Q: Would you say it was a bushy beard?
A: No, it was not a bushy beard.
Q: Would you say it was a neat beard?
A: No, it was not a neat beard because it had spots.
MR. ALCOCK: The witness testified, one, it was not a beard, it was something between a beard and a growth of whiskers, he never termed it a beard.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the witness has not testified that there was no beard. I am trying to get him to describe now what kind of beard it was, and by his very testimony he cannot find the adjective for it, he said he is open to suggestion and I am suggesting a few.
MR. ALCOCK: This man testified yesterday, I remember it quite distinctly, he said it appeared to be a growth of whiskers two or three days.
MR. DYMOND: The man is on the stand now, and if the man wants to say that, let him say it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You would not deny that you described this man as having had a beard, would you, Mr. Russo?

A: On some occasions I have, although that is not the best word for it.
Q: And you still don't know what the best word is?
A: No, but, in other words, probably, and you have seen probably some people in town that have just long beards, that to me is a full beard, and they have this beard that Mr. Plotkin has which would not be it again, and that is not it either, it is just a growth, it could be called a beard and there were spots on it where it just -- he didn't grow hair.
Q: Would it be incorrect in terming that an unkept beard?
A: That would be it.
Q: That would be about as close as you could get?
A: Three or four days' growth.
Q: Now, you feel fairly confident in saying that this was at least a three or four-day growth of beard. Is that correct?
A: Oh, well, I mean, I can't really tell how long it was, that would be a good statement that I probably would stand by.
Q: Now, was the beard the same color as the hair that the man had, or was it darker?
A: It seems to be a little bit, just didn't seem to be the same as the hair.
Q: Now, just what difference would you describe as between the two, which one was darker and which one lighter?
A: I am not sure, I am not real sure on that, but it didn't appear to be the same as the hair.
Q: The beard?
A: It was not, in other words, it was not a fake beard, I didn't think, it could have been -- I mean, it just did not appear to be the same color.
Q: The beard, did it have any traces of white in it?
A: Of white, gray hair? Maybe, I don't think so, there were spots of white.
Q: Did the sideburns extend into the beard?
A: Well, it was a messed-up appearance, I don't really recall whether the sideburns did or not, or whether it was just messed up.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, with regard to your testimony that you saw Mr. Shaw at the filling station on Veterans Highway, and with particular reference to the Sciambra memorandum, and more particularly at the top of Page 3 of this memorandum --
A: Page 3?
Q: Right, you are going to have to go back to the previous page.
A: Page 2.
Q: Where the memorandum reflects that you saw Mr. Shaw in the Veterans Highway filling station some six months after a date in 1962, which would place it well before the mid-September meeting that you have described --
A: On Page 1 or Page 2 now?
Q: Page 2, running into Page 3, if you would read Page 2 you will get the continuity of it, six months from 1962, do you see what I am referring to now?
A: Yes, I have about what you are talking about, yes.
Q: I take it that you agree that this memorandum indicates that your seeing Shaw at the Veterans Highway filling station occurred well before mid-September of '63?
A: Yes, I said that I was wrong, I thought -- my initial recollection was that it was in 1962.
Q: In other words, the error you attribute to yourself rather than to the author of the memorandum?
A: The date, the date of it.
Q: Now, referring to the testimony in the preliminary hearing wherein you state that your seeing Mr. Shaw in the Veterans Highway filling station occurred after President Kennedy was assassinated.
A: Right.
Q: Is that the statement to which you subscribe at this time?
A: My initial recollection in Baton Rouge with Sciambra was that it was '62, and then I thought about it later on and then I told him it was '64, I think the early part of '64 or the middle of '64.
Q: So then on that event you have roughly a two-year error in your judgment as to when you saw Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway. Is that correct?
A: On Veterans Highway, approximately.
Q: When did you discover that you were wrong about that?
A: When did I discover that I was wrong?
Q: Yes.
A: I am not real sure of when.
Q: Had you ever seen the Sciambra memorandum before coming to Court as a witness in the present trial of this case?
A: James Phelan showed it to me in Baton Rouge.
Q: Did you note that in the Sciambra memorandum when Phelan showed it to you?
A: '62, yes, -- I am not sure whether he had asked the question or not, but it was an error at that time because that was after the preliminary hearing, and after the preliminary hearing, you know, he came up the 18th or 20th of March, and he did point out some errors in it, or apparent contradictions, and I don't know if he pointed that out or not, but if he would have, I would have cleared that up for him.
Q: In other words, you are testifying now that you do not know whether in reviewing this memorandum with Mr. Phelan you pointed that out as an error. Is that correct?
A: If he asked me about it, I am sure I did, but it had been corrected by my testimony under the preliminary hearing which was a week before, or four or five days before.
Q: Mr. Russo, isn't it a fact that in your conversation with Mr. Sciambra wherein this memorandum was reviewed by the two of you, that you pointed out only a couple of minor, practical typographical errors and had a slight discussion with him on the question of how many times you had seen Mr. Shaw?
A: What are you talking about?
Q: When Sciambra reviewed the memorandum with you in Baton Rouge --
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Phelan, not Mr. Sciambra.

A: That was the -- he only pointed out a couple of things that he felt were apparent contradictions, and the major one was this twice as opposed to three times, if he would have gone down and -- word for word, we would have found by your count 26 notations.
Q: Isn't it a fact that he let you read the memorandum at that time and asked you to point out every error you claimed existed in it?
A: It is a fact we talked about three hours with the exception of a half hour in there, and during that period of time we talked quite a bit about the preliminary hearing, we talked about several other odds and ends of things that I knew and that are not important to the case, and then finally he said, "I want to show you this memorandum," and this was Sciambra's, and there are some errors, and I did not read it from start to finish, we had been there for two and a half or three hours, the District Attorney's Office had notified me he was coming up, and he did have this one word "twice" underlined or circled and underlined, and an arrow drawn to the side, and that is what I thumbed through and looked at it and he said, "Does everything seem correct," and I said, "Well, with some exceptions," I said essentially it seems some of these things we talked about in Baton Rouge, I said there were a few errors, and he said what about this, and he pointed out a couple of things like that, the big thing to him was that "twice." He said, "What about this," and I said, "Well, that was an error on Sciambra's part," I said, "He kept very few notes in Baton Rouge."
Q: It's your testimony then when you met with Mr. Phelan in Baton Rouge, that you did not read the entire Sciambra memorandum?
A: Word for word, absolutely not.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, to your knowledge, when did you first call to anyone's attention that there was a two-year error on your estimate as to when you said you had seen Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway in the Sciambra memorandum?
A: I am not sure when I first saw this memorandum. Now, this is Sciambra's memorandum, and you could probably ask him when this -- he first showed it to me, but I am not real sure because I really didn't -- this was something that was in the background.
Q: Do you remember having called that two-year error to anyone's attention prior to yesterday?
A: Prior to yesterday, oh, sure.
Q: When?
A: Well, I called it to Phelan's attention back in '67, for one, I am sure that I had discussions with the District Attorney's Office, but I could not say exactly when, because that was just an error, initially when Sciambra came up he sat down with his briefcase and we talked for two hours, and after we finished he wanted to rush back and talk to Garrison, and we didn't have the greatest amount of time, so I don't know exactly when this memorandum was drawn up, on Monday, I think, the 27th, I don't even know when I saw it first, I know Phelan had a copy of it.
Q: Now, you testified just a moment ago that you were sure you called this to Mr. Phelan's attention.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Now, would that be during this meeting with you in Baton Rouge or during one of several other meetings that he had with you?
A: This was in Baton Rouge, I am sure we perhaps brought it up again in Baton Rouge, but he was up there for one night and that was it, and in New Orleans it was for several nights.
Q: It is your positive testimony that you did call that two-year discrepancy to the attention of James Phelan in Baton Rouge?
A: I didn't say it was a two-year discrepancy, I told him it was an error. Now, 1962, if he asked me about '62, yes, I told him, I might definitely -- I told him twice versus the three times, twice was the error on Sciambra's part for reasons I don't know, I made that clear to Sciambra, that was one of the reasons he asked me if I could come to New Orleans the following Monday, on the 27th. As far as the 1962, was concerned, if he asked me about it, because we didn't go over this word for word, I picked it up, he said, "Here, are you familiar with it," and I think I was familiar with it at that time, I had probably seen it before, and so I went down the line on it, not every page and not every word.
Q: When was it that you had a discussion with David Ferrie on Bourbon Street concerning his seeing Al Landry?
A: I will say 1961 or 1962.
Q: 1961 or 1962?
A: Yes.
Q: Would I be fair in saying late '61 or early '62?
A: Well, yes, you asked that yesterday, and I am not sure, you could probably ask Policeman Jano because he was the one that was involved with that particular case.
Q: Now, in this Sciambra memorandum, you relate the seeing of Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway to the incident on Bourbon Street with David Ferrie, saying it was about six months after that that you saw Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway. Is this entire relationship invalid, or what?
A: No, I don't relate anything, that is Sciambra's relationship there. I don't have anything to do with relating that together, and, secondly, as I was attempting to give some sort of continuity to him in Baton Rouge, when I said 1962, that was a flat error on my part, and which later on was corrected, and I am willing to admit it was an error, but as far as the words, I did not write those down.
Q: But when you say 1962 now, in connection with your dispute with Ferrie on Bourbon Street, that is not an error, is it, 1961 or 1962?
A: 1962?
Q: Yes.
A: Now, Landry went into the Air Force in '62, I think, and it was probably -- I don't, I have a tendency to say it was '61 more than '62, but I am not real sure.
Q: The statement that the seeing of Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway was six months after the Bourbon Street incident with Ferrie, is that the part that is in error?
A: On the Veterans Highway, yes.
Q: Do you have any way of explaining that error, I mean, was it your error, Sciambra's error, or how did it come about?
A: Well, I was trying to give him some sort of continuity or understanding as to people he wanted names of, friends of mine, where did I know these people and these photographs, things of that sort, and I was attempting to give him some sort of a continuity on this thing, and when he wrote this memorandum, Monday, I think, and of course that is his concern there, he did not keep a great amount of notes, that is probably where the error came from, but he did keep just a legal pad, and he kept some scribbling on that.
Q: As a matter of fact, he took quite a few notes on the legal pad, didn't he, Mr. Russo?
A: I would not say so, no, I would not say quite a few.
Q: He had addresses and phone numbers and names which were rather difficult to spell, is that correct?
A: Well, Kershenstine is a name that is difficult to spell, but how many pages of notes do you have on that top pad, on your handwritten pad, please?
Q: Oh, I have quite --
A: You have a bunch of them, eight or ten, he did not kept eight or ten, he did not.
Q: How many did he keep?
A: Maybe a couple of pages, maybe a page, maybe two or three pages.
Q: You don't know how many pages he kept?
A: I do know that he did take notes or just very rarely scribbled on a piece of paper, on the yellow legal pad, but how much that eventually was, I could not see more than a page, two and a half or maybe three at the most.
Q: Did you ever see these notes Mr. Sciambra took?
A: No.
Q: But you are able to tell approximately how many notes or what quantity of notes he took. Is that right?
A: If I could use a pen and pencil, I will show you something. In other words, this is what he did, he sat there with his briefcase on his knees like this, he had a yellow pad of paper there and 20 or 30 photographs or how many photographs he had here, a couple of books underneath that, and, well, this is what he did, I mean, Sergio Acacha, and it was big handwriting, and he would take up this line and Tim Kershenstine, 943849, stuff like that, and he probably went on the second page, but I was not even watching, he did not stand there and copy about ten or 12 pages, and every word I said he didn't copy down.
Q: In other words, Mr. Russo, the notes that you saw Mr. Sciambra take would not have revealed the content of what you told him. Is that right, they were not sufficient?
A: That is what I would say.
Q: Therefore, there would have been no necessity to burn these notes to keep somebody from telling what you had told Mr. Sciambra?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor, this matter is not in evidence.
THE COURT: I believe you are assuming an answer that has not as yet been given.
MR. DYMOND: We withdraw the question. We are asking that the gun be brought in. Do you want to take a 10:00 o'clock break now?
THE COURT: Yes, now is a good time for a break.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)



AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Is the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
THE COURT: Please check the bolt action.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I show you a rifle which was exhibited to you yesterday by the State, and I ask you whether you are able to testify that that is the same type rifle that you saw Leon Oswald cleaning upon one occasion in the apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway.

A: That it is exactly the same?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I don't know if it would be exactly the same or not.
Q: Are you able to point out any difference between this rifle and the one which you saw him cleaning?
A: I did not look at the rifle very closely, I couldn't point out any difference.
Q: Now, in the course of cleaning it, did he have the rifle dismantled or was it all in one piece?
A: Oh, he was just polishing it or wiping it, it was all in one piece at that time.
Q: Was he polishing or wiping the wooden portion of the rifle or the metal portion, or both?
A: I don't know, I don't know which he was just -- he was just wiping all over, really, could have been polishing or just wiping, probably all over.
Q: And it's your testimony then that all that you can say is a similar rifle. Is that correct?
A: Right, and the bolt action of course, this right here, this sight is more like it, and this kind of a grain to it or plastic, something along this line.
Q: Now, do you recall the rifle that was exhibited to you during the preliminary hearing in this matter?
A: A little bit.
Q: Could you say that rifle was more or less similar to the one which you saw Leon Oswald with than this rifle?
A: No, this was more like it.
Q: Would you point out the points of greater similarity.
MR. ALCOCK: I object unless he is exhibited the rifle he was asking him to compare.
MR. DYMOND: I have asked him whether he remembers the rifle and he said yes.
THE COURT: If the witness has a distinct memory for it, he can answer the question; if he does not, that is something else.
THE WITNESS: As I said in the preliminary hearing, I said the scope on the rifle that I was shown in the preliminary hearing, the barrel was too big and also the end of the stock was indented, and the Oswald rifle was not.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was not indented. Is this the portion of the stock to which you refer?

A: This part of it. In other words, had an indent on the one that I was shown, a groove, I guess, for the arm or shoulder and it was not that way with Oswald's rifle.
Q: I show you now the rifle which I am informed is the one which was exhibited to you in the preliminary hearing, and I ask you to show us on this rifle the indentation to which you referred.
A: Right here (indicating).
Q: I see, so you would say then that this rifle is less similar?
A: Right.
Q: However, you would not say either one of these rifles is the rifle that you saw Leon Oswald polishing. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, at this meeting of mid-September, 1963, did you see any rifle at that time?
A: At that time, no.
Q: You did not?
A: No.
Q: So the only time that you actually saw a rifle was on a previous occasion when you visited the apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway and saw the man whom you say is Leon Oswald polishing a rifle. Is that correct?
A: Well, I saw what appeared to be a rifle bag when I was leaving, but the only time I saw the rifle was the first time you are referring to, yes.
Q: Would you describe the rifle bag to which you have made reference.
A: Well, I am not sure it was a rifle bag or not, and if it would have been, the gun had to have been dismantled.
Q: Approximately how long was this thing that you suspected of being a rifle bag?
A: I guess about three feet.
Q: About three feet long?
A: About three feet.
Q: You said it was not long enough to hold either one of the rifles?
A: No, unless it was taken apart. It may not have been, I am not sure.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, yesterday the State said that it would make every effort to locate the original of the letter written by Mr. Russo to the District Attorney. I would like to now be informed whether that letter has been located.
MR. ALCOCK: We have not been able to locate it, Your Honor. I don't know anyone who ever saw the letter.
MR. DYMOND: I take it then we can assume it cannot be located?
THE COURT: Find out from the witness to whom it was addressed and you said to whom it may concern, but how was the letter addressed?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: To whom did you address the letter which you wrote on the 21st of February?

A: The inside letter was just "To Whom it may Concern," but the outside envelope was either to the District Attorney's Office or to the District Attorney Jim Garrison, 2700 Tulane Avenue.
Q: 2700 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana?
A: Right, 70119.
Q: 70119. You even had the Zip Code on it?
A: I don't know if I put the Zip Code on it or not, but I know for this area.
Q: You did have the correct address, 2700 Tulane Avenue?
A: Yes.
Q: You have confirmed that is the proper address of this building. Is that correct?
A: Well, I called Information from Baton Rouge to get the address, and that is the address they gave me, I called from Baton Rouge, called Information in New Orleans and that is the address they gave me.
Q: You say the letter was never returned to you. Is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I think you testified yesterday that Sandra Moffett was practically a constant companion of yours back in 1963. Is that right?
A: Well, you know, I will say the same thing I said yesterday, in other words, I did essentially the same thing every week, you know, and approximately with the same people, but sometimes, for example, I might not see someone for three weeks, but then I might see them for five days in a row, and at that time and under those circumstances I would consider it a constant thing more or less because no one, to my knowledge, except at certain times, left town, no one -- if I knew they left town, then of course it would not have been a constant thing, but no one, to my knowledge, had left town that I associated with.
Q: Was Sandra the only girl that you were going with at that time?
A: There was another girl, Marilyn Perer, that was on and off for a period of time up to '65.
Q: But you would say that Sandra was your primary or your main female companion at that time. Is that correct?
A: Well, I don't know, maybe. I am not sure of that. That is hard to say, you know, she thought so.
Q: Did Sandra think that you were not going out with any other girls at that time or not?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you lead Sandra to believe that you were not going out with other girls at that time?

A: She knew about Marilyn, she did not know that much about Adele.
Q: Adele Marquer?
A: Now, Adele Laporte then.
Q: But you did testify yesterday that Sandra was almost a constant companion.
A: I would consider it that.
Q: How long had this relationship gone on, Mr. Russo?
A: Until 1965.
Q: In other words, you went with Sandra very often then between 1963 and 1965?
A: Oh, no, before that, about 1960.
Q: About 1960 to 1965?
A: Right.
Q: So that would be four or five years?
A: Right.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, where did Sandra live at that time during 1963, Mr. Russo?
A: She lived at several places, she lived around Canal and Broad, she lived uptown, she lived different places.
Q: Now, around Canal and Broad, would you be a little bit more specific?
A: You asked me that in the preliminary hearing and I really didn't know the name of the street. I think it was Cleveland Street, which runs parallel with Canal.
Q: Cleveland Avenue?
A: I think it is that broad Street, I think it is called Cleveland Street, it is one block or two blocks over Canal towards Tulane Avenue.
Q: You went with her for four or five years and did not know what street she lived on, Mr. Russo?
A: Again, well, she did come to my house most of the time.
Q: Well, when you would go up to Tulane, say, to play basketball or go to Loyola to play basketball and Sandra would go with you, wouldn't you go by her house and pick her up?
A: Sometimes, but, you see, she wanted to go over all of the time, from early in the morning or whenever I got home from school, she wanted to go over and sometimes we would pick her up, and I would say maybe two or three times we picked her up at that time.
Q: You only picked her up two or three times. How long did she live there?
A: I don't know how long she lived there.
Q: Approximately, I don't expect you to be exact.
A: I don't know.
Q: Would it be a year?
A: Well, probably a year.
Q: And in the space of --
A: Well, a relative of hers lived there, a relative of hers lived there.
Q: And with her living there almost a year, and she being almost your constant companion, you only picked her up two or three times, you say?
A: Understand, now, that the apartment on Elysian Fields where I lived, that is where all of the time people came over, they always came over there, we would have a small party or have a couple of drinks or something like that, or basketball, after a basketball game, everybody came over to that apartment, and it was just -- that was my routine, I didn't do it any differently.
Q: Now, as I recall your testimony on the preliminary hearing, you could not tell us what street Sandra lived on. How have you since found out it was Cleveland Street?
A: Well, I just went over there and I think it is Cleveland, I am not sure, but I know it is right off of Canal and Broad, and it would probably be the first or second street, and my recollection was that it was a one-way going towards the Lake, which would be Cleveland.
Q: You say you went over there and looked for the house, or what?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find the house?
A: No, not so I could say it was the house.
Q: When was it approximately that Sandra moved away from that house, Mr. Russo?
A: I don't know.
Q: But your constant, practically constant companion lived in the same house for approximately a year and you could not go back there now and find that house?
A: Well, I went over there two or three times and I am not sure she lived there for a year, I suppose she lived there for a year. She didn't have a phone, she called me.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you testified that you saw Ferrie approximately three times in the month of September, 1963. Is that correct?
A: I saw Ferrie?
Q: Right.
A: Oh, a couple more times that that.
Q: How many would you say now?
A: Oh, I don't know, about a little bit more than that, I don't think I testified to three times I saw Ferrie.
Q: Well, if you were asked now how many times did you see Ferrie in September of 1963 --
A: I would say four or five.
Q: Four or five times?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you tell us the first time that you saw Ferrie in September of '63?
A: Probably he came over to my house, I am not real sure, nothing is very distinct about it. It was the same, probably he came over to the house.
Q: You say probably, What are you basing that probability on?
A: Because I don't really recall, it was either, you know, just the same old stuff with baseball, because right around the time, the tail end of September we were playing for Parish Finance baseball team up at the Audubon League, and the League ended in August, I think, and we went on to play additional baseball or exhibition games, and it would probably have been the early part of September, I don't know the exact date or why he came over, just dropped in.
Q: As a matter of fact, Ferrie had free access to your house at any time of the night or day, did he not?
A: He would come over, no one had any keys or could get in without my being there.
Q: But he had an open invitation?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had an open invitation to his house, didn't you?
A: Right.
Q: Were you ever Ferrie's roommate, Mr. Russo?
A: No.
Q: You never were?
A: No.
Q: Now, before mid-September, 1963, do you remember any other specific occasions on which you saw David Ferrie?
A: Before mid-September?
Q: During the month of September.
A: He came to a couple of baseball games, he just stopped for five minutes, did not come to watch the ball game.
Q: Baseball games where?
A: We played at Rhome Park, Pontchartrain Park, Audubon, I don't know which park he came at, just walked up and looked, stayed a few minutes, said hello and left, he came over to my apartment several occasions during the summer.
Q: You are talking about during the month of September now?
A: Oh, no, I thought you were talking about before September.
Q: During the month of September.
A: I don't know if he came to any baseball games during the month of September
Q: Do you remember any other specific occasion upon which you saw him?
A: Definitely I the month of September?
Q: Right.
A: I would be deducting, but I probably saw him a couple more times, but nothing very distinctive about it.
Q: You can't remember any other specific occasions?
A: Except up at his apartment the four times, except those four times you are talking about, right?
Q: Well, when was the first of those four times?
A: Somewhere around the middle of the month.
Q: Around the middle of the month?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the first time you had seen him in September at his apartment?
A: Oh, no, I don't think that was the first time, that was the first time he had any mention of a roommate, that struck me funny because I never heard him say he had a roommate.
Q: Now, to the best of your recollection, when was the first time during the month of September, 1963, that you saw Ferrie at his apartment?
A: Well, I would say, I mean, give you an approximate, early part of September, I don't know why I would say that, I couldn't associate anything with it, except that I was probably up there in the early part of September.
Q: You can just say you were probably up there, but you cannot say specifically. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, prior to the middle of September, can you name any other specific occasions upon which you were at Ferrie's apartment and saw him?
A: Well, nothing specifically, I don't associate it with anything.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, in an attempt to pinpoint the date of this party and meeting, are you able to relate that to your registering for the September, '63 term of school?
A: No, it is in between a couple of things, the baseball season officially was over in August, and we continued to play and we played in through the first week of September, and then after that it was just practice, no teams were played, everybody was going over to school and between that and registration of the first week of school, that occurred up at Ferrie's apartment.
Q: You remember having registered for school in September of 1963?
A: Not specifically, no.
Q: For your information, registration actually was on September 14, 1963, and does that assist you in trying to pinpoint the date?
A: No, that would be all right.
Q: Can you still not tell us whether the party and meeting which you have described was before or after you registered at Loyola for 1963, the 1963 term in September?
A: No, it was before we got into -- as I just said, the first week of school, whenever we got past the preliminary stuff, registration is just, you know, just several hours you put in up there, sign up for your classes.
Q: Are you able to tell us what day of the week that this was, a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, this party and meeting that you have described took place?
A: No.
Q: Are you able to tell us whether it was on a weekend?
A: No, the weekend and the week days were about the same at that time, you know what I mean.
Q: Are you able to tell us whether it was the first, the second, the third, or the fourth week in September?
A: No.
Q: Are you able to tell us what time of night you got there and what time of night you left?
A: Well, I know it was late in the evening when I got there, I am sure it was after 12:00 o'clock when I left.
Q: Are you certain this was in September, or could it have been in October, Mr. Russo?
A: Could it have been in October?
Q: That is correct.
A: No, we would have been fully in class then, you know, classes would have been --
Q: Well, you still had time off when you were in classes, I mean, you didn't spend every --
A: Really, if someone wanted to pass over, it had to be a quick shot, except under rare circumstances. Again, in April, we would start all over, again playing for the baseball team next April, but not very often, just a five-minute session. If someone wanted to come over -- I did not go too much, except sometimes to basketball games, Tulane basketball games or football games.
Q: Now, it's your testimony that when you left this meeting, Leon Oswald was till there. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Clem Bertrand was still there?
A: Right.
Q: David Ferrie was still there?
A: Right, he lived there.
Q: And you don't know how you got home from this meeting. Is that right?
A: I think I caught a bus.
Q: You don't remember?
A: No.
Q: Could somebody have given you a ride?
A: Probably.
Q: Had all of the other guests left?
A: They had left sometime before.
Q: They had left before you left?
A: Right.
Q: Could Ferrie had given you a ride home?
A: That is possible. But I just don't think so, he was not the type to walk out with people he had around him.
Q: You would not say that Clem Bertrand gave you a ride home, would you?
A: No.
Q: Could Leon Oswald have given you a ride home?
A: Oh, no.
Q: Well, then, would not it be a certainty that nobody gave you a ride home if everybody but those three had left?
A: Well, it is possible that one or the other gave me a ride home, but I am inclined to say I don't think so, I don't remember that. I am not sure how I got home. I could have hitchhiked home.
Q: Mr. Russo, do I understand you correctly that you say these three men, Leon Oswald, Clem Bertrand, and Dave Ferrie were the only ones left at that party when all of the other guests had left except you, and that you are not certain whether one of those men gave you a ride home?
A: If I could explain it this way, a few weeks ago --
Q: Would you please answer it and then explain it.
A: No, I am not certain who gave me a ride home. Last year Art Heyman of -- a basketball player for Pittsburgh, I think he plays for, he jumped into the stands and punched a guy for riding him, you know. I have a habit of riding basketball players just out of general practice, this is right now, I go essentially to the basketball games with the same people, and all of those people that I go with, that particular night they were asking me who I went with and how I got there, but I could not be altogether sure, but I can say Art Heyman jumped in the stands and punched the guy and he hit the wrong guy at that, but probably Joe Jackson was there and probably Philip Hatose was there and probably Niles Peterson was there and probably Cathy Walden and a couple of others, but which one of those I was with, I know I went home that night in my own car, but who said what, I am not sure, these people I associated with every day.
Q: And you would say that that situation is similar to your not remembering whether or not one of the three conspirators to kill the President of the United States rode you home form the conspiratorial meeting. Is that correct?
A: I don't call them conspirators, no, I don't know who rode me home, I may have caught a bus or hitchhiked or not.
Q: You do not call them conspirators?
A: I have never used that word.
Q: You would be reluctant to call them conspirators?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, did you say that you have or you have not seen David Ferrie since the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas?

A: Well, you are asking me from Sciambra's memorandum?
Q: I am asking you now --
A: That is absolutely incorrect, I gave the same answer I gave yesterday, I don't know where that came from.
Q: Do you have your copy of the memorandum, Mr. Russo? Now, Mr. Russo, I refer you to the statement contained in the last sentence of the top part on Page 6, to this effect:
"Russo says that he has not spoken with Ferrie since the assassination." Now, you say that is absolutely not true. Is that correct?
A: Yesterday I said that I didn't even know where this came from except in the mass confusion in Baton Rouge. I mean, I have seen Ferrie several times after the assassination.
Q: To your knowledge, did you tell Mr. Sciambra anything that could have been confused or mistaken so as to make him make a definite dogmatic statement like that in this memorandum?
A: No, not to my knowledge. I mean, perhaps it was just confusion.
Q: So you would not know where that statement came from at all, would you?
A: Right.
Q: But it is your testimony now that you did see and you did speak to Dave Ferrie after the President was assassinated?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did you discuss the assassination with him?
A: I didn't discuss anything with him, no.
Q: You spoke to him, didn't you?
A: Well, again I am saying the same thing I said before, I listened to him, and that is what most of the conversations were about, his conversations.
Q: These meetings that you had with him there, these meetings were the same as many other ones have been. Is that correct?
A: Well, when I saw him afterwards?
Q: Yes.
A: Right. I mean, if he dropped in over at the house on Elysian Fields or something, yes, he would come in, he might be talking about -- well, he could be talking about anything.



Q: Where did you see Dave Ferrie after the assassination?
A: Probably -- I am almost sure it was over at my house several times.
Q: Over at your house. Where were you living then?
A: On Elysian Fields.
Q: Was it in keeping with the open invitation that he had that he came there at that time?
A: Well, everybody had an open invitation to come over, I guess their -- it was in line with that.
Q: So he did come into your house at that time?
A: Well, the side apartment.
Q: I beg your pardon?
A: The side apartment is attached to the house.
Q: Into your apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he sit down?
A: I am sure he did.
Q: In other words, you had a visit with him. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, upon that occasion, which was after President Kennedy had been killed, after what you had heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway did you have any occasion to discuss with Dave Ferrie at that time the killing of President Kennedy?
A: No, at that time he was very bitter, you know, or he seemed to be changed quite a bit than he was before. Of course before he had a good mind, but he apparently lacked purpose, that was my idea. Again in '64 or late '64, whenever he came over, he was just a different person, he was not the same like he was before.
Q: You didn't see fit to ask him whether he had killed President Kennedy or whether he knew who killed him or anything like that?
A: I didn't see fit to ask him anything, he talked and grumbled about the D.A., grumbled about the Police Department in general, grumbled about the FBI.
Q: What was he grumbling about with respect to the District Attorney?
MR. ALCOCK: I object to hearsay.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was this the only time that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination?

A: I saw him a few times, I am not sure how many.
Q: Can you give us an approximation?
A: I saw him at the service station, you already know that and perhaps five, six, or seven times after that, not too many.
Q: Now, in all of these five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: No. The times that we met were for very short periods, and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this thing was coming up, of course that was, I think in March, and then they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in '65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most, maybe a little
[text missing?]
A: I saw him a few times, I am not sure how many.
Q: Can you give us an approximation?
A: I saw him at the service station, you already know that and perhaps five, six, or seven times after that, not too many.
Q: Now, in all of these five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: No. The times that we met were for very short periods, and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this thing was coming up, of course that was, I think in March, and then they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in '65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most, maybe a little bit longer.
Q: And to the best of your recollection, the assassination was never discussed. Is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Did he ever ask you, "For goodness sake, keep quiet about what you heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway"?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor, Mr. Dymond knows that is hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DYMOND: I don't think that is hearsay on Your Honor's previous ruling on a point of similarity yesterday.
THE COURT: The acts and declarations of each co-conspirator, a conspiracy, if one did actually exist, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the objection, the ruling of the Court a part of the bill. Now, if the Court please, in order for me to perfect this bill, I am going to have to get an answer from the witness, which of course would have to be done out of the presence of the Jury.
MR. ALCOCK: There is no provision in the law for such a procedure.
MR. DYMOND: Unless we do that, the Supreme Court has no way of knowing in the event of appeal what testimony we were deprived of.
MR. ALCOCK: The question is quite obvious, what did this man say in 1964, and the objection is to hearsay, the Court has sustained it, and what he is going to say is totally immaterial. The Court can determine, I am sure, the Supreme Court can determine whether or not as a matter of law that was hearsay, whatever the response was.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, as you well know, whether it is hearsay or not would be completely immaterial to an appellate court unless the appellate court found it was harmful, prejudicial, to keep that out of evidence.
THE COURT: You are asking to have the Jury go upstairs so you can perfect your bill?
MR. DYMOND: They can go back in the anteroom, I can get this in a matter of 30 seconds.
THE COURT: Let me make one statement for the record so that the record will show what happened. The Court sustained an objection by the State on the grounds that the evidence sought to be elicited was hearsay, primarily because the conspiracy, if one actually existed, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime; however, Defense Counsel requested the Court to remove the Jury so he could ask certain questions of the witness to perfect his bill of exception, and that is the status of the case as of this moment.
MR. DYMOND: I might say out of the presence of the Jury, and I would like to refer Your Honor to the Enganic (?) case with which you are familiar.
THE COURT: I prosecuted the case.
MR. DYMOND: Co-conspirators were held for the actions of co-conspirators after the actual commission of the crime.
THE COURT: The Code states specifically they are liable for the actions up until the time the conspiracy comes to a conclusion.
MR. DYMOND: Right up until the time of arrest, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Referring to the Code, Article 844 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Pro- cedure, I think that article is quite clear in where it states in Paragraph (b) a form of bill of exception shall contain only the evidence necessary to form the basis for the bill, and the only evidence necessary to form the basis for this bill is the pro- pounded questioning, my objection, and the Court's ruling. There is no provision in this law to have counsel have this question answered for the benefit of an appellate court, should it be necessary. If that is the case, Your Honor, any time Defense Counsel wanted to reserve a bill, knowing the testimony would not be proper, although the Jury might be removed, he could still get in what he wanted to get into the record.
MR. DYMOND: It's on the basis of that very article that we contend we do have a right to do this, this is testimony that is necessary to make up the bill of exception.
THE COURT: I will permit you to proceed in this matter for this reason: You feel that the answer to be sought from the witness may have a great bearing on your bill to be considered by the Court. I will permit you to proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: At any of these meetings, wherein you saw David Ferrie and spoke with him, after the assassination of President Kennedy, did he ever caution you to keep quiet about what you had heard on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?

A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That's all.
Q: THE COURT:
Bring the Jury back in.

MR. DYMOND: We will ask that that answer be made part of the bill too. Now, if the Court please, in the presence of the Jury, I would like to reserve my bill of exception, making the Defense question, the State's objection, the reasons for their objection, the answer of the witness which was taken outside of the presence of the Jury, and the Court's ruling and the entire record up until this point, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, how many times in total did you see the man whom you termed Leon Oswald?

A: Four.
Q: Four times?
A: Four times.
Q: Let's go back to the first time that you ever saw him. Would you relate the circumstance surrounding that incident.
MR. ALCOCK: I object to this at this time. I realize that Counsel has wide latitude on cross-examination, but I feel that we have been down this path before, and that this is highly repetitious. We went into this yesterday, we went into this today, how many times are we going to go over this ground?
MR. DYMOND: This series of questions does have a purpose and will be connected up.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Would you give us the circumstances surrounding your first meeting with Leon Oswald.

A: Well, I went up to Ferrie's apartment, I think I was in Ferrie's automobile, and Oswald, or at least the guy I had never met was on the front porch rocking or sitting, and we went up the staircase into the house and he introduced me, and at that time he was polishing or wiping a rifle, and he didn't stay there long, he left after a little bit.
Q: You say you were introduced to him at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, had you arrived at the house with David Ferrie?
A: I am not sure, I think I did that night, but I remember he said something about the guy up on the porch, you know, at nighttime.
Q: You say this was nighttime. Is that right?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Could you approximate the time of night?
A: No.
Q: Could you tell us approximately what date this was?
A: No, it was in September, right before the party, that was the first time I had ever seen the guy.
Q: You said it was in September of 1963?
A: Right.
Q: At that time did you have any conversation with Leon Oswald?
A: Well, there was antagonism, he just didn't seem to take towards being very social.
Q: Now, when was the next occasion on which you saw him?
A: A few nights later.
Q: About how many?
A: Two or three nights, three nights.
Q: Two or three nights later?
A: Yes.
Q: What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Well, I was coming back from uptown, I think playing basketball and we came in and everybody was, you know, the night of that meeting, with everybody --
Q: So the night of the meeting was the second time that you had seen him. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: On the night of this meeting and the party, did you hear Oswald introduced to anyone?
A: The night of the meeting and the preceding night he was introduced to me.
Q: The night of the meeting and the party which preceded it?
A: The night of the meeting is the same as the party, right, and the previous time that I went up there.
Q: On the night of the party and meeting, did you hear Leon Oswald introduced to any of the other guests?
A: No, they were there already, I am sure he was, Dave Ferrie took pains to introduce him.
Q: Did you hear him referred to by name that night?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Did you know his name that night?
A: I had been introduced to him a couple of nights before.
Q: So you remembered his name?
A: It was the same guy, yes.
Q: Now, after the night of the party and meeting, when was the next time you saw Leon Oswald?
A: Several days later.
Q: Several days later. What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Well, I just dropped in, and he evidently was having trouble with his wife or something to that effect and I left.
Q: Who else was there?
A: Ferrie.
Q: Just Ferrie and Leon Oswald?
A: Right.
Q: Did you know his name at that time?
A: Well, it was the same guy that had been introduced to me.
Q: Then the last time that you saw Leon Oswald, when was that?
A: Just a day or so after that, a few days after that.
Q: What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Again I just dropped in, that was probably -- I was probably uptown, might have been the first week of class or would have been the registration time period or anything right along there, because I was going uptown for the last time, I think it was during the day.
Q: You heard his name mentioned that time?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any conversations with him?
A: No.
Q: It is your testimony thta he was about to leave for Houston at that time?
A: I heard the name Houston mentioned, I am not sure whether he was going, but he was leaving.
Q: Who mentioned the name Houston?
A: Dave Ferrie.
Q: Of course you knew that Leon Oswald's name was at that time, didn't you?
A: Right.
Q: Now, right after President Kennedy was assassinated, would I be correct in saying that you heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald on television many times, on radio and saw it in the newspapers?
A: Right, Well, that is in line with what I was asked on WAFB Television, the transcript you read to the Jury, about Lee Harvey Oswald. It is true that I did not know a Lee Harvey Oswald and I have stuck to that since. The guy that I knew was Leon Oswald, and when Sciambra showed me the photograph, essentially it was the same guy, but that was Lee Harvey's photograph there.
Q: Had you connected the two names at all, the identify, the fact that the two last names were identical before that?
A: I told a couple of friends of mine that I knew him or I had known him.
Q: Oh, you did?
A: Right.
Q: What friends did you tell this to?
A: My cousin recalled it, and probably I told several people that, but probably I am almost sure I told my cousin, because he mentioned it to me, and probably I told some people at school, but I am not sure who they were.
Q: Now, you have testified that Leon Oswald was Ferrie's roommate at that time.
A: That is the way Ferrie introduced him.
Q: And that is what you have termed Leon Oswald in your previous statements concerning this case, haven't you?
A: Oh, on the stand, yes.
Q: Now, I refer you to the second paragraph on Page 4 of the Sciambra memorandum.
A: Second paragraph, yes.
Q: Composing, on the fifth line of this second paragraph, I will read the statements made, "He said that Ferrie introduced him to someone he called his roommate. He said Ferrie mentioned his name but he can't remember it right now." Now, did you correct that statement when you went through the Sciambra memorandum making corrections yesterday?
A: I corrected the essence of the paragraph, although I don't have my copy here, but I corrected the essence of the paragraph, that this is some -- some of this essentially was previously what we were talking about and some of it was not, it did not clearly bring into focus what we talked about.
Q: Your testimony now, Mr. Russo, is that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that you could not remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Is it my testimony that I did not?
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Are you asking two negatives now? I don't understand.
Q: I will try to rephrase it.
A: Would you put it in the affirmative, an affirmative question.
Q: Is it your testimony at this time that the statement contained in this memorandum to the effect that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate is incorrect?
A: That statement is incorrect.
Q: Is that statement contrary to the statement concerning this that you made to Mr. Sciambra?
A: This is, well, part of it is right, part of it of it was not, it did not clearly bring into focus what we talked about.
Q: Your testimony now, Mr. Russo, is that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that you could not remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Is it my testimony that I did not?
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Are you asking two negatives now? I don't understand.
Q: I will try to rephrase it.
A: Would you put it in the affirmative, an affirmative question.
Q: Is it your testimony at this time that the statement contained in this memorandum to the effect that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate is incorrect?
A: That statement is incorrect.
Q: Is that statement contrary to the statement concerning this that you made to Mr. Sciambra?
A: This is, well, part of it is right, part of it is not. I picked the whole paragraph and said the essence of this paragraph is incorrect, some of it is right and some of it is not.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Sciambra that you knew the name?
A: Right, I did.
Q: Of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Right.
Q: Did you give Mr. Sciambra the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Yes.
Q: And still you do admit in his memorandum Mr. Sciambra says that you were unable to remember that name?
A: Well, I am not going to hold by that memorandum, that is for Mr. Sciambra to answer about that.
Q: I will ask you, you have read this memorandum over, you read it yesterday?
A: Right.
Q: Is there any statement in this memorandum identifying Ferrie's roommate as Leon Oswald?
A: Well, towards the back of the statement, as I recall it in there, I am not looking at the statement now --
Q: I ask that you look at the statement now and tell me where you can find any place in there where it does.
A: Leon is mentioned right in the back, but that is not when we mentioned it, the last page. Page 7, and that is the only place it is mentioned.
Q: Would you read the portion that you claim clarifies that.
A: Well, I am not saying it verifies it, but it is the only place he says that the name Leon really rings a bell, you see that on the third line, that is the only place it was mentioned in here.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that you told Mr. Sciambra that the roommate's name was Leon Oswald?
A: I told him, right.
Q: And of course you don't know why it would not be in his memorandum, do you?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I would like to ask you whether you were acquainted with certain people in connection with your acquaintance with David Ferrie. Did you ever know a man or boy by the name of Tommy Compton?
A: I knew one by the name of Tommy, but I don't know the last name.
Q: Do you know whether or not Tommy Compton ever roomed with David Ferrie?
A: Ever rolled what?
Q: Roomed, was a roommate of David Ferrie?
A: The only roommate that I know was Oswald.
Q: Did you ever know a man or boy by the name of Layton Martens?
A: I know him now, I did not know him then, no.
Q: When did you first make his acquaintance?
A: I guess about a year ago, a year and a half ago.
Q: Now, since your meeting Layton Martens about a year or a year and a half ago, did you ever have any conversations with him?
A: We have.
Q: In your meetings or your acquaintance with Layton Martens, your conversations with him, have you ever discussed this case, Mr. Russo?
A: Oh, a little bit.
Q: Mr. Russo, do you recall on August 15, 1968, picking up Layton Martens in your automobile as he was walking in the French Quarter?
A: Probably, you know, if I saw him on the street I would have stopped, I am sure.
Q: I take it you are not sure of the date?
A: Of the date, no.
Q: I am going to ask you whether you made certain statements to Layton Martens upon that occasion. First, referring to this case, "This is the most blown-up and confused situation I have ever seen." Do you recall having made such a statement?
A: Something similar to that, not exactly those words, yes.
Q: But you did say something similar to that. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Did you also make this statement, "I don't think any of these people involved excepting Sheridan and Townley should be convicted of anything because they didn't do anything"?
A: No, what we were talking about --
Q: I am asking you whether you made that statement.
THE COURT: You --
MR. DYMOND: I will ask the answer to the question and then an explanation.
THE COURT: I was about to tell him that, answer the question, answer the question either yes or no and then you are able to explain.
A: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, if you care to explain, go ahead.

A: The explanation is this: During the period of '67 all the way up to the summer, there were three phonies that used to come over to the house, one was James Phelan, he had the pretense of being a newspaper reporter, he was attempting to interfere with the investigation, he was followed on his heels by Rick Townley of WDSU and Walter Sheridan, I guess he is of NBC and not WDSU, and right in quick succession these people came along, not attempting to report any news at all, attempting to create news or change testimony or to force a change in testimony or asking me to change it, things like that, and that is essentially what I was stating then, three people, of course, others too, but these three were serious, they told me they would cut Garrison down and he couldn't get elected dogcatcher, the only thing they were after was busting Garrison down to his knees. I told Layton Martens on several occasions essentially the same thing, I said that of course Phelan initially was trying to report the news, but where he went bad I don't know, and Walter Sheridan didn't report anything and Rick Townley didn't have any serious attempts to report either, they were trying to make the news, being like the midget that slayed the dragon or whatever it was. I don't know what role they were playing, but I told him, I said, "Rick Townley and Walter Sheridan, both of them are scum, and I would like to see both of these two in jail."
Q: But you did make the statement, "I don't think any of the people involved excepting Sheridan and Townley should be convicted of anything because they didn't do anything"?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You said that? I ask you whether you made this statement on that occasion: "I really didn't know Ferrie very well, but I did meet him, he was with Emilio Santana and another blond-haired man named Lauren."
A: Named what?
Q: Lauren, L-a-u-r-e-n.
A: I don't remember that name at all, I do remember, and in our discussions - I will skip Emilio Santana for a minute, no, that statement I did not make.
Q: You did not make?
A: No, I just wanted to answer your question. Layton Martens told me essentially, "This is the way I knew Dave Ferrie," and I said, "Well, I didn't know him like that at all, this is the way I knew Dave Ferrie," and he said he didn't know him like that, and his summation was that Dave Ferrie had these multi-aspects to his personality and having that, and I said, "Well, that is true, I probably didn't know him real well," because I didn't know any of the things he told me and they were alien, as far as my knowledge of Dave Ferrie, they were alien to his personality.
Q: I ask you whether you made this statement on that occasion: "I met Ferrie through Allen Landry's parents, his mother in particular, she insisted that Ferrie was a homosexual and was trying to take Al away from home, she hated him."
A: The Landrys?
Q: Yes.
A: Essentially that, yes.
Q: I now ask you whether you recall having seen Layton Martens approximately two days after the first incident which I have recalled to you.
A: Well, I am not sure of the date.
Q: More particularly on August 17, 1968, at approximately 11:30 p.m.
A: I am not sure of the date, no.
Q: But you did see him shortly after that?
A: I saw him on several occasions, yes.
Q: On your next meeting with Layton Martens, I want to ask you whether you made these statements: "I have made most identifications on the basis of photographs alone."
A: Well, absolutely right.
Q: The next one, "I am sure of the identification I made of Shaw but not 100 per cent. I want to meet with him to make absolutely sure, but I am afraid to. It could have been Banister and Lewallen."
A: No, that is absolutely false.
Q: You say you did not say that. Is that right?
A: Yes, I will give you what I said in line with that.
Q: All right.
A: James Phelan made it a big point that he felt it was Banister. Now, Lewallen's name did not come up until Walter Sheridan, Rick Townley showed a picture of Lewallen to me, but Phelan made a big point of this, and I was talking to Martens about it and I told him essentially that I said I was sure 100 per cent, but I said in a case like this you have to be sure 1,000 percent, and I said that Phelan went as far as setting up not an appointment, but over in Biloxi, which the D.A.'s Office knew about because they bugged the house, they had it watched and they had tape-recorded the conversations, but they knew, and Mr. Phelan was going to set up in the Town of Biloxi or Gulfport of Bay St. Louis where the Defendant would be there and I would happen to drop into the same motel or something along that line, and I told Layton Martens in a case as serious as this, you would have to be 1,000 per cent sure although it was impossible to be that, but I was 100 per cent sure. Does that make sense?
Q: Isn't it true that you asked this meeting with Shaw be set up?
A: You are talking about with Phelan?
Q: I am talking about the meeting with Phelan.
A: I am not real sure of who initiated that. I added it probably in a general sense, and he said, "Well, -- the best way and the impossible way of course would be for me and Shaw to get together, I said if that is possible, and I said it is not, and he let it drop, and Phelan came the next day and said, "Well, I have it set up for this weekend, I can get Shaw to go over to Biloxi or be in Biloxi," and he said, "You can just drop in," and I said, "Well, that won't work because Shaw would have a wall that thick in front of him, it would serve no apparent purpose, the only way you could know a person is to have it unmolested and unharassed, and in the particular position he is in, it just would not be a free conversation.
Q: Shaw agreed to meet with you on that occasion didn't he?
A: I don't know if Shaw did or he didn't. I am just telling you what Phelan said.
Q: But you did want, you did want to meet with Shaw to get 1,000 per cent sure as you have said. Is that correct?
A: No, I said I was 100 per cent sure, but I say in a case of this magnitude, I was talking about from my own aspects, so much pressure being applied from people, from WDSU and from NBC and of course James Phelan, just a tremendous amount of pressure to alter your testimony, because they were sure they were right, they were sure that Shaw was not there and it was probably Banister or Lewallen or somebody else, maybe, and that I said in a case of this magnitude, you should be 1,000 per cent sure, but in a criminal court you can't be, you can only be 100 per cent.
Q: Would it be fair for me to say you wanted to be surer than you were?
A: Would it be fair to say? No, it would not be fair to say that, no.
Q: Well, 1,000 per cent would be more sure than 100 per cent?
A: In a different way, it is this way: I went into great explanation with Phelan, I don't know if I talked to Layton Martens about this, but I went into a long explanation with Phelan from the period of February 25th on, when I saw him it was late -- well, May, and of course Townley and Sheridan were in June, but I went into a long explanation of black versus color about what I thought of the whole situation, I said this had been a personal turmoil for many people of course as well as for the Defendant too, but as many people that were calling, I didn't mind Ken Elliot or Alec Gifford or Jim Kemp, they would just ask questions and let it go at that, but these people from WDSU didn't, they tried to alter the news and gt down to making the news, and I was not only 100 per cent sure because I said that instantly upon seeing Mr. Shaw stick his head out of the door on 1313 Dauphine Street, but I said it would probably be -- this is theoretical, and of course this is just theoretical, it is a good thing if you could be 1,000 per cent sure.
Q: Well, 1,000 per cent in your way of putting it would be surer than 100 per cent?
A: Well, 100 per cent is completely sure.
Q: What do you mean by 1,000 per cent?
A: 1,000 per cent is something that you can never reach, if you really want to know. Let's suppose there is a man that is walking around in the City of New Orleans 54 or 55 and has white hair and the same structure, the same physical structure, let's suppose there is a man, I haven't seen him, I have seen the Defendant. Now, that I am sure of, and I saw him at Dave Ferrie's apartment and I saw him with Oswald and Ferrie and they shot the breeze about killing the President. No, if there is a man and he would walk into this door right now and he would look similar to the Defendant, then I would have to think it over, but at this point I am absolutely sure 100 per cent that the Defendant is the man that was there.
Q: You say the Defendant is the man who was there shooting the breeze about killing the President. Is that right?
A: Right, in September you are talking about?
Q: Now, to use your words, Mr. Russo, didn't you say that you would like to get in a room with Shaw and hear him talk and --
A: Again I want to get to the theoretical concept of justice that I have, yes. The best thing to do would be to get into a man's mind and think what he thinks, but that is not possible either, and I was trying to give an example of this to -- if you are referring to Layton Martens, I am referring to James Phelan because I told him the same thing essentially, the thing in you can never be too sure.
(A pause in the trial while the Reporter added a new pad of Stenographic paper.)



BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, did I understand you to say that this last statement here, "It could have been Banister and Lewallen" was impossible because you didn't know of Lewallen at that time?

A: No, Rick Townley showed me a picture of Lewallen, and I think the District Attorney's Office showed me a picture of Lewallen, but they didn't name anybody, they just showed me pictures.
Q: Did the picture that you were shown have a beard on the face of Lewallen or not?
A: Rick Townley's picture, yes.
Q: Do you recall the picture of Lewallen having been shown to you by me during the preliminary hearing in this case?
A: Oh, yes, you showed it also, right, correct.
Q: So, as a matter of fact, you did know about Lewallen, you did?
A: You did show it to me.
Q: At the time you were talking with Layton Martens?
A: This is '68, right, you are giving me a '68 date, August?
Q: August 17, 1968.
A: You are right.
Q: Now, you say the District Attorney also showed you a picture of Lewallen. Is that right?
A: The District Attorney?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, I guess. Now, I am not sure.
Q: Did that picture have a beard on it or not?
A: Well, I have seen so many pictures, I suppose one of those, and there were several with beards on them, several people.
Q: Did the District Attorney ever put a beard on the picture of Lewallen, that is, draw it in and in either ink or pencil?
A: No beards were put on any pictures, and I don't know, no one was identified in the pictures.
Q: The only picture that you saw a beard put on was the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, I am referring to the same occasion of your talking with Layton Martens now, Mr. Russo, and I will ask you if you made this statement: "I am afraid to make any move because no matter what move I make, one side or the other will come after me resulting in criminal actions against me."
A: What do you want to know?
Q: Did you make that statement to Layton Martens?
A: No.
Q: You deny that?
A: Yes.
Q: I ask you whether you made this statement: "I was supposed to be given $25,000.00 by Garrison."
THE COURT: When you bring up prior contradictory statements, you have to acquaint the witness of when it was said, to whom it was said, and under what circumstances.
MR. DYMOND: We have done that, Judge.
THE COURT: You haven't been as to who --
MR. DYMOND: All of this is to Layton Martens.
THE WITNESS: I do.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: "I was supposed to be given $25,000.00 by Garrison for helping him out, but thus far I have only received $300.00."

A: All right, now, yes, I said that.
Q: You did say that?
A: Yes, and there needs to be a long explanation of that one. Phelan asked me about that, WDSU asked me about that, and Walter Sheridan told me, you know, I was getting money, and I in 1968, when I talked to Layton Martens, I said, "These characters said that, they felt I was getting paid paid off," two rumors, one I was going to get $25,000.00 and the other I had gotten $5,000.00 before and I would get $5,000.00 after the Defendant was convicted, those were the two rumors, but, you know that guy from WDSU had the gall to ask me that, and so if I said that, he just was cutting off the first part of the sentence, I said they said I was getting $25,000.00.
Q: You deny that you told him that you were supposed to be given $25,000.00 by Garrison for helping him out, but that thus far you had received only $300.00?
A: Absolutely. With the understanding that, you know, like I told you I said it.
Q: Now, as a matter of fact, as of that date, had you received $300.00?
A: In August of 1968?
Q: That is correct.
A: During the preliminary hearing I was down here for about -- before the preliminary hearing a little while, right afterwards I was here for about three weeks with no -- doing no work at all, and the District Attorney covered expenses up to $300.00, and twice after that, once with the Dean Andrews trial, while I was on subpoena, and I think the District Attorney's Office, some kind of check for about $45.00 or $50.00.
Q: How long were you here for that time?
A: Four days, I think, four days, and there was only one other time, similar amount.
Q: When was the other occasion?
A: I can't -- a hearing that you were having.
Q: And what was the total amount you received on those occasions?
A: Approximately the same amount, $50.00 or $60.00 or $70.00.
Q: On each occasion?
A: No, two, one was about $50.00 the other was $60.00 or $70.00, and the other before the preliminary hearing for three or four weeks, I missed work, they paid $300.00.
Q: Now, I ask you whether on that same occasion you made this statement to Layton Martens "I am going to California very soon to get away from this."
A: Absolutely, I made that statement. Do you want to know why? I had been planning to go to California since Mr. -- before Mr. Shaw was indicted, I planned to go to California that summer, and there were several hearings of course, and the trial was delayed and I put it off until the next summer, and there were more hearings and the trial was again delayed and I put it off to this coming summer, "to get away from it all," absolutely, but I had every intention of returning.
Q: I want to ask you whether you made that statement to Layton Martens on the same occasion "I am not real sure if they were plotting against Castro or Kennedy."
A: A qualified yes, very qualified.
Q: Did you, first of all, did you make that statement, Mr. Russo, and then you may explain it.
A: Well, all right, yes, let me put it yes and I am going to say no afterwards, and I want to say yes, but it depends, in other words, Ferrie talked about Castro too, you see, and he thought Castro was a good thing in Cuba, but he wanted to replace him, he thought Che Guevera was better and actually what he wanted, he had a long philosophy about that too, and I told Layton Martens, I said they were plotting both to get Castro and Kennedy, and I said of course with these broad generalizations they were talking about, no specifics at all as to when and where, and they were plotting to get Castro too as well as Kennedy.
Q: So actually you told him, you were referring to the night in question on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, weren't you?
A: No, referring to the whole year.
Q: The whole year?
A: The time I knew -- that year intensively during the summer.
Q: Referring to the summer of 1963?
A: '63, right, I mean, Castro was mentioned probably up there at the meeting where the Defendant was, but not a great -- I don't remember anything specifically being said about Castro, but I know days before Ferrie talked about Castro, sometimes he talked about the Gueverian Reform was a good thing, sometimes he talked about the economics of Cuba and sometimes he talked about Castro had to go.
Q: So when you told Layton Martens that you were not sure whether they were plotting to get Kennedy or Castro, you were referring to the summer of 1963 in general?
A: It would probably be the whole thing.
Q: Were you referring to any other time that more than one person got together and planned to kill somebody, and if so, what specific time?
A: No, nobody much talked around Ferrie. He came over and said quite a few things about killing people or killing Presidents.
Q: Now, during the summer of 1963, did you attend any other parties or meetings where there would have been anything that went on that could have been interpreted as a plot to kill anyone?
A: No, except broad generalized remarks that Ferrie made. It was not at a meeting or party or anything else, sometimes he would pass over, and if I happened to be reading or studying or working with the basketball team or anything like that, he might get on the subject.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, in your statement that you made to Layton Martens, you said you were not sure whether they were plotting to kill Castro or Kennedy, and in using the word "they," you would be referring to more than one person, would you not?
A: Right.
Q: Therefore, you would not have made that reference had you been referring to only David Ferrie having made the statement, would you?
A: Oh, well, I mean if I am including the whole year, surely I would say "they," because we did not break it down.
Q: And your statement referring to the entire summer of 1963 and not knowing whether they were plotting to kill Castro or Kennedy would have included the party up at David Ferrie's house and the meeting that you described which took place after. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that you did not know James Lewallen at all?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Mr. Russo, I show you a photograph which I have marked for identification "D-10," purporting to be a photograph of James Lewallen, and I will ask you whether or not that looks familiar to you.
A: No, I have seen a similar photograph.
Q: To your knowledge, have you ever seen the person depicted by that photograph?
A: No.
Q: I take it you never talked to him either then. Is that right?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Now, I show you another photograph which I have marked for identification "D-11," purporting to be a photograph of the same person and ask you whether you recognize the person depicted by that photograph.
A: This, the smaller photograph, D-11, looks like that I could have possibly seen this man, but not "D-10."
Q: Referring to the photograph which I have marked for identification as "D-11," would you say that the hair shown on the individual in that photograph was just about as thick or thicker or not as thick as the hair of the person whom you have described as Leon Oswald?
A: No, I'm not real sure of the differences, it seems that the other hair was messed up -- I couldn't say if it was lighter or heavier.
Q: I am not referring to color, now.
A: No, well, thicker or lighter?
Q: I will ask you the same question concerning the photograph marked for identification, "D-10."
A: This looks a little heavier.
Q: That would be heavier than the hair of Leon Oswald?
A: Right.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the testimony of this witness, we would like to offer, file, and produce in evidence the two photographs which we have marked for identification "D-10" and "D-11."
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. ALCOCK: No objection.
THE COURT: Let them be received in evidence.
(Whereupon, the photographs offered by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-10" and "Exhibit D-11" and received in evidence.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you ever know a man or a boy by the name of Alvin Beauboeuf?

A: No, sir.
Q: Have you been introduced to a person at David Ferrie's house by the name of Alvin Beauboeuf?
A: No, not that I know of, I have only seen one picture of Beauboeuf in the newspaper, and from that picture I don't know.
Q: Would you be willing to state that during the year 1961, the year 1962 and the year 1963, that Alvin Beauboeuf never lived with David Ferrie?
A: Would I be willing to state that?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't even know him.
Q: During those years, were you in a position concerning your association with Ferrie, to be aware of the fact that a particular individual was living with him?
A: No, I would not be aware of that, no.
Q: During which of those years do you feel that you would have been aware of --
A: Only when he told me. You see, always he had people around him, sometimes he had Spanish people, sometimes younger people, he always had people around, and if you wanted to pick out one of them, this guy is his roommate for six months and this guy is the roommate for the next six months, the only time I ever knew he had a roommate was this guy Oswald.
Q: During the year 1963, considering the frequency of your visiting at David Ferrie's home, do you fell that a person could have been living there with him without your knowing about him, living there for a period of six months or more?
A: Conceivably.
Q: Did you ever know a man by the name of Melvin Coffey?
A: I never seen a picture of him, I have been asked that before.
Q: I take it you never met Coffey in person?
A: Not by name, I haven't seen a photograph that I could really tell you that anyone ever told me this is a photograph of Melvin Coffey. I never heard that name.
Q: Did you know Maurice Brundy?
A: I do now.
Q: Did you know him back in 1963?
A: No.
Q: Did you know any of Dave Ferrie's friends?
A: Well, they had many worlds, even Layton Martens said that, many worlds they belonged in.
Q: Well, I will be more specific and ask you whether you knew of the friends who frequented David Ferrie's home during the year 1963.
A: Some, not by name, I didn't see them, you know, I would just see people.
Q: Did David Ferrie introduce you to people at his home?
A: Yes.
Q: And you don't remember any names?
A: Nobody stuck out, it was just the same crew, if he was over at the house he just was with one or two people most of the time, none of these people ever amounted to anything.
Q: Is it your testimony that you cannot now name one friend of David Ferrie's whom you met at his home other than Leon Oswald and Clem Bertrand and the two Mexicans?
A: There was a young guy named Tommy, it might have been the Tommy that you were referring to, I don't know, that would be about all of the names that I would want to say definitely.
Q: You can't name any others?
A: No.
Q: You had an open invitation to David Ferrie's house and he had an open invitation to yours?
A: As I stated in the preliminary hearing and what I said to you, of the 20 or 30 times that I was over there, I might have not stayed over five minutes on half of them or two-thirds of them and the other few times I did stay for some period of time.
Q: Have you ever known a man by the name of Guy Banister?
A: I have seen him somewhere, I have seen photographs of the man. I have seen him some- where.
Q: Did you say that you have met Guy Banister, or have you just seen pictures of him?
A: I have seen him but just where I am not familiar it may have been with Ferrie, I don't know.
Q: You can't tell us where you saw him with Ferrie?
A: Well, I am not sure it was with Ferrie, I have seen him somewhere, though.
Q: Mr. Russo, I show you a photograph which I have previously marked for identification "D-1," and ask you whether this is the person you remember having seen as Guy Banister.
A: Well, I mean, I never saw anyone as Guy Banister, but I think I have seen this man, yes.
Q: I show you another photograph of the same individual which I have marked for identification as "Defense 2," purporting to be a photograph of Guy Banister, and ask you whether you have seen that man.
A: Right, I think I have.
Q: I ask you to search your memory and tell us whether it is possible that you can tell us where you saw Guy Banister and under what circumstances.
A: Well, I thought about this for a long time, and I just can't place him, I was thinking politically, perhaps, and I said no, I didn't see him anywhere there, and I thought about Ferrie, and it is possible that I could have seen him with Ferrie, but I am just not sure where I had seen this man before.
Q: Would your memory be able to tell us if you saw him with Ferrie, possibly where he was?
A: If I could remember I saw him with Ferrie, probably I could think of where, I am sure.
Q: Are you unable to do that?
A: I thought about this for sometime, I know I was never formally introduced to him.
Q: Do you recall whether or not this man had a hat or when you saw him?
A: No, I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall whether he had white hair --
A: Whether he had white hair?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: He did have white hair. Do you recall approximately how tall a man he was?
A: Oh, no.
Q: Do you recall his approximate build and weight?
A: No, I don't, but I have a feeling, though, I don't want to stand by this, I have a feeling he was in -- might have been in an automobile that I saw him in around the house, I am not going to say that.
Q: Would you be able to recollect as to whether he was a fat man, a skinny man, or a normally-built man?
A: No.
Q: You would not?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please at this time, we would like to offer, file, and introduce into evidence the two photographs which have been previously marked "Defense 1" and "Defense 2," but have not previously been introduced.
MR. ALCOCK: They haven't been identified, have they?
MR. DYMOND: They have been identified as photographs of Guy Banister and the witness said he may have seen him with Ferrie.
THE COURT: I will receive them in evidence.
(Whereupon, the documents referred to by Counsel as "Exhibit D-1" and "Exhibit D-2" were received in evidence.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, have you ever known an attorney by the name of G. Wray Gill?

A: No.
Q: Have you ever known an attorney by the name of Jack Wasserman, W-a-s-s-e-r-m-a-n?
A: No, I don't think.
Q: Never had?
A: No.
Q: Now, getting back to you testimony of yesterday, did you state that you very frequently played basketball up at Tulane and Loyola in the evening?
A: Well, once or twice a week.
Q: And I think you named a group of people with whom you usually played. Is that right?
A: Well, this was over a period of several years, yes.
Q: Would you mind naming these people again?
A: That I played basketball with? Well, Kenny Carter, Joe Cook, Butch Larone was there, King, Louie Gremillion, David Evelyn, my cousin, Lefty Peterson, O.J. Lecour from Tulane.
Q: How about Mike Ogden?
A: Oh, no.
Q: You didn't name him yesterday.
A: That, I was trying to -- let me clear that up so I might be able to explain that. He was in relation to the political stuff, he was a Republican, I knew Mike, that is the only way I knew him. That was about getting involved with the Republicans in late '63 and early '64 when I started getting involved with the Republicans.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, if you had thought that this was a serious threat on the life of President Kennedy which was hatched up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, would your loyalty to David Ferrie have prevented your reporting it to the local authorities?
A: Well, I had no loyalty to David Ferrie.
Q: So I take it it would not have prevented your doing so. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Would there have been anything to prevent your reporting it to the local authorities at that time in order to possibly prevent a tragedy, if you had considered this a serious threat, it a serious threat?
A: Right about September, before November?
Q: That is correct.
A: For a while, no.
Q: Would I be fair in explaining your reason for not reporting it by saying that you did not consider this a serious threat to the life of President Kennedy?
A: Well, you don't know how to -- in other words, you could not tell how to take Ferrie, you know, whether it was an academic discussion or whether it was something serious, there was always the key to his personality. Quite a few things he did back up and quite a few things I don't know if he did or didn't, but some of them were so fantastic such as invading Cuba, I couldn't tell if he was going to invade Cuba or not, and my tendency would be to say that he would not, and so, I mean, when it gets down to sitting down and talking with a man and saying if he is serious or not, it's hard to say. I mean, it is just hard to say.
Q: As a matter of fact, I believe Ferrie even made a one-man submarine propelled by paddles which were operated with your hands. Is that correct?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, that is not in evidence.
THE WITNESS: I don't know if it is, I heard --
MR. ALCOCK: It is assuming something that is not in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: I withdraw that.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, I take it then that you didn't know whether they were just shooting the breeze, whether this was a bull session or what it was?

A: Correct.
Q: And you just didn't consider it important enough to report. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: Mr. Russo, referring now again to the Sciambra memorandum, and more specifically to the third paragraph --
A: Page what?
Q: On Page 1, on Page 1, yes, this statement, "Russo said that he and Landry and a small group of other boys used to always pal around together, and that it was common knowledge to everyone that Ferrie was a homosexual, and that Russo and his buddies were trying to alienate Landry from Ferrie." I think you corrected that yesterday by saying that you had never said that Ferrie was a homosexual.
A: I said that Ferrie had never said that, Ferrie --
THE COURT: You said Ferrie never admitted to you --
THE WITNESS: He never stated anything near along those lines, although I didn't go into this, this is not exactly the situation either.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Yesterday you said that you had not said that Ferrie was a homosexual. Isn't that right?

A: I said that Ferrie had not said that.
Q: And are you saying now that Ferrie never admitted to you he was a homosexual?
A: Oh, no.
Q: Never. I refer you to the same Sciambra memorandum on Page 4, approximately 15 lines from the bottom of the page, wherein you have given an account of Ferrie having told you he used an aphrodisiac on his roommate that aroused the roommate sexually and he had intercourse with his roommate. Is that correct?
A: No. The only -- he said it worked like a -- that is the nearest he ever came to saying it, I made a point of this down in New Orleans, probably, the nearest he ever came to saying that, but he didn't say anything about intercourse at all.
Q: Is that another correction?
A: Right down on Page 2, this is the same thing essentially, I figured I corrected that here on Page 2 at the bottom sentence, "He also said that Ferrie essentially confessed to him he used hypnosis for sexual purposes," I said that is not correct, and another thing, on Page 3, "He also admitted to Russo for the first time that he was a homosexual and he wanted to know if Russo would be willing to take a drug," and I said that is incorrect.
Q: That is absolutely not correct?
A: Right, and, you know, I just say that --
Q: Now, this statement which I shall read to you right now, "Ferrie told Russo that he had been trying the aphrodisiac drug on his roommate and it worked perfectly, he said that he and his roommate laid in bed naked and he gave the drug to his roommate and the roommate became very passionate and aggressive and had intercourse with Ferrie." Are you now saying that is an incorrect statement?
A: I covered it essentially with the first two, this is what -- "Ferrie told Russo that he had tried the aphrodisiac drug on his roommate and it worked perfectly," that is about it. I essentially covered it with the other corrections, covered that, Ferrie never ever said that.
Q: Are you saying now that Ferrie did not tell you that he had intercourse with his roommate?
A: He said the roommate tried, that is the nearest he came. Now, he never said he did.
Q: So then this memorandum is in error once again in saying that you told Mr. Sciambra that Ferrie had told you that he had intercourse with his roommate. Is that right?
A: Probably, that is probably just deduction up there in Baton Rouge, because I don't remember that.
Q: Is there anything right about this memorandum, Mr. Russo?
A: Well, do you want to go down it page by page.
Q: Now, getting to the portion of the memorandum which relates the incident concerning pornographic film you have located that?
A: Right, Page 3.
Q: Is it your testimony now that you did not sell this film as related in this memorandum?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: You did sell it?
A: Correct.
Q: To whom did you sell it?
A: To a man in Baton Rouge who was a seaman. You see, the correction I made essentially here, if you look right toward the middle, I made two corrections on the page, "He said that he would --" Ferrie said, "He said that he would have to get $150.00 a roll for the film because it was pretty risking going in and out of Cuba," and that $150.00, I don't know where that came from, and a little on further, about "Russo said he took the film and sold it to someone whom he said -- "sold it to a seaman, and, as I recall it, I sold it to a seaman.
Q: You sold it directly to a seaman?
A: Yes, or a guy that had been on a ship.
Q: You sold it for $150.00?
A: No.
Q: How much did you sell it for?
A: $40.00, $30.00.
Q: Did you split the money with Ferrie?
A: No, I was in Baton Rouge at the time, this is in Baton Rouge.
Q: Well, Ferrie was not to get any money out of the sale of this film?
A: Well, I forgot about it after he brought it over, he never did bring the subject up again, he left the film there and forgot about it.
Q: And Ferrie told you he had to get $150.00 for the film because of the risk involved in getting it out of Cuba?
A: Not that particular time, he said he could get as many as needed out of Cuba, and he said, you know, there has to be a pretty good price, but $150.00, I don't know about that, and that is the only one he ever brought over.
Q: He expected to be compensated for the trouble that he went to and the risk he went to in getting the film. Is that right?
A: Well, I guess so.
Q: And he never did get any part of the money that you sold the film for?
A: That was, gee, 19 -- whatever it was when he brought it over, I didn't sell it until '67, '68, '67.
Q: Did you and Ferrie or you by yourself sell any other film of this nature?
A: Movies?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: How about still pictures?
A: Sell any still pictures?
Q: Yes.
A: Never.
Q: Never did?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, the next subject that I am going to get on will take a little while. I see we are right before 12:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: That is a good time to stop. Would you take charge of the Jury.
Gentlemen, we are going to recess in a moment for the noon lunch. Again I must admonish you and instruct you not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else.
You can take them out, Sheriff, the bus is ready, take charge of the Jury.
You are released under your bond, Mr. Shaw, the witness is excused until 1:30.
(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)


AFTERNOON SESSION
THE COURT: Let the record show that the Jury is back, Defendant is present, both counsel are present. Are the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Let it be noted that I have advised the witness that his previous oath is still binding.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, referring again to the Sciambra memorandum, the bottom of page 4 --

A: Bottom of what page?
Q: Page 4.
A: Thank you.
Q: Wherein appears this statement and it is about six lines from the bottom, "Russo said that he believes that Kershenstine, Kenny Carter, and maybe Niles Peterson, and Landry would know more about the roommate and be able to recognize him." Did you state that to Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge?
A: Essentially, yes.
Q: Now why did you believe or would you believe that these parties would know more about this roommate?
A: I didn't say no more than I did, they would know more about the roommate and be able to recognize him.
Q: Why would they know about the roommate?
A: What Andy said, Sciambra had asked me in Baton Rouge who I associated with and similar questions, whom I associated with, the names of the people that he might contact, things of that sort, and I told him that Kershenstine, Carter and for sure Al and Peterson.
Q: Did Niles Peterson ever go with you to Dave Ferrie's apartment when this roommate was there?
A: I think he did.
Q: You don't know?
A: I am not sure.
Q: What makes you think he did?
A: I, 'cause he was around me about that period of time.
Q: Was that the only reason you have, you have no specific recollection of his going there with you on the occasion when you saw this roommate?
A: No, but it is possible he was with me.
Q: That is just a possibility?
A: Right.
Q: And so on the preliminary hearing when you testified he definitely went inside the party with you --
A: I testified to that after the badgering. You forced me in that position and I said the people I associated with probably were Peterson and probably Moffett.
Q: By badgering you, you mean by asking you quite a number of times the same --
MR. ALCOCK: I object --
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, he used the terminology, "badgering."
MR. ALCOCK: I am objecting to this area because we have been over and over this and it is highly repetitious.
MR. DYMOND; If the Court please, this is only the second time this is touched on.
THE COURT: I can't comment on it at all but you have covered the subject matter either yesterday afternoon and this morning and I see no reason to repeat it.
MR. DYMOND: This is the first time I have been accused of badgering a witness.
MR. ALCOCK: You used the word.
MR. DYMOND: He used it first.
THE COURT: Read the question and answer.
THE REPORTER: Question: "And so on the preliminary hearing when you testified he defi- nitely went inside the party with you --"
Answer: "I testified to that after the badgering. You forced me in that position and I said the people I associated with probably were Peterson and probably Moffett."
MR. ALCOCK: My objection is not badgering but repetitious. I can remember this is exactly where we ended yesterday's session where Mr. Russo was read back those portions of the preliminary hearing where he felt that Counsel had forced him to make a statement.
MR. DYMOND: At this time I am objecting to the word "badgering". I have been accused of badgering and I want to know what it means.
THE COURT: I think we all know what the word badgering means.
MR. DYMOND: What does it mean?
THE COURT: We can get the dictionary out. (To the witness) What do you mean by badgering?
THE WITNESS: I attempted to answer the question he had asked on two or three prior occasions when he had asked me who was there and I had said I didn't know, what do you mean and he said what do you mean you don't know and he said, rather I said I was with a bunch of friends again without trying to say who it was and finally he said was one of those friends Peterson and I said yes it was Peterson.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Come on, Mr. Russo, didn't you state at the preliminary hearing "I can definitely say "Sandra Moffett was there and definitely Niles Peterson"?

A: Only after those questions, the questions I pointed out to you were asked.
Q: Then if somebody will ask you something enough times you will give them the answer they want?
MR. ALCOCK: I object as that is arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: That is arguing with the witness.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now do you remember then at any time when Kenny Carter went to David Ferrie's apartment with you when the roommate was there?

A: Not definitely, no.
Q: Do you remember at any time when Kershenstine went to the apartment with you when the roommate was there?
A: Not definitely, no.
Q: Do you remember at any time when Al Landry went to the apartment with you when the roommate was there?
A: No.
Q: So therefore there would be no material basis for that statement read to you that you gave to Mr. Sciambra?
A: Except these people were people I associated with and these people were - would probably remember so and so or such and such and might have run into one of the people. Sciambra asked me this in Baton Rouge.
Q: Would you tell us why you didn't give him Sandra Moffett's name whom you termed her as almost a constant companion?
MR. ALCOCK: I object as there is no evidence that he mentioned that about Sandra Moffett, or that he mentioned that to Andrew Sciambra --
MR. DYMOND: I will ask him that.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you mention Sandra Moffett's name as a person who would know about the roommate?

A: During the conversation I termed Sandra Moffett as somebody who would probably know.
Q: That would be another error in the memorandum if that wasn't included in the wording.
A: Not essentially because this might be an omission and to this point it might not be there.
Q: What other names did you mention who might recognize the roommate?
A: I don't recall, I might have mentioned some others but I don't recall offhand.
Q: Did you testify that after President Kennedy was assassinated you remarked to several of your friends that you recognized the guy that did it?
A: Yes, I said -- I said I think I know that man or knew that man.
Q: Still after that you had to go through the routine of putting a beard on Lee Harvey Oswald before you identified the picture?
MR. ALCOCK: That is not the testimony in this record and Mr. Dymond knows it.
THE COURT: I can't comment as to what is or is not.
MR. DYMOND: I think it is the testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: It is not Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I --
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that they had to put a beard on --

THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact the police or Mr. Sciambra had to put a beard on the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald before you identified it as being the roommate?

A: In Baton Rouge I identified the photograph he pulled out, the one he had with him and except for the fact that the photograph he showed me in Baton Rouge did not have whiskers.
Q: Then he came back to New Orleans and had the beard drawn in on another photograph before you identified it?
A: Yes. It may have been the same photograph enlarged, I'm not sure.
Q: As a matter of fact you had seen Leon Oswald without a beard?
A: Only under the circumstances when he turned to the left or right, one or the other turned and I knew it was the same man.
Q: You said you were in his presence for five minutes then?
A: Yes, sir at the approximate most.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Sciambra you had never been hypnotized, Mr. Russo, actually?
A: Did I tell I had never been hypnotized?
Q: Yes.
A: You're talking about in Baton Rouge?
Q: That is right.
A: I don't know if we covered the subject except what is stated here and I made a correction to that extent. On page 7 he said, "He said that he had been hypnotized like this before and it had helped him to recall and that he would be glad to do it for us," and he was talking about me and I said no, that was not right that a couple of people had tried to hypnotize me, Dave Ferrie for one and another being Irwin Moreau.
Q: When other people tried did it make you remember things more vividly than before?
A: I don't think they hypnotized me.
Q: What made you remember things more vividly if you had not been hypnotized?
A: With the Moreau and Ferrie --
Q: Right.
A: I don't think they hypnotized me.
Q: I am reading to you from the first paragraph on the top of page 7, "He also said that if he were hypnotized he may have total recall on names and places and dates. He said that he had been hypnotized like this before and it had helped him to recall and that he would be glad to do it for us."
Do you deny telling Mr. Sciambra that?
A: I made a correction on that yesterday.
Q: You deny that?
A: I denied it yesterday.
Q: You deny that you suggested to Mr. Sciambra that you be hypnotized?
A: Do I deny what?
Q: That you suggested to Mr. Sciambra that you be hypnotized.
A: I suggested that was an avenue of approach, yes.
Q: Why did you say you wanted to be?
A: I didn't say I wanted to be.
Q: Why did you suggest it?
A: He was asking me for more names and dates and most of it was names, dates, where, the people and what conversation went on and things of that sort and I told him what I understood about hypnosis and that it induced recall and if they could get a professional in New Orleans or up there I would be glad to submit to it.
Q: How did you know that it produced recall?
A: I read on it and heard Ferrie talk about it.
Q: And as a matter of fact you were subsequently hypnotized by a representative of the District Attorney's office?
A: Right.
Q: How many times were you hypnotized, Mr. Russo?
A: I think three.
Q: Three times, when was the last time?
A: I don't recall.
Q: You don't remember the date?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: May I have that Kemp transcript, the Kemp television transcript, it is the thicker of the two transcripts.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you have described this roommate as being a person not very talkative and who didn't have much to say to anybody, is that correct?

A: Right.
Q: As a matter of fact you told Mr. Sciambra the roommate never talked to anybody, is that right?
A: In Baton Rouge?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I don't think I told him that.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if Mr. Dymond is going to ask this witness a question or read portions of the interview, I would like to be given an opportunity to see that.
MR. DYMOND: I am about to read from the Kemp transcript.
MR. ALCOCK: We don't have a copy of it.
(Document exhibited to Counsel for the State.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I am reading a question and an answer from the transcript of your television interview with Mr. Jim Kemp, transcript of which has been introduced in evidence:

"Did you ever talk to any of the associates of Ferrie other than the fellow you knew, did you meet anybody else? Answer: He had a roommate on the street parallel with Louisiana Avenue and I don't know the name of the street, which one it is, it may be Louisiana Avenue Parkway, but anyway he had a roommate and I talked to him on several occasions but he was just stale as regards to politics it seemed to me. He talked about everything else." Would you explain to us why in one instance you said he never talked to any- body and another you said he talked about everything else but politics?
A: Essentially I talked about not much else than politics, that is true, that is he'd talk about everything else and wouldn't join in about politics and that was my particular interest at the time.
Q: And that is your explanation as to why you say on one instance he didn't talk to anybody and the other he talked about everything else?
A: He talked to people.
Q: And it was about everything else?
A: But I didn't consider him very talkative, no.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, when did you first see this Sciambra memorandum?
A: Uh, I'm not real sure of that, I knew it was between, the latest was March 20 when Jim Phelan came up to Baton Rouge, but I probably seen it earlier.
Q: You had seen it before that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever tell Mr. Sciambra that Ferrie used hypnosis for sexual purposes?
A: Did I?
Q: Or that Ferrie told you that.
A: No, Landry had told me that.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am objecting to this line as repetitious.
MR. DYMOND: That particular question is answered already and it wasn't repetitious anyway.
MR. ALCOCK: I'm quite sure it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, did you testify this morning that the color of the beard and the hair on this roommate were about the same?

A: Well --
THE COURT: Let me call attention to Article 369 of the Code of Procedure which states: "In the discipline of his court, the trial judge is vested with a sound discretion to stop the prolonged, unnecessary and irrelevant examination of a witness, whether such examination be Direct or Cross and even though no objection be urged by Counsel."
One of the footnotes states: "The Judge may stop Counsel from indefinitely prolonging a cross-examination by repeatedly going over the same matter." State v. Kuntz (Spelled phonetically.) The Trial Judge may rule out the useless repetition of evidence, and the State's objection is covered by this matter.
MR. DYMOND: I haven't covered this particular point.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you testify this morning that the beard and the hair on this roommate were approximately of the same color?

A: No.
Q: What was your testimony in that respect?
A: I stated there was a difference.
Q: Which was darker?
A: I'm not sure.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if this isn't repetitious, Mr. Dymond is asking him what his testimony was this morning and obviously we have gone over that and it is obviously repetitious.
THE COURT: I agree with you if he said he testified to this morning.
MR. DYMOND: The last question was never testified to this morning and the last one has been answered already anyway.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you deny that you told Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that the beard was a little darker than his hair?

A: I don't deny or affirm it. I'm not sure exactly what I told him in Baton Rouge about the difference except there was a difference.
Q: Would there be any reason for you to have known then and not now?
A: I have a feeling the, it was darker, rather the beard was lighter but I'm not sure right now.
Q: You say you have a feeling the beard was lighter?
A: Yes.
Q: What I'm asking you is whether you told Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that the beard was darker?
A: That the beard was darker?
Q: That is correct.
A: I don't know.
Q: Oh, there is one other point I want to clarify and that is with respect to the clothing, and particularly the jacket, which you stated that Mr. Shaw had worn at the National Street Wharf. Would you be a little more explicit in your description of that?
A: Well, I think the jacket was some sort of striped jacket or something to that effect, I'm not real sure of the pants except they were dark.
Q: Could you tell us what color the jacket was?
A: No, I saw a stripe or line in it.
Q: Could you tell us whether it was light or dark in color?
A: No, I am not sure.
Q: Mr. Russo, did you say that this roommate was present in David Ferrie's apartment in the month of October 1963?
A: Did I say he was present?
Q: Right.
A: I am not sure exactly when -- You mean the last time I saw him?
Q: That is correct.
A: I'm not sure exactly when I first, I am first inclined to think October and in fact I think I testified to that fact in the preliminary hearing -- I'm not sure whether it was October or late September but my original recollection was I thought I saw him in September and then I thought possibly I saw him in October.
Q: I am reading to you from page 196 and 197 of the transcript of the preliminary hearing: "Question -- I am talking about the one at the end of September or October as you stated in the month before the Kennedy assassination.
"Answer I don't really recall.
"Question -- When would you say was the last time before the assassination that you saw Oswald?
"Answer -- Somewhere around the beginning of October, maybe late September, beginning of October.
"Question -- The beginning of October?
"Answer -- Yes, sir.
"Question -- You are sure about that?
"Answer -- I am putting it in context with other things, yes."
Now would you tell me why on the preliminary hearing you stated that Oswald was here in Ferrie's apartment in October and you say now you cannot say?
A: I am saying late September, early October, the initial recollection was that it was September. I felt a little different about it because of classes and I felt it was October when I last saw him and it was one or the other. I am inclined to say just exactly when the last time was. As I said I stated at the preliminary hearing I thought it was October or late September.
Q: Mr. Russo, since the preliminary hearing haven't you learned that Oswald left New Orleans never to return on September 25 and that is the reason you are not saying October now?
A: During the preliminary hearing you mentioned it was September 25.
MR. ALCOCK: I object because it is assuming a fact not in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I can ask him whether something is a reason for his having changed his testimony.
[page missing]
Q. . . . now that he was here in October?
A: No.
Q: That isn't it? Is that right?
A: That's right.
Q: I am reading to you from your preliminary hearing testimony on page 202 of the transcript: "Question -- You still say it was in October that you heard this second threat from Ferrie?
"Answer -- I heard, yes, sir.
"Question -- And that Oswald was present, is that right?
"Answer -- At one of the times, yes.
"Question -- In October, is that right?
"Answer -- I would say in October, yes, sir."
MR. ALCOCK: I object, Your Honor, as I think the witness has already answered that question.
MR. DYMOND: It is on a different portion of the testimony and I was going to ask him whether his explanation to this discrepancy would be the same as to the previous one.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
Q: In you explanation for this discrepancy the same as the other?
A: If you will phrase the question.
Q: Phrase what question?
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
THE WITNESS: Rephrase it as you did before and I will answer that.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you deny having testified as I read to you from page 202 of the transcript in the preliminary hearing?

A: Do I deny having testified to that?
Q: Yes, that is correct.
A: No.
Q: And you say now you cannot say that Oswald was here in October?
A: That is not the same question you had asked. I am saying it was either late September of early October.
Q: What I'm asking you is why you are changing your testimony?
A: I said late September or early October.
Q: Why are you changing your testimony now from that which you gave at the preliminary hearing?
A: I don't think I am essentially.
Q: You care for me to read it again?
A: No, I understand exactly what you read and I say the same thing now, late September or early October.
Q: Permit me -- "You still say it was in October you heard this second threat from Ferrie?
"Answer -- I heard, yes, sir.
"Question -- And that Oswald was present, is that right?
"Answer -- At one of the times, yes.
"Question -- In October, is that right?
"Answer -- I would say in October, yes, sir."
Does that say that Oswald was here in October?
A: Late September, early October, essentially the same, yes.
Q: What just says late September?
A: What you just read said late September or early October and if that says October, I'm not arguing with you.
Q: I exhibit to you page 202 of your testimony at the preliminary hearing pointing out to you where -- I'm pointing from there and ask you to read that page.
A: Can I read a little bit before?
Q: I read you from page 202.
A: Not here, late September.
Q: You did say it was in October?
A: Before and after I said late September and early October which is essentially the same thing as I am saying right now.
Q: Mr. Russo, were you living here in New Orleans when David Ferrie was arrested right after the assassination?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you see it in the paper?
A: The assassination or the arrest?
Q: The arrest of David Ferrie?
A: No.
Q: Did you know he was arrested?
A: No, I didn't know it.
Q: When did you first find out about that?
A: Probably right around the first week I was down here in New Orleans from Baton Rouge, '67, 1967.
Q: In other words Dave Ferrie was arrested right after the assassination and you didn't find out about it until 1967?
A: Right.
Q: And that is the same Dave Ferrie that was a close friend of yours and he had an open invitation to your home and you had an open invitation to his?
A: Yes.
MR. ALCOCK: That was a question?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.



BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you have testified previously that you do know Mr. Jim Phelan, is that correct?

A: Right.
Q: When was the first time that you saw Mr. Phelan?
A: It was right after the preliminary hearing, Sunday evening, I think.
Q: Would March 21, 1967 at your home in Baton Rouge refresh your memory to that?
A: If that be approximately right.
Q: Would it be approximately right, is that correct? About what time of day did Mr. Phelan come to your house?
A: In the evening.
Q: Is that the occasion upon which you say Mr. Matt Herron was present?
A: Yes, sir, the photographer.
Q: On that occasion did you tell Mr. Phelan that in the letter that you wrote to Garrison you said merely, "I had occasion to meet Ferrie and some of his friends and I am willing to tell you what I know about them"?
A: Not exactly but that is one of the things I said.
Q: Did you tell them there was more to the content of the letter than you mentioned?
A: I don't know exactly what was asked about the letter that I wrote Garrison, and I knew Ferrie and was willing to cooperate and would they have somebody out of the DA's office contact me.
Q: Did you admit to Mr. Phelan that in that letter you didn't mention Shaw, Bertrand, or Oswald?
A: I didn't know who Shaw was?
Q: Did you admit to Mr. Phelan at that time the letter did not mention Shaw, Bertrand, Oswald or an assassination plot at Ferrie's apartment?
A: Right.
Q: You admitted that to Mr. Phelan?
A: Yes.
Q: At that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you also have a discussion on that same occasion with Mr. Phelan concerning the interview that you had given to Mr. Bill Bankston a reporter for the Baton Rouge State Times?
A: Several things were covered and he probably mentioned that, I have a recollection he brought Bankston's name in the conversation in May, not March.
Q: At that time did you give to Mr. Phelan as an explanation for your granting of an interview to Bankston the fact that you wanted to get the whole story down with somebody?
A: You're emphasizing the word "whole," no.
Q: Forget the emphasis.
A: I told him I had called the Baton Rouge Detective Bureau on that Friday or sometime around 11:00 o'clock in the morning when I decided against coming to New Orleans, it wouldn't be April it'd be May and I talked to someone at the Baton Rouge Detective's Bureau and I asked them could I make a statement and they said to me when are you going to New Orleans and I said I am going again in a couple of weeks, and Mr. Phelan at that time, I had talked with a couple of friends of mine and told them a little bit and I then said I will call up the newspapers and tell them about it, and I didn't know Mr. Bankston and all I know is he answered the phone and I said to him "Will you come down" and he said we will send somebody.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Phelan you wanted to get the whole story down with somebody --
A: I said I wanted to give a statement to somebody so it would get to Garrison, I don't know about the whole story.
Q: Up to that time had you telephoned Garrison and talked to him?
A: The New Orleans Office I don't think, I may have tried Friday, I'm not sure.
Q: So in other words before you telephoned Garrison you telephoned the television station?
A: I telephoned the Baton Rouge Detective Bureau.
Q: And also the Baton Rouge States-Times and how about the television station?
A: I didn't call the television station.
Q: No. How about the Baton Rouge States-Times?
A: I called them.
Q: Before you talked to Garrison, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it during this same visit by Mr. Phelan that he showed to you the copy of the Sciambra memorandum?
A: He had a copy, yes, sir.
Q: Did he hand that to you and show it to you and permit you to read it?
A: He did.
Q: Is it your testimony you did not read that complete memorandum?
A: Not word for word, no.
Q: At that time what did you say?
A: Not word for word, no.
Q: Did you thumb through it or what did you do?
A: Just took it and looked through it quickly and he had asked me before that if I would look through it and see if any of the contents were not correct and then on the back page one part caught my eye where he had circled something and had a line under it and an arrow to the left or right side with notes on it and when I came to that I told him that was not so.
Q: Did Mr. Phelan tell you he was in the process of writing an article for the Saturday Evening Post?
MR. ALCOCK: I'm going to object to anything that Mr. Phelan might have said.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Mr. Phelan is going to be available to testify.
THE COURT: You can then ask the question when he takes the stand.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Then you deny that you made only four minor corrections in the Sciambra memorandum when Mr. Phelan handed it to you?

A: Most of the time centered around other things and not around the memorandum and most of the time around the part that was circled, the words "twice" I think on page 5 or 6.
Q: Weren't you checking that memorandum for accuracy?
A: For accuracy, I was told to look it over and see if there were any glaring mistakes, some omissions, some corrections and essentially a lot of stuff was correct.
Q: Didn't you point out four inaccuracies?
A: I may have pointed out four but the one he was interested in was the one "twice."
Q: And you say that the statement contained in that memorandum to the effect that you had seen this defendant only twice was circled by him in pencil?
A: I don't think pencil, I think it was ink.
Q: It was ink?
A: It was.
Q: But you -- had you spoken to any representative of the District Attorney's Office prior to Mr. Phelan coming to Baton Rouge?
A: I had.
Q: And you had been informed he was coming and informed of the purposes of his visit?
A: I had.
Q: To whom had you spoke?
A: Well, perhaps a couple of people, I know I talked to Andrew Sciambra and another too but at that time I didn't know everybody in the office.
Q: That is the Mr. Sciambra that wrote the memorandum?
A: Correct.
Q: Is it not a fact that when you noticed the statement that you had seen this Defendant only twice you should have said that, you should have said that I should have said three times?
A: I should have said to him?
Q: To Mr. Phelan.
A: What do you mean, when he was up there and he asked me that?
Q: Yes.
A: I said definitely it was an error twice was wrong and I should have said three times.
Q: Is it not a fact you admitted to him that you had told Mr. Sciambra of only seeing him twice?
A: That is an error.
Q: You deny that?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did you receive a phone call from Mr. Phelan while he was in New York subsequent to this interview?
A: I received several phone calls from him, it was probably subsequent to the interview, yes it was.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am going to object to anything along this line unless he received a sufficient amount of phone calls to recognize the voice of Jim Phelan but somebody who identifies himself as Jim Phelan, he wouldn't know whether it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that you invited the person on the other end of that telephone, whom you believed to be James Phelan, to drop down and see you when he got back to New Orleans?

A: When I was on North St. Patrick Street, you're talking about later on?
Q: I am talking about after the March 21 visit, yes.
A: Yes.
Q: You did invite him to drop by?
A: I told Matt Herron or somebody that knew him to tell him to call me and he returned my phone call and said, I said when you're in New Orleans why don't you check me out.
Q: When Mr. Phelan got back to New Orleans in late April of 1967 as a matter of fact did you not see him on five or six visits?
A: Not long visits, four of them were long visits and two, if I saw him two other times they were probably for a few minutes, yes.
Q: Where were most of the visits?
A: 619 North St. Patrick.
Q: Do you remember on one occasion upon which Mr. Phelan took you to dinner out at Fitzgerald's?
A: Fitzgerald's yes.
Q: Yes. Do you remember another occasion upon which you and Mr. Phelan went down to the corner poolroom and played a few games of pool?
A: Right, yes.
Q: On the night after you played pool with Mr. Phelan do you deny that you made this statement to him: "If Garrison knew what I told my priest in Baton Rouge after the Shaw hearing he would go through the ceiling"?
A: No, I don't deny making that statement but it needs somewhat of an explanation in context. I had told quite frankly many people this, and let me give you a little backup also. I told Phelan a great deal about colored versus, black and white, something I mentioned today as to how I felt of the period of time from February 24 wherein I got involved all the way up until the time he was there and also past that time actually. If you were at a basketball game or the fights you have a light of vague memories and recollections that you have of that occasion, but from February 24 until that time my whole association in this case as the accuser of the Defendant, or witness against the Defendant, had been what I called a blank grey area and I would rather have if I could pull myself out of it and I went into a long explanation of that to him. Now, if you will repeat just exactly the statement I made --
Q: "If Garrison knew what I told my priest in Baton Rouge after the Shaw hearing he would go through the ceiling."
A: Essentially what I told the priest was that, and I'd like to be out of it, such a personal turmoil and upheaval in my own personal world and that it would not be the same whether Mr. Shaw was found guilty or not, that had no bearing, that my life would never be the same because there were so many news people, some with other motives such as DSU and NBC that not only reported the news incorrectly but quite often attempted to make news, things of this sort.
Q: Why did you think that would make Mr. Garrison go through the ceiling?
A: It seemed like they had got me in a crossfire and I didn't want to name names and that if I could have avoided the whole thing I'd rather not remember anything.
Q: You deny in that same conversation you went on and volunteered to Mr. Phelan that you told the priest that you wanted to sit down alone with Shaw in a room and listen to him breathe and talk to him and ask him some questions so you could resolve doubts about your identification of him?
A: Pardon?
Q: You deny having told that to Mr. Phelan?
A: That I told that to the priest?
Q: Right.
A: Right, sure I probably did tell him that as well as the priest but for the same reason I told you this morning the 1,000 percent against 100 percent -- sure it was the, the man on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, although if justice could be had, absolutely -- absolute justice, if I could be present and smell and talk to him about things you could jointly talk about so that I could come to an understanding of the Defendant. I told that to Phelan.
Q: You say you told the priest you wanted to resolve doubts about your identification of Shaw?
A: I never told him that, I told him I would like to be out of it, I would like to get my life back in order, business and my job, I had to get that back in order.
Q: Now you are denying you told Phelan that you told the priest you wanted to resolve doubts about your identification?
A: Wanted to resolve doubts?
Q: That is right.
A: Again I probably said that but in relation to what I just told you about 1,000 percent versus 100 percent and I used that 100 percent to -- 1,000 percent versus 100 percent to many people I talked to.
Q: Then you are not denying you told the priest you had doubts about your identification?
A: Doubts is a negative and positive is -- I'd rather be more sure than just sure if that makes sense.
Q: Not much, no.
THE COURT: Don't pursue the area.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that it was shortly after this conversation with Mr. Phelan that a tentative appointment was set up where you were to meet with Mr. Shaw outside the presence of attorneys?

MR. ALCOCK: Object, Your Honor, as repetitious.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please there is another question following.
THE COURT: Read this question back.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Is it not a fact that it was shortly after this conversation with Mr. Phelan that a tentative appointment was set up where you were to meet with Mr. Shaw outside the presence of attorneys?"
MR. ALCOCK: That was gone into at length this morning.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I intend to tie it up and show the relevancy.
THE COURT: Is that statement correct or not? Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: You're asking me if an appointment was set up?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: A tentative appointment set up.

A: Not to my knowledge, it was definitely set up.
Q: It was set up?
A: That is the way Phelan expressed it to me, it was definitely set up for somewhere on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
Q: At whose request?
A: That again I made no specific request but it was the kind of thing for this 100 percent versus a hundred to eliminate all barriers between myself and the Defendant, and all of a sudden Phelan comes up the next day, or a couple of days later and said "It has been set up for that night or tomorrow," and I said "Don't take me serious, it's not possible and it would put me in, it would be impossible because Garrison's office knew exactly well that Phelan was talking to me about it and they were tape recording the conversations.
Q: How did they get to tape record the conversations?
A: What?
Q: How did Garrison's representative get tape recordings of these conversations?
A: I told them he had called me and had said he will check in and they said let us know when he does come to the house because we want to find out how far he will go and they would set up bugging devices in the house.
Q: You had bugging devices on your phone?
A: No, they set up the tape recorder in the hall closet and spike mikes and --
Q: And every time Phelan called you you turned it on, this bugging device?
A: And every time he would come over also.
Q: And you bugged the conversations when he took you to dinner or when you were shooting pool?
A: Most of the conversations we had were in the house, any lengthy conversations, although we did go down to the poolroom and Fitzgerald's Restaurant.
Q: All these conversations in the house with Phelan were bugged?
A: They were taped.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please at this time we would like to move for the production of the tapes of these telephone conversations.
MR. ALCOCK: For what purposes, Your Honor?
MR. DYMOND: I think we can find out precisely what went on these conversations.
MR. ALCOCK: It seems to me we are dabbling in a lot of hearsay.
MR. DYMOND: I waive our objection to any hearsay.
THE COURT: That is going to be a very peculiar situation.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor --
THE COURT: You waive when you wish to waive and when you don't wish to you don't waive.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we don't know what is in those recordings but we will take our chances.
THE COURT: What is the State's position?
MR. ALCOCK: The State just doesn't see a legal purpose for the introduction of these tapes and no real reason to offer them to the Court. Frankly, I haven't heard the tapes but it seems to me we are going into a lot of hearsay. If Mr. Phelan wants to testify, Mr. Dymond stated he will be here and will testify.
MR. DYMOND: Mr. Phelan's testimony is hearsay?
MR. ALCOCK: The best evidence is for Mr. Russo to give his half and Mr. Phelan his half and then the Court is then given the full contents of the conversation.
THE COURT: It could be fraught with hearsay.
MR. DYMOND: My objection is merely I think the Jury would like to hear precisely what went on.
THE COURT: Let me read Article 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is under evidence, 493, "Whenever the credibility of a witness is to be impeached by proof of any statement made by him contradictory to his testimony, first he must be asked whether he has made such a statement and his attention must be called to the time, place, and circumstances and to the person to whom the alleged statement was made in order that the witness may have an opportunity of explaining that which is prima facie contradictory. If the witness does not distinctly admit making such statement, evidence that he did make it is admissible." You are going far afield from this article because you are asking me to force the State to present to you exhibits that you don't know at this moment what they contain, furnish you with ammunition to show that Mr. Russo is making a contradictory statement today from what he told Mr. Phelan. In other words you are on a hunting or fishing expedition hoping that something will develop aside from the notes you have after speaking with this witness Mr. Phelan. Apparently he told you his side of the conversation and you have used part of it to impeach the credibility of the witness by proving he made contradictory statements and Mr. Alcock stated that Mr. Russo can give his side and Mr. Phelan can give his side. If on the other hand you have written before you certain ideas or thoughts or exact words Mr. Russo said to Mr. Phelan you can use them now but I'm not going to grant your request that you can go on a hunting expedition. I sustain the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we respectfully object and reserve a Bill of Exception making the motion by the Defense, the State's objection to it and the Court's ruling and all the testimony up to this time parts of the bill.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that when you decided not to go through with this scheduled meeting that you told Mr. Phelan you didn't want to go through with it because news might leak through to Garrison?

A: Garrison knew exactly that it was being set up.
Q: I'm asking you whether you told Mr. Phelan that was your reason for not going through with it.
A: That may have been part of it.
Q: Did you tell him that?
A: I am not sure that is exactly the reason I gave, no.
Q: To your knowledge did Mr. Phelan know that his conversations were being tapped or taped?
A: No.
Q: How about phone calls?
A: No.
Q: Calling your attention now, Mr. Russo, to the particular evening you had dinner at Fitzgerald's, and to further refresh your memory, Steve Derby went to dinner with you at Fitzgerald's?
A: Yes, sir, right.
Q: Later on in the evening after dinner do you deny you made this statement to Mr. Phelan: "I lied to you about why I didn't want to meet with Shaw. I was afraid if I talked to him I would know he wasn't the man. What could I do then? I could go on the run to Mexico or California and become a beatnik but I couldn't run from myself"?
A: I deny that.
Q: You deny that?
A: Yes.
Q: You deny having said that?
A: Right.
Q: The incident which I am about to relate occurred towards the end of the frequent visits made to you by Mr. Phelan. Is it not a fact that you and he had a conversation about your testimony concerning Mr. Shaw's trip to the West Coast?
A: That we, that Phelan and I had a conversation about his trip to the West Coast?
Q: Yes, about Mr. Shaw's trip.
A: Phelan argued with me to some extent.
Q: He argued with you?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you deny that in answer to his argument you said that you had picked up a lot of information from Garrison's people just from the way they asked questions?
A: That I picked up information from Garrison's people?
Q: That is correct.
A: I don't think that would be an accurate description of what was said.
Q: You are denying having said that?
A: Correct and I deny -- what he meant, it could have been something similar to that.
Q: Just what did you say?
A: Phelan always prefaced things with this statement that District Attorney Jim Garrison, that the District Attorney had a peculiar habit of after using a person extensively that he would turn on that person and he said that once Shaw gets found innocent, once he ever gets to trial and Shaw is acquitted by the Jury there, then Garrison will turn on you and ride you and file charges so that he could get off the hook and frequently he prefaced his statements with that and if you'll get down to this particular time --
Q: I have picked up a lot of information from Garrison's people just from the way they asked questions.
A: We talked quite a bit, well, at different times and I don't know if this was after Fitzgerald's --
Q: After leaving Fitzgerald's.
A: We talked several times and quite frequently and about how much did I tell Sciambra and how much initially and how much later on and I told him essentially the things I told you, or told you that I had told him, and I told him some of the things were not hard to pick up or hard to follow and I don't know if I worded that correctly or not.
Q: Do you deny that very shortly after that you made this statement to Jim Phelan, this is on the same occasion, same business, "I am a pretty sensitive guy and besides when they got through asking me questions I asked them a lot of questions like "Why is this man important" and so on and I also read every scrap the papers printed about the case before the Shaw hearing"?
A: Some of that is accurate and some not.
Q: What isn't?
A: I asked a lot of questions after the initial questioning and reading the papers. A lot of, most of the people I associate with now know I don't read the papers mostly concerning the trial.
Q: I am referring now to the last visit made by Mr. Phelan.
A: Somehow or another you seem to have skipped about three at the house. You haven't covered the house yet.
Q: The last one on May 28, 1967, do you deny you told Mr. Phelan these words: "I do not know the difference between reality and fantasy and I have told my roommate Steve about it and brooded about it"?
A: That is accurate with some explanation.
Q: First of all, did you tell Phelan you didn't know the difference between fantasy and reality?
A: You are taking that out of context.
Q: Go ahead.
A: And this, this is at the time that DSU's Rick Townley was beginning to come around and other newsmen always trying to split hairs and Jim Phelan and a few others were telling me about how Garrison was going to get me when Shaw was found innocent. I told him that it was hard to distinguish fact and fantasy and I went on a little further and I told him that with this -- from that initial barrage of newsmen, that it was hard to distinguish fact and fantasy and I went on a little further and told him it would probably help me out if I could get away from all of this, get away from it all for a a couple of weeks and relax and stay away from the newspapers and again he pulled that out of context.
Q: Mr. Russo, if you wanted to stay away from reporters, why did you even suggest to Phelan that he come by?
A: The District Attorney's Office was interested in how much and how far he would go.
Q: You were just acting as an agent for the District Attorney's Office collecting information on Phelan?
A: Initially Phelan had come up to Baton Rouge and at that time they weren't interested in how far he would go but after that I met Phelan and I didn't tell him not to come down, he seemed reasonable enough and I thought he was responsible.
Q: You actually told him to come down?
A: I told, I think it was Matt Herron, you have to ask him, if he saw him to tell him to call me.
Q: It was your testimony that because you were being set upon by reporters that you didn't know the difference between fantasy and reality and still you were able to tell him to call you?
A: It is sometimes heard when persons are on you to split hairs and everybody was saying I was lying and that it was Guy Banister or James Lewallen at Dave Ferrie's and that didn't you say this or that and it was a constant barrage and they told me not to talk to anybody but that Phelan was okayed on the 20th or 21st and it was all right to talk to him and after that, after he called me when I was in New Orleans and said he was coming over I called them and they said to stall him a little bit and we are going to go to your place and we will tape the conversation.
Q: Were you stalling him a little bit?
A: I was stalling him the first day.
Q: Did you further tell Phelan on this same occasion, "Everything you have commented on about my testimony has been bouncing inside my head and I am much more critical of myself than you are"?
A: That was a leading statement I told them, yes, sir.
Q: What was?
A: If that, every day that he was over the night before someone from the District Attorney's Office would come over and pick up the tape and that statement was to make him think he was starting to get somewhere in breaking me down and my testimony and to get at Garrison and that was supposed to be when it was done under sodium pentothal or hypnosis and that was the statement that some makes sense and some doesn't.
Q: It is your testimony that you were just baiting Phelan along?
A: Not baiting, no. They were interested in how far he'd go and I was interested in that too.
Q: Did you also tell him at that time that if you changed your story on the positive identification of Shaw, or even eased up on it, that Garrison would clobber you?
A: He said this, I want to preface just a little bit of that --
Q: Just answer yes or no and then you can explain.
A: Not exactly, no.
Q: All right, you can explain.
A: He said this, if you will, first of all he tried to ask me and would say I understand it is possible you have been led under drugs and hypnosis and he showed me the papers of big people, certain doctors who would testify for the Defense against the State's case, and those names were just halfway scratched out and he said they were highly reputable and educated people and so on and he played it that way -- that didn't throw me at all and then he changed his tactics and said if you were to say it was possible, one step removed, if you were to say it is possible then you come to me in New York, talk to a lawyer, just talk to a lawyer and I will cover your expenses coming to New York and then of course we would have to deny it from there. I said if I did, if I did do anything like that Garrison would clobber me over the head. That way, yes.
Q: You didn't say it the way I read it to you, right?
A: No.
... At the hour of 2:45 o'clock p.m. the Court recessed until 3:10 o'clock p.m. ...



THE COURT: I would like to make on announcement before pulling the Jury down, that it has been brought to my attention that one of the news media people have seen fit to violate my guidelines. When Mr. Russo, before he came back to take the stand he approached him and made some comment about his testimony. I am not going to do anything about it at this moment but if it comes to my attention again that my guidelines have been violated I am going to have that reporter's credentials, his admission credentials taken up so he cannot enter this courtroom. I hope it will not happen again. All right, is the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, do you recall having had an interview with Mr. George Lardner, a reporter for the Washington Post?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: More particularly on or about June 20, 1967?
A: I am not real sure, there were so many of them.
Q: An interview of which we have information that it took place, it was in June in New Orleans at your home?
A: Yes, on North St. Patrick.
Q: Would you tell me whether the interview with Mr. Lardner was taped?
A: The taping machine was still there and I'm not sure whether it was taped or not. I am under the impression it was but I'm not real sure of that.
Q: You say you think it was taped?
A: I think, I'm not sure of that.
Q: How often did you deliver tapes to the District Attorney's Office?
A: Most of the time someone would come pick them up whenever I got a full tape.
Q: How frequently did that come about?
A: I was in touch with someone every day.
Q: Who usually?
A: Sal Scaccia, Andrew Sciambra, I can't think of some of the other people.
Q: Who did you usually get in touch with at the District Attorney's Office?
A: Either Scaccia or Sciambra.
Q: I am referring to the interview with Mr. Lardner, you do recollect that interview?
A: Right.
Q: Do you deny that during the course of this interview that you told Mr. Lardner that you were willing to disclose weaknesses in your testimony for a price?
A: I absolutely deny that.
Q: You deny that flatly?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You deny making this statement to Mr. Lardner, "I am looking for guarantees, I am interested in me, my job and me"?
A: I didn't use looking for guarantees, I said I was looking for the job but it was in jeopardy.
Q: But you deny making the statement I just read to you?
A: In essence, yes, but I was interested in my job. In essence that statement is incorrect.
Q: I'm not talking about in essence but whether you deny making the statement "I am looking for guarantees, I am interested in me, my position and me."?
A: Part of it is right and part of it is incorrect.
Q: In other words you deny having made that entire statement?
A: I deny having made the entire statement, yes.
Q: Do you deny making the statement to Mr. Lardner on this occasion that there were certain weaknesses or holes surrounding your testimony?
A: I'm not sure if I said that to Mr. Lardner or Phelan at that time because Phelan was before that a little bit. At that -- no, I didn't say that, nor, not to Mr. Lardner.
Q: You did not say that to Mr. Lardner?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever say that to anybody?
A: No, I discussed the approach to the cross-examining of me and what I would think would be weaknesses in my testimony.
Q: What reporter, with what reporter did you discuss that?
A: I think in general I may have mentioned it, but not that particular phraseology, but I may have mentioned that to some degree with Mr. Lardner.
Q: Did you make this statement, "Garrison doesn't know what they are. I know what they are"?
A: That is absolutely incorrect. The District Attorney's Office does know.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Lardner that you had no intention of disclosing the weaknesses to any newsmen without getting something in return and you were dissatisfied with the $3,000.00 Garrison's office gave you for expenses?
A: Mr. Lardner asked me about rumors --
Q: Do you deny making that statement?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Now you can explain.
A: Mr. Lardner said he had heard rumors of a great deal of money and he didn't know them from fact and he had heard a rumor about my being paid $5,000.00, I don't remember 3,000.00, he said about $5,000.00 before and $5,000.00 after and another was heard about $25,000.00.
Q: You deny having said this to Mr. Lardner at the end of the interview, "If you say anything about this I am going to have to call you a liar"?
A: If I say anything about this to Lardner?
Q: I asked you whether you made this statement to Mr. Lardner, "If you say anything about this I'm going to have to call you a liar"?
A: That is wrong.
Q: You deny having said that?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you trying to gather any material on Mr. Lardner for the District Attorney, the District Attorney's Office?
A: If Lardner's interview was in June, the District Attorney's Office instructed me they prefer I tape all conversations with newsmen and I was playing along their lines to see how far these people would go.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Lardner you were taping them?
A: No -- did I tell him I was taping him -- I'm not sure.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Phelan?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Now, did you have any reason to gather information for the District Attorney's Office or to be taping your conversation with Sergeant Edward O'Donnell of the New Orleans Police Department?
A: No, sir, I saw Mr. O'Donnell at his office.
Q: You weren't gathering information against him for the District Attorney's Office?
A: No.
Q: Is it not a fact that in mid-June 1967 arrangements were made for Mr. O'Donnell to administer a polygraph or lie detector test to you?
A: Well --
MR. ALCOCK: I object. Mr Dymond knows better than to refer to that.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I have no intention of trying to get in evidence any product or result of a polygraph test because I know that is inadmissible. The only purpose is to identify the occasion to which I am going to refer to in this question.
THE COURT: It was obvious that was his intention because I know Mr. Dymond knows full well, and he mentioned that he knows full well.
MR. ALCOCK: That is not a proper reference to a lie detector test or the results 'cause he knows they are not admissible in any court throughout the United States and for this reason he could have called the witness' attention to this by some other means, because the only reason is the affect this would have on the Jury.
THE COURT: I don't know what affect it's supposed to have. You are trying to set up a time, place and circumstance?
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: As to when it occurred?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, but don't refer to it again.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is that not a fact, Mr. Russo?

A: Yes, sir, I am not sure of the date.
Q: Is it not also a fact that you expressed a desire to meet with Sergeant O'Donnell beforehand?
A: To the District Attorney's Office?
Q: Yes.
A: Right.
Q: Is it not also a fact that such a meeting was arranged between you and Sergeant O'Donnell?
A: In other words just to talk to the man?
Q: Correct.
A: Yes.
Q: And you had this meeting with Sergeant O'Donnell and it lasted for approximately one hour, is that correct?
A: About that.
Q: And this is -- was on or about June 16, 1967, would you agree with that?
A: Approximately.
Q: Is it not a fact that on Monday, June 19, 1967 you again went to Sergeant O'Donnell with keeping with the original plan or arrangement that had been made?
A: A few days later. I would accept your dates on that.
Q: Is it not also a fact that Sergeant O'Donnell conducted an interview with you from approximately 1:45 to 3:45 that afternoon?
A: I didn't think it was that long but I would say it was about one hour or one hour and a half.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I am not asking you any questions about what transpired during any alleged tests, but I am talking about the latter part now of your visit with Sergeant O'Donnell on this same day. Have I made that clear?
A: All right.
Q: Is it not a fact that you stated to Sergeant O'Donnell in the course of this interview that you were under a great deal of pressure and you wish you had never gotten involved in this mess?
A: That is correct.
Q: That is correct?
A: And I went into great lengths to talk about the pressures.
Q: Is it not a fact that in response to a question by Sergeant O'Donnell as to whether Clay Chaw was at the party which you have described, you replied "Do you want to know the truth?" and when he said "Yes," you said "I don't know if he was there or not"?
A: Uh, with some explanation the statement is accurate.
Q: Did you say that?
A: With some explanation, yes.
Q: All right.
A: We had talked about the pressures and in essence I remember telling him about Phelan and some of the other people around, I think Sheridan had been around by the time I saw O'Donnell and I went through a great explanation about this, and at that particular time in June, whatever it was, that it was hard to distinguish, I said all these people are pressing me and saying I am wrong and inaccurate and other things, that it was hard to tell whether he was there or not.
Q: You did tell him you didn't know whether Mr. Shaw was there or not?
A: After explaining the pressures, yes.
Q: Is it not also a fact that you stated to him that if you had to give a yes or no answer as to whether Mr. Shaw was at the party you would have to say no?
A: Again with the same explanation that I have given you.
Q: First of all did you say that?
A: Probably, maybe not those exact words you are quoting there but in essence the same thing. In line with, in line with what I said essentially about the pressures, this was at the time of Sheridan and Townley and right at the end of Phelan, of the Phelan thing, there wasn't much they didn't do to muddy my testimony and accordingly I told him that.
Q: Is it not a fact that when he asked you why you had come to court and positively identified Shaw at the preliminary hearing that you stated that it was because Dymond, meaning me, turned you on, as you put it, by asking you whether you believed in God?
A: I told him something along that line.
Q: Did you tell him that?
A: Yes. I said, and I might paraphrase it and it might be a lot quicker, and I said you had gone for the juggler vein and that I didn't care to discus that, and you asked me several questions I thought were out of line or out of bounds and you went into the examination of that area. The actual question of splitting hairs, you never did split hairs, the argument was the truth versus untruthfulness, whatever you care to call it. At that time when I talked to him I told him essentially something along those lines. Q: Is it not a fact that when he asked you whether the conversations that you heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment sounded like a legitimate plot to assassinate President Kennedy, you stated "no it did not"?
A: I stated -- you wanted me to answer that question?
Q: Yes.
A: Can I have it repeated?
Q: Yes. Is it not a fact that when Sergeant O'Donnell of the New Orleans Police Department asked you whether the conversation you ... that you had heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment sounded like a legitimate plot to assassinate President Kennedy you stated, "No, it did not."
A: Yes, with an explanation of this sort. We discussed at great length, for a great length of time about Dave Ferrie himself and his leaning towards the sensationism and toward the spectacular and we were splitting hairs about that, did or didn't I and said maybe, maybe not, and could it have been serious, and that Dave Ferrie would pick up on some things and I said probably it wasn't a serious thing.
Q: Is it not a fact in, rather on that same occasion you volunteered the statement that it appeared to you to be another bull session like they were always having? A: The word "bull session"?
Q: Right.
A: I used the word "shooting the bull." I don't use the word "bull session" that much.
Q: Then you deny you said that?
A: In essence it is correct. I am not sure of that terminology. Again the same explanation you really didn't know Ferrie -- I had asked O'Donnell if he knew Ferrie and you couldn't really know Ferrie, and did he know Ferrie, his fantastic appearance, he had little hair and was bald with a spotted scalp and at one time was a pretty good pilot people said and again some of the things he claimed he had done he backed up and some, some he didn't.
Q: Am I to understand that you statement you just made as an admission you did say it sounded like another bull session like they always had?
A: Not always had. The same thing I explained to you, this is essentially what was said and essentially what was said and Ferrie was, I don't know how to explain the type of human being he was.
Q: You would deny making the statement this appeared to you, it appeared to be a bull session to you?
A: That is acceptable.
Q: That is acceptable and that is what you said?
A: Not the exact words. It is acceptable.
Q: I am using it as a quote.
A: No, I don't know if I used those words, no.
Q: Is it not a fact when you were asked to describe the conversation you heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment that you stated that this was very vague in your mind and you could not at this time say what who was saying?
A: In June 1967, is that right?
Q: That is correct.
A: That at this time I could not say who was saying what?
Q: You admit saying that?
A: With the explanation, with the pressures of Rick Townley and Phalen and the rest of them, yes, sir.
Q: Do you deny that at this same meeting with Sergeant O'Donnell with the New Orleans Police Department you expressed to him a desire to meet Clay Shaw?
A: I told him about the thing I discussed with Phelan about it. You quote me what he says and I will answer.
Q: I don't have a quote but did you tell him you wanted to meet Shaw?
A: I told him about Phelan, the Phelan thing and what actually transpired with Phelan.
Q: Then you would deny you told him you wanted to meet with Clay Shaw?
A: Again the 1,000 percent versus the 100 percent. I don't think I could deny that and I told that to Phelan that that would be the best thing possible if I could.
Q: You were not -- you were trying to bait Phelan though?
A: Not initially.
Q: Not initially?
A: When I met him on March 21 he just came up and I was told by the District Attorney's Office he was okay.
Q: You had no reason to bait or get Sergeant O'Donnell?
A: Not Sergeant O'Donnell, no.
Q: Was it not a fact that when Sergeant O'Donnell asked you why you wanted to meet with Clay Shaw you told him you would like to talk with Clay Shaw to size him up to determine whether he was the kind of person that would take part in such a plot.
A: Essentially yes, sir. I was making a judgment play, not judge or jury and if that were possible that it would be a good thing but it is not possible and that's the same thing I told Phelan.
Q: It was not possible to meet with Shaw?
A: Not possible because there would be a 10 foot barrier of concrete between us. What could we discuss except the assassination?
Q: Is it not also a fact that you told Sergeant O'Donnell you would like to know Mr. Garrison's complete case against Clay Shaw?
A: I am not sure and I may have said that.
Q: Would you deny saying that?
A: No, I don't deny it.
Q: Would you admit it?
A: If I don't remember that part I don't admit it either.
Q: You don't admit it?
A: I don't either deny or admit it but I have said this to some people.
Q: Would you deny that Sergeant O'Donnell asked you why you wanted to know this and you stated it would help you come to a decision?
A: Would you read me his quote on that, his statement on that?
Q: Do you deny that when Sergeant O'Donnell asked you why you wanted to know Garrison's complete case against Shaw you said it would help you to come to a decision?
A: I am not sure exactly at that point how far we discussed that. I do remember making remarks to him or him to me concerning Shaw and I stated that I would like to know the case against Shaw from a curious view and at that time I was under a lot of pressure about people splitting hairs, everybody that had said that I was wrong and I'd better straighten up and that Garrison was going to turn around and grab me --
Q: I still don't know whether you told him you wanted to know the rest of the case.
A: Yes, I did probably say it but I'm not real sure.
Q: You would not admit it then?
A: Not admitting or denying it either.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, the date on which you came down here from Baton Rouge on which you came down here from Baton Rouge, was that the 27th of February?
A: That was a Monday, the 27th.
Q: Were you hypnotized after you came down here from Baton Rouge?
A: Well, not that day, not that I remember that day, no.
Q: You say not that you remember that day?
A: In other words, I don't think it was that day, no, but I was hypnotized after I came to New Orleans.
Q: Do you remember when was the first time that you were hypnotized after you came to New Orleans?
A: No. It wasn't but a few days later.
Q: Would the date March 1, 1967 refresh your recollection on it?
A: As the first time?
Q: Right.
A: I thought it would have been earlier than that, but perhaps it was.
Q: By whom were you hypnotized?
A: Dr. Esmond Fatter.
Q: For whom was Dr. Fatter working and hypnotizing you?
A: Well, I guess the -- well, I don't know, I just supposed it was the District Attorney's Office.
Q: Well, were not the arrangements made with you through the District Attorney's Office?
A: Yes. I supposed they worked for him (sic).
Q: Where did this hypnotic session take place?
A: Mr. Ward's office, Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: I am talking about the first one.
A: I think it was Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: In Dr. Chetta's office?
A: The Coroner's office.
Q: Who was present?
A: Sciambra was, I think Al Oser was, there was a stenographer, Dr. Fatter, Dr. Chetta, a couple of others -- a couple of others.
Q: What was that?
A: A few other people.
Q: You say a stenographer was present during that hypnotic session?
A: I am almost sure there was a stenographer there.
Q: Do you know whether a transcript was made at that session?
A: I have seen a transcript of it purporting to be that.
Q: Who represented the document that you saw to be a transcript of the session?
A: Well, I can't really say, it was just -- I had gotten it from either somebody in the DA's Office or one of the newsmen gave it to me.
Q: Would you recognize a transcript of that session if I showed it to you?
A: Would I recognize it as a copy of the copy that I had?
Q: Right.
A: I could -- oh, I could probably take a guess at it, I am not sure exactly word for word. No, I couldn't do that.
(Document produced by Mr. Alcock and handed to Mr. Dymond.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Mr. Russo, I show you what purports to be a copy of a transcript of the first hypnotic session of 3/1/67, having marked it for identification "D-12," and I ask you to review that and tell me whether you recognize it.

A: Well, I have seen something similar to this. I am not sure it is exactly the same, no.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-12.")



THE COURT: Gentlemen, will you two step up here a moment.
(Messrs. Alcock and Dymond stepped forward for a bench conference off the record.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, did you get a copy of the transcript of that hypnotic session?

A: At one time I had a copy, yes, sir.
Q: By whom was it given to you?
A: I think it was the District Attorney's Office, although I have seen some of the newsmen have a copy, or part of it, anyway.
Q: Do you still have that copy?
A: Oh, no, I don't think so; I have some papers but I don't think it was that.
Q: Now, during this hypnotic session were you in such a deep trance as to be unable at this time to tell us whether these are the questions propounded and the answers given during that session?
A: Well, the transcript that I saw, you see -- I am put in a peculiar position -- from the memory of what the questions were and the answers I gave, no, but having seen a transcript I will probably remember some of the stuff.
Q: From the copy which you say was given to you by a member of the District Attorney's Office, that is, from having read that copy, would you be able to identify this copy which I have exhibited to you, as a proper copy?
A: As a proper copy, it looks all right. I couldn't word for word, no. I mean it is a proper copy, looks all right.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the witness's testimony I would like to offer, file and produce in evidence this copy of the transcript of the first hypnotic session.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, to which offer the State objects on the grounds that it is not in any manner, shape or form properly identified at this time. This man testified that he was probably in too deep a trance at the time to recall the questions propounded to him or his answers. This might be introduceable later on, and I can assure Mr. Dymond that Dr. Fatter will be a witness. Perhaps at that time it might be admissible, but not at this time.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we would have no objection to Mr. Alcock examining this document to determine its authenticity.
MR. ALCOCK: Mr. Alcock wasn't present.
MR. DYMOND: Well, you undoubtedly have a copy of the transcript.
MR. ALCOCK: That doesn't make any difference.
THE COURT: Let me say there is no question the primary purpose of the offer, Mr. Dymond, is to show to the witness proof of a contradictory statement made at another time. Now his attention has been called to the time, place and circumstance.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I point out --
THE COURT: The question is was he compos mentis.
MR. DYMOND: That isn't the purpose of this offer at all, Your Honor, and I would not feel free to state the purpose of it in the presence of the Jury.
THE COURT: The witness stated he was under hypnosis at the time. He cannot state whether he would remember making that statement or not. Isn't that what he stated a moment ago?
MR. DYMOND: That is correct. If the Court please, as I understand it, the Court's ob- jection to the admissibility of this is that it has not been identified as a true copy of the transcript?
THE COURT: Well, I went further than the State went, I went further and said that the man is not in a position to be able to say whether he made those statements or not if he was under hypnosis.
MR. DYMOND: I understand that completely, Your Honor, and, as I say, I can answer the Court's objection but I don't think I should do it in the Jury's presence. However, with respect to the objection that this is not proven to be a true copy, I think that that objection can be answered.
THE COURT: I think so, too.
MR. DYMOND: -- by my furnishing to the State for the State's perusal, and if they are satisfied it is a true copy, there should be no objection on that basis.
THE COURT: We can do it on an easier basis than that. We can have the stenographer from the District Attorney's Office who took it, to certify it correct. That would be one way, but I am interested in the basis --
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, perhaps to clarify this we should excuse the Jury and find out why he is trying to introduce it.
MR. DYMOND: I will be happy to do that.
THE COURT: Very well, we will excuse the Jury.
(Whereupon, the Jury retired from the courtroom.)
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor, before --
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, before Mr. Dymond begins I would like the Sheriff to stand back there by the door and see if he can hear this, stand with the Jury and see if he can hear this and let us know.
THE COURT: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the purpose of our offering this transcript in evidence is not as a prior contradictory statement, our purpose in putting it in evidence is to have it as an exhibit to lay the foundation for further expert testimony. We have exhibited these transcripts to a competent psychiatrist and hypnotist of national repute, and we intend to show by his testimony that the type of suggestive questions put to Russo while under a hypnotic trance, medically would have the effect of completely destroying his credibility as a witness, his value as a witness, and would have the effect of implanting in his mind what the questioner wanted him to testify to and what was suggested to him by the questioning. The only way that we can do that is to get these transcripts in evidence.
THE COURT: I will hear from you, Mr. Alcock.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, the State's position on that would be this: I don't think Dr. Fatter is on trial nor are we attempting to impeach Dr. Fatter. What would that have to do with this particular witness? That is what I don't understand. Why should they get it in while this witness is testifying? If they want to bring this up to Dr. Fatter, fine, let them bring it up to Dr. Fatter -- Dr. Fatter is going to take the witness stand -- but this is no time to present this document to the witness.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, as to what purpose and what connection there is between this document and this witness, this document together with the expert testimony which we will furnish will show the source of this witness's testimony, and for that reason I think that if it is very relevant, at a time when this witness is testifying, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether it is offered today, tomorrow, or the next day.
MR. ALCOCK: The source of this witness's testimony -- this witness has already testified that essentially what he has told this Jury is what he told Sciambra on February 25, 1967. We are talking about March 1 now.
MR. DYMOND: Of course, Your Honor, we are prepared to sow differently on that.
THE COURT: To bring it to a head, I suggest you mark it "D-12" for identification purposes only, and I will not permit the document to be filed at this time, but you can use it when Dr. Fatter takes the stand and maybe reoffer it so it will be in evidence when you psychiatrist takes the stand.
MR. DYMOND: Mr. Alcock, may I ask whether Dr. Fatter is going to be placed on the stand?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: As long as we know Dr. Fatter is going to be placed on the stand, we don't mind waiting, it doesn't matter when it is offered, we want it in evidence.
THE COURT: Mark it "D-12" for identification purposes only, and bring the Jury in.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by the Court was duly marked by the Clerk as "Exhibit D-12' For Identification Only," and the Jury was recalled.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I ask you whether again on March 12, 1967 you were subjected to hypnosis.

A: I am not sure of the date, but I was subjected again, right, a couple of days later.
Q: Would you say that March 12 would be a likely date or a close date?
A: Well, it was before the preliminary hearings, you know; I am not sure of the date though, no.
Q: Now, where did this hypnotic session take place?
A: Well, I am not sure which one you are referring to. One was in --
Q: The second one.
A: One was in Mr. Ward's office, and I think two were in Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: Now, where did you say the first one was, Mr. Russo?
A: In Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: And where would the second one have been?
A: I am not sure on the chronology of it. I think the second one may have been in Dr. Chetta's office also.
Q: Do you remember who was present during this second session?
A: I am sure Dr. Chetta was, Dr. Fatter, a stenographer; I am not sure which Assistant was there at that time.
Q: Do you know whether or not a transcript was made of that meeting?
A: Well, there was a stenographer there, I am sure that there was.
Q: Were you also given a transcript of the second hypnotic session?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you still have that?
A: I think they were bound together. No, I don't have it. I think they were bound together though, in other words, this is one, this is two (indicating).
Q: I see. Now, were you in such a deep hypnotic trance upon the second occasion that you would be unable to review a transcript of that session and identify it as a true and correct transcript?
A: Yes.
Q: If I were to show you what purports to be a transcript of that session, would you be able to identify it as a result of having reviewed the copy of that transcript which was delivered to you by a representative of the DA's office?
A: I could approximately identify it.
MR. DYMOND: I show you this, Mr. Alcock (exhibiting document to Counsel).
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
MR. DYMOND: We will mark this "D-13."
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-13.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you a document which has been marked for identification "D-13," Mr. Russo, and I ask you to examine it and tell me whether that appears to be a true copy of the transcript of the second hypnotic session.

A: (The witness nodded affirmatively.)
Q: Would you say that appears to be a correct copy, Mr. Russo?
A: Yes, sir.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I will hold off on the actual introduction of this one.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, there was a third hypnotic session, was there not?

A: Right.
Q: Now, where did this last one take place?
A: In Charles -- in Mr. Ward's office?
Q: In Mr. Ward's office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was present then?
A: Dr. Fatter, Mr. Ward was in and out, and just about -- you know, I am sure Sciambra was there, some others, and a stenographer initially.
Q: You say there was a stenographer in the room at that time, too?
A: Well, there was when we began.
Q: Were you furnished with a transcript of that third session?
A: No transcript was ever taken so I was told.
Q: I see.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time I would like to ask of the State whether such a transcript was made and whether it will be furnished
MR. ALCOCK: Well, of course, Your Honor, Mr. Dymond knows if we did have a transcript I wouldn't necessarily deny him access to it -- he knows as a matter of law he is not entitled to it -- but, as I recall, there was no transcript made because it was terminated in the very beginning. Perhaps -- although I wasn't there, Mr. Sciambra was, perhaps he could clarify it. I don't think there was a transcript made.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Your Honor, there wasn't a transcript made of that particular session. I don't know the exact details about it, but Dr. Fatter had some problem in getting Perry to undergo hypnosis for some reason.
THE COURT: The main thing, there was not a transcript made?
MR. SCIAMBRA: No, Your Honor, there was no transcript made.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, have you ever been under psychiatric treatment?

A: Have I ever been under -- yes, sir.
Q: When did that treatment commence?
A: The first year of college, in October.
Q: The first year of college?
A: In October.
Q: What year was that?
A: '59.
Q: '59. And under whose treatment were you?
A: Dr. Max E. Johnson.
Q: Dr. Max E. Johnson?
A: Max, M-a-x.
Q: I see. Does he still practice here in New Orleans?
A: I am sure he does.
Q: And how long did you remain under psychiatric treatment?
A: Twelve to 18 months.
Q: Twelve to 18 months?
A: It was on a consultation basis.
Q: I see. How often would you consult with your psychiatrist?
A: Well, initially on a consultation basis probably about two times a week.
Q: About twice a week?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, after your active consultation period ended with the psychiatrist, is it not a fact that you had telephone consultations with him for quite a lengthy time?
A: Well, not for a lengthy time, only when I had something that I wanted to discuss with him.
Q: And how long did that go on, sir?
A: It was kind of spotty, I mean it was once in '63 and once in '65, I am sure of that.
Q: Do you remember when in '63 that was that you consulted with him?
A: Right after January 31.
Q: After January 31?
A: Right after.
Q: When was it in '65?
A: I am not really sure of that, sir.
Q: Have you consulted with him since 1965 at all?
A: No, I met him on the street, just talked to him.
Q: Have you ever telephoned him?
A: Since '65?
Q: Right.
A: I don't think so, no.
Q: Have you talked to any other psychiatrist since 1965?
A: Only as far as someone up at LSU, just discussing psychiatry. I have always been interested in psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysis.
Q: But you were not under actual treatment?
A: No. I discussed it for academic reasons.
MR. DYMOND: Would Your Honor bear with us just one moment, please?
(There was a brief pause in the proceedings.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, have you ever attempted to commit suicide?

A: Never.
Q: Do you know a man by the name of Mike Fitzpatrick?
A: Mike Fitzpatrick? Yes, sir.
Q: You knew him in 1962, didn't you?
A: Oh, yes, sir.
Q: Do you deny that in 1962 Mike Fitzpatrick came to your house, and when he got there your wrist had been cut and there was about a half inch of blood and a spot on the floor?
A: (Exhibiting wrists) Mr. Dymond, I don't have any scars on my wrist.
Q: Do you deny that?
A: I deny that.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
MR. ALCOCK: You have no further questions, Mr. Dymond?
MR. DYMOND: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, before you start, it is about three minutes after 4:00 and I think the news media would like a break before you start on redirect. I don't know whether they would like to have a five-minute break now or wait until 4:30. I think some of them, of course, requested a break a half hour or so ago, so unless somebody puts up a hand to the contrary, we will go along.
(Whereupon, several hands were raised in the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. We will take a five-minute recess. Let the Jury remain in the box here.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)



AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: The State is ready.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, I think that I recall on cross-examination that you mentioned the fact that David Ferrie had exhibited considerable knowledge in the field of medicine. Is that correct? Am I correct when I say that?

A: Yes, he had a laboratory and he talked a great deal about medical things.
Q: (Exhibiting photographs to witness) Perry, I am going to show you three pictures, which I have marked for purposes of identification as "State 21, 22" and "State 23," and I ask you to view these pictures, and I ask you if you recognize any of the objects exhibited in the pictures.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to this on the ground that it is completely irrelevant to the issues in this case. I think if Your Honor will examine the photographs you will see what I mean.
(Photographs exhibited to the Court.)
THE COURT: I would like to ask Mr. Alcock, do you intend to link this up with the --
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I think that these will demonstrate to the Court and the Jury that when Perry Russo said thathe exhibited great knowledge in medicine and in the field of medicine and dabbled I it, that these pictures will corroborate that testimony.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection and permit it as corroborative evidence.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill, making the State's offerings, S-21, S-22, and S-23, the Defense objection, the Court's ruling and the entire record up to now part of the bill.
(Whereupon, the photographs referred to by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-21, S-22," and "Exhibit S-23.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize the objects depicted in those pictures?

A: The microscope and --
MR. DYMOND: Now, if Your Honor please, we object here on the ground that this witness is not a medical expert by any means and here we have him trying to identify alleged medical equipment.
MR. ALCOCK: He is merely identifying the physical objects.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. I feel it is not necessary to have an expert to answer the particular question.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill, making the State's question, the Defense objection, reasons therefor, the Court's ruling, and the entire testimony and the same three exhibits and the record to date, part of the bill.
THE COURT:
He is not asking the witness for a medical reply, he is asking for the reply of an average ordinary citizen. He is not asking an expert question which needs an expert answer. All right, you may proceed.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Go ahead.

A: The microscope looks familiar, and the black box and these test tubes -- I am not sure about the container, the porcelain container I am not sure about, but the frame container for the tubes is familiar.
Q: Where if anywhere did you see the objects that you have just identified?
A: In Dave Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Would that be on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A: I think some medical things -- I think this microscope (indicating) might have been out at Kenner, too, but I think these were at Louisiana Avenue.
Q: All right. Now you were referring at that time to State's Exhibit 22?
A: Well, I mean this microscope in all three of them.
Q: You recognize the microscope to be the microscope that was in Dave Ferrie's apart- ment or --
MR. DYMOND: Object to leading the witness.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize this to be the microscope or a similar one?

A: It appears to be the one or a similar one -- I am not sure exactly the same one, but it looks like the one he had there.
Q: Thank you. Now, Perry, at that time did you know Clay Shaw?
A: Was this on March 1?
Q: March 1.
A: I knew a man that I knew as Clem Bertrand.
Q: Did you know Clay Shaw as Clay Shaw, or Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand?
A: I had been told in the previous week that --
MR. DYMOND: Object to what he had been told.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
A: I had learned the man's real name was --
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I object. He is putting it in just a different way.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you know Clay Shaw as Clay Shaw, or Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand?

A: I never knew anyone named Clay Shaw.
Q: So when you responded to the question, do you know Clay Shaw, and you responded no, why did you respond no to that question?
A: Because I didn't know Clay Shaw. I was introduced to a man named Clem Bertrand.
Q: Perry, in Baton Rouge on February 24, and more specifically your interview with Jim Kemp, during the course of that interview with Jim Kemp did he exhibit any photographs to you?
A: In Baton Rouge.
Q: Yes.
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he ask you to identify any photographs?
A: No photographs were shown to me and he didn't ask me to identify photographs.
Q: Now referring to your interview with Mr. Bankston, were you shown any photographs and asked to identify any photographs?
A: No. We talked in general about Dave Ferrie.
Q: At that time, which would have been February 24, 1967, did you know anyone by the name of Clay Shaw?
A: On February 24?
Q: Yes.
A: I had never heard the name Clay Shaw before in my life.
Q: Perry, can you recall when you learned the correct name of the Defendant before the Bar?
A: Would you repeat that?
Q: Do you recall when you first learned the correct name of the Defendant?
A: It was sometime after the 27th, I would just say about the middle of the week.
Q: Did you learn it in Baton Rouge or in New Orleans?
A: I learned it in New Orleans.
Q: Now, Perry, did you identify the person depicted in State's Exhibit No. 1 to Andrew Sciambra on February 25, 1967?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I again object to leading the witness.
MR. ALCOCK: That is not leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you identify any pictures for Mr. Sciambra on February 25, 1967?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Is S-1 one of those pictures?
A: I am not sure if it is the exact picture, I think it was only the right half, it was an enlargement of the right half.
Q: And how did you identify the picture?
A: Well, he had the picture, several pictures with him, or quite a few, and I pulled this one out when he showed it to me, and I said that I had known this man.
Q: And did you say where you had known this man?
A: I said that he was a roommate of Ferrie's.
Q: Now, was this before or after any attempt was made to draw any whiskers on the picture?
A: This was in Baton Rouge, this was before, although we did attempt to draw whiskers at that time.
Q: Was the identification made before the attempt or after the attempt?
A: Identification was made before the attempt.
Q: Perry, can you tell us why in the interview with James or Jim Kemp on February 24, 1967, you did not go into detail or into the degree of detail that you have gone into in this courtroom today?
A: Well, this was at Channel 2 at Baton Rouge -- Channel 9 -- one or the other, one of the two stations -- there are only two stations up there -- and he had no photographs, it was just a general interview, he had no photographs that he showed me. He mentioned no names except Harvey Lee Oswald's name. Of course, Dave Ferrie's name, he mentioned that. He didn't go into -- well, he had no photographs to say, well, is this guy involved or that guy involved, he didn't show me anything, all he did was set it up and turn on a camera and we started talking, or he started asking questions.
Q: Would that be the same reason why you did not go into this detail with Mr. Bankston?
A: Well, Mr. Bankston was interested in Dave Ferrie. He indicated an interest in Lee Harvey Oswald, which I was not going to tell him I knew Lee Harvey Oswald. I had known a Leon Oswald, and I maintain that to this point right now, and he didn't have any photographs either, none of them had any photographs, all they did was just talk.
Q: Perry, do you realize the seriousness of this change?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. ALCOCK: On what ground, Your Honor? I would like to know the ground for the objection.
THE COURT: It makes no difference what he thinks. There is law on it, and the law is serious, the law makes it out to be a crime.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, are you today identifying the Defendant Clay Shaw as the same man that you saw in Ferrie's apartment in mid-September, 1963, who was identified to you as Clem Bertrand?

MR. DYMOND: Object as a leading question.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the State's question, the Defense objection, the Court's ruling, the reason for the objection, and the entire record up until this point part of the bill.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Answer the question.

A: The question is whether Clay Shaw and Clem Bertrand are one and the same? They are.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I have a few questions.
THE COURT: Very well, you may recross.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, were you not permitted to look at Clay Shaw through a one-way glass in the District Attorney's Office?

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. This was not brought out on redirect. He can only go on recross on what was brought out on redirect.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this was brought out on redirect and has to do with his not knowing who Clay Shaw was on March 1.
THE COURT: I will permit the question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you remember the question?

A: Did I identify Clay Shaw through a one-way mirror?
Q: Yes.
A: Is that correct, or similar to that?
Q: On March 1, 1967 in the District Attorney's Office.
A: I am not sure of the date -- I am almost sure it was March 1 -- but yes, I did.
Q: Is it not a fact that Clay Shaw was sitting in one of the office that you were in another portion of the District Attorney's Office in general, and were able to see through what from the inside of the office where Clay Shaw was appeared to be a mirror?
A: Right.
Q: Is it not a fact that you were told who this subject was who was sitting in there at that time?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
THE COURT: I will permit the question. On what grounds?
MR. ALCOCK: Hearsay.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that when you were permitted to look at Clay Shaw through this one- way glass, you were told who he was?

A: I had been told that before, probably was told, or I heard the name at that same time also.
Q: That was on March 1? Right?
A: I had been told -- I think if I came down to New Orleans on the 27th, I was probably told the next day or the day after.
Q: What you were told was what Clay Shaw's real name was, one day or two days after you got down there?
A: The middle of that week it would probably be.
Q: But you did know his real name when you looked at him?
A: His name to me is Clem Bertrand, I am not going to claim him as Clay Shaw right now.
Q: Were you not informed by a representative of the DA's Office that you were looking at Clay Shaw through a one-way glass?
A: No District Attorney walked in there and said you are looking at Clay Shaw through a one-way glass, I am sure of that.
Q: Did anyone inform you of the actual name of the man you were looking at?
A: I said that they did, someone did.
Q: Now, is it not a fact that the interview which was conducted by Korbel and the other reporter on the steps of the courthouse, was taken as you were leaving the courthouse that day?
A: Right.
Q: Is it not a fact then that you did know the correct name of Clay Shaw when you --
A: No, I didn't know Clay Shaw and I don't know Clay Shaw right now.
Q: Let me ask the question before you answer it.
THE COURT: Cut the screaming down. We can do better talking low. Let him finish the question and then you can answer it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: If you had been told this man's correct name when you were looking through the one- way glass in the DA's Office, and this interview was taken when you were leaving the building, why didn't you know his correct name then?

A: Because I never was introduced to a man named Clay Shaw, I was introduced to Clem Bertrand and that is still the name that he goes under to me right now.
Q: You wouldn't be splitting hairs on this, would you?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That is argument.
THE BAILIFF: Order, order, please!
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you still say you weren't told that was Clay Shaw you were looking at?

MR. ALCOCK: Objection. He has answered the question.
THE COURT: He has answered the question. I sustain the objection. Cool it down, please, Gentlemen. We can do just as well by keeping our voices down.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, when somebody tries to talk when you are still asking a question, you have to raise your voice to be heard.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, in talking about your interview with Jim Kemp up in Baton Rouge, you say you didn't mention the name Lee Harvey Oswald because you had known a Leon Oswald? Is that right?

A: Right.
Q: Isn't it a fact that you also did not mention anything about a plot meeting or a conspiracy meeting?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection. He has answered the question.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the State went into this on redirect.
MR. ALCOCK: And he answered the question.
MR. DYMOND: I would like to go into it now.
MR. ALCOCK: He has answered the question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Isn't it a fact --

MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
MR. DYMOND: You have been overruled.
MR. ALCOCK: I have not been overruled.
THE COURT: If it has been brought out on redirect -- and I think it has been -- what questions were put by the reporters, without pictures -- I believe Mr. Dymond is referring to the same interview on recross, and he should be permitted to go into it. Therefore I overrule the State's objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Would you answer the question, please.

A: Would you read the question?
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
A: To Jim Kemp?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Right.

A: Jim Kemp never asked me anything along those lines.
Q: I see. But in spite of that you told your friends after the assassination that Leon Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald were the same person, is that right?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. That wasn't brought out on redirect.
MR. DYMOND: It is in relation to the question I just finished asking.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
A: I told some friends of mine I think I knew that man.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Still you didn't mention anything about this to Jim Kemp? Right?

A: Right.
THE COURT: Now I am going to intercede. He only answered the questions that were put to him, he didn't volunteer anything. That is what I understand.
MR. DYMOND: If Your Honor please, we object to the Court commenting on the evidence, we do, and we move for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Well, it is denied.
MR. DYMOND: -- on the ground that the Court commented on evidence, and reserve a bill of exception to the Court's ruling, making the Court's comment and the entire record up to this time part of the bill.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, say that you made the identification of the Oswald photograph in New York as being the same as Leon Oswald, before the whiskers were put on? Is that right?

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. New York is not involved in this.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: In Baton Rouge?

A: Yes, sir, in Baton Rouge, yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You say that, and do you also say that when you saw Lee Harvey Oswald's picture on television and in the newspapers after the assassination, you did not identify it as being Leon Oswald?
A: I told some of my friends that I think I had known that man.
Q: And is it your testimony that you sat in, or listened in, on a conspiratorial meeting with a man whom you saw represented in the paper and on television as the killer of President Kennedy, and didn't report it at that time to any law enforcement agent? Is that right?
A: No, I never said anything about a conspiracy; I didn't sit in on any conspiracies.
Q: Now with respect to your interview with Mr. Bankston up in Baton Rouge, is it your testimony that you didn't mention anything about this party or this meeting because he seemed to be interested only in Ferrie?
A: No, it wasn't totally interested in Ferrie, but he wasn't even interested in me initially until something came over the teletype about Dave Ferrie, and he was interested at that time, said, "Well, we will take a statement," and so for the next 30 or 40 minutes we sat there and talked.
Q: As a matter of fact, you called Bankston, he didn't call you?
A: I called the State Times; I don't know if I talked to him on the phone or not.
Q: You called his newspaper, is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: And you had your story to tell and you told it? Isn't that right?
A: That I knew Dave Ferrie, yes.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.


MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of this witness, the State would like to offer and file and introduce into evidence the following exhibits --
MR. DYMOND: I don't know these by number, Mr. Alcock.
MR. ALCOCK: I will bring them up.
MR. DYMOND: All right.
MR. ALCOCK: I may not have them in exact order. "S-23" which purports to be a picture of --
THE COURT: What is the number of it?
MR. ALCOCK: "S-23," which purports to be a picture of the microscope identified by the witness on the stand.
THE COURT: Let's take them one at a time. Is there any objection?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, Your Honor. We object to the pictures of the medical equipment, we make the same objection of lack of relevancy.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection, so you can offer "S-21," "S-22," and "S-23" over the objection. They will be permitted to be offered.
MR. DYMOND: Very well. We would like to reserve a bill of exception of their introduction, making the photographs, the objection, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record up until now part of the bill, also making the exhibits part of it.
THE COURT: Are you taking three separate bills?
MR. DYMOND: I think we can make that one bill.
THE COURT: All right. One bill.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-19" purports to be a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald with certain altera- tions to the face.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-15-Trial" purports to be a picture of the dining room of the apartment of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-13-Trial" which purports to be a picture of the living room of the apartment of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-11," which purports to be a picture of the outside front of the apartment of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-12-Trial," which purports to be a picture of the hallway in David Ferrie's apartment.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-24-Trial," which purports to be a picture of the hallway of David Ferrie's apartment.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-16-Trial," which purports to be a picture of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: And "S-17-Trial," which purports to be a picture of two detectives leading Lee Harvey Oswald out of the jail in Dallas, Texas.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: The State would like also to offer, file and introduce into evidence, having marked same for purposes of identification, "S-18," which purports to be a Mannlicker-Carcano rifle with a telescopic sight.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object, Your Honor. This rifle does not purport to have any direct connection with the case. It is our contention that it is completely irrelevant to the issues in the case.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill of exception, making the objection, the Court's ruling together with the reasons therefor, and the Exhibit S-18, together with the entire record up until this point, part of the record.
THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Alcock, that the exhibit is being offered as being similar to?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: All right. You didn't say that. It is similar to but not the original?
MR. ALCOCK: It is a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle but it is similar.
THE COURT: Yes, similar.
MR. DYMOND: If Your Honor please, I would like to point out that there is nothing in the record to identify this as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
MR. ALCOCK: All right. Just put it as a rifle Your Honor, I think Mr. Russo is excused, isn't he?
THE COURT: I am waiting for you to tell me. You have no further questions?
MR. ALCOCK: No, I have no further questions.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, I am checking on your Exhibit S-20. What exhibit is that, Mr. Sullivan?
THE CLERK: It went in on S- and D-20.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of the witness Perry Russo, and in consideration of the fact that Dr. Chetta is now deceased, the State would at this time ask permission of the Court to have Mr. Alvin Oser, Assistant District Attor- ney, the man who examined Dr. Chetta in the preliminary hearing, read into the record his testimony then given.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object.
THE COURT: State your reasons why.
MR. DYMOND: Well, I think the Jury should be removed for this objection, if the Court please.
THE COURT: All right. Take the Jury in my office.
(Whereupon, the Jury was excused from the courtroom.)
THE COURT: I am faced with Article 295. I guess you are aware of it.
MR. DYMOND: I am aware of it.
THE COURT: I will be glad to hear your objection.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, this objection is not based upon Article 295, which deals with preliminary hearings, at all. We realize that ordinarily the testimony of a deceased witness which has been previously taken at a preliminary hearing, is admissible on the trial of the case, but we object to this on the basic admissibility of this testimony because of its very nature, that is, were the same testimony to be offered from the lips of Dr. Chetta, we do not feel that it would be admissible here. This testimony purports to be in large part statements of the witness Perry Raymond Russo while he was under the influence of the drug sodium pentothal which had been administered by Dr. Chetta, and that actually the Court would have to read the entire testimony of Dr. Chetta from the transcript of this preliminary hearing in order to properly pass upon this objection. We objected to this testimony at the preliminary hearing, but, of course, being a preliminary hearing, the testimony was permitted, but this is a trial before a Jury here now.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, will the Court hear the State?
THE COURT: The Court would like to hear the State, certainly.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State's position in the matter is that what is in the preliminary hearings -- Mr. Dymond has opened the door on the question of sanity or insanity of the witness Perry Russo, so the State would like to quote the case of People vs. Esposito, 287 N.Y. 189, 39 N.E. 2, 1925, decided in 1942, and in this particular case the testimony was admitted by a psychiatrist based on the reactions and information received from the defendant while under the influence of drugs and sodium pentothal, which is truth serum, and in this particular case the doctor used this as one of the aids and means by which he tested and determined whether or not the defendant was sane or insane, and this is the reason that the testimony of Dr. Chetta is being offered. This is further covered, if Your Honor please, in the Temple Law Review, Volume 35, Page 401.
THE COURT: Can I get a copy of the Temple Law Review article?
MR. OSER: I believe Judge Bagert still has a copy.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I have a copy of it and I have no objection to submitting it to the Court, because I think --
THE COURT: A copy of what?
MR. WEGMANN: Of the Law Review article he is talking about -- because I think it proves exactly the opposite.
THE COURT: I will hear Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: I don't think, if the Court please, that the Esposito case is applicable here at all. In the first place, Counsel is contending by asking a witness whether he has had psychiatric treatment, that I have opened the door as to his sanity. You will probably get resentment from a lot of people in this courtroom if you questioned the sanity of each one who has consulted with a psychiatrist.
THE COURT: Well, to the layman, whether you believe it or not, to the layman a person who goes to a psychiatrist, they do think something is wrong with them; whether he is nuts or not, that is something else.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, further the sodium pentothal --
THE COURT: I know what sodium pentothal is.
MR. DYMOND: -- test has nothing whatsoever to do with sanity or insanity. This is testimony concerning material which was obtained from this witness in the form of testimony while under the influence of this drug. I know of no case in the history of our jurisprudence where such testimony has been admitted in evidence. We don't know what effect the administration of this drug has on a witness, the Jury doesn't, the Court doesn't, and I don't think that you will find a case in the annals of our country where a court has said yes, put a man under sodium pentothal, or a drug, and get him to talk and then that testimony is admissible in evidence.
THE COURT: Let me read to you, irrespective of your saying you are not alluding to Article 295, it seems like that article covers it very nicely. I am going to read.
MR. DYMOND; We have no argument with 295.
THE COURT: I am going to read it for the record. Take this down.
"295. Admission of Transcripts and Other Proceedings. The transcript of the testimony of a defendant who has testified at a preliminary examination is admissible against him upon the trial of his case, or, if relevant, in any subsequent judicial proceedings.
"The transcript of the testimony of any other witness who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible for any purpose in any subsequent proceedings in the case on behalf of either party. If the Court finds that the witness is dead, too ill to testify, absent from the state, or cannot be found, and that the absence of the witness was not procurred by the party offering the testimony --"
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Let me finish reading.
"-- the transcript of testimony given by a person at a preliminary examination may be used by any party in a subsequent judicial proceedings for the purpose of impeaching or corroborating the testimony of such person as a witness."
(Reporter's Note: The above quotation transcribed from the notes as they lie; the reader is referred to the source.)
THE COURT: Now, you have used the transcript of that hearing in attacking or impeaching the testimony of Perry Russo. You were also present at this preliminary examination and hearing, and you offered whatever objections you had to Dr. Chetta's testimony -- I am sure you must have.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, in answer to that I would like to say this: Yes, we did offer objections and we were met with the answer that "This is a preliminary hearing."
THE COURT: The same rules of evidence apply.
MR. DYMOND: I beg your pardon.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: No, they were not applied.
MR. DYMOND: They were not applied. If Your Honor will examine this transcript, you will see that upon numerous occasions we objected to hearsay evidence on this preliminary hearing. We were met with argument by the State that this is a preliminary hearing that hearsay evidence can be introduced at a preliminary hearing, and the three-judge panel so ruled. If Your Honor will examine this transcript, it will bear me out. And we have another situation here where evidence was admitted on the preliminary hearing because it was a preliminary hearing. We are confronted here with exactly the situation that we feared we would be confronted with.
THE COURT: Well, was the argument advanced to the three-judge court of the possibili- ty of that testimony being read at subsequent trial?
MR. DYMOND: Absolutely, absolutely it was, and the record reflects it.
THE COURT: In its entirety?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: And you will find a very detailed argument at the very beginning of Russo's testimony, as to what was going to be done.
THE COURT: I am ready to rule. I will overrule your objection, I will permit the reading of this under Article 295.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, may we ask that before you make such a ruling as this --
THE COURT: I have already made it.
MR. DYMOND: I will ask you to retract it then and permit us to research this point and furnish you with authorities tomorrow morning. I mean this ruling is absolutely contrary to anything that was anticipated in this preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: From a purely legal situation, you made the objection anticipating that the transcript could be read at a subsequent judicial proceeding, and you tell me the reason it was permitted is because they agreed it was hearsay but although it was hearsay that it was permitted because it was a preliminary examination?
MR. DYMOND: That is correct, and we said, "Yes, but suppose a witness dies and they try to introduce this as evidence on trial of the case?" They said, "Oh, no, you will be able to object on whatever legal ground you have."
THE COURT: Is that in the transcript?
MR. DYMOND: That is in the transcript, yes.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I think you have got to read the transcript.
THE COURT: I will have to read it.
MR. DYMOND: There is no other way out.
THE COURT. Can you pinpoint the section? I don't have a transcript.
MR. DYMOND: We can find that section without any trouble, yes.
THE COURT: Does the State have an extra copy, or is the transcript in the Clerk's Office?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I would like to point out to the Court perhaps my appreciation of what transpired at the preliminary hearing is different from Defense Counsel's -- perhaps it is -- but I remember I had long and strenuously argued the point that hearsay was admissible in a preliminary hearing because there we were only deciding whether or not there was probably cause --
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
MR. ALCOCK: -- and I analogized this to be probable cause on a search warrant and a motion to suppress. However, I was overruled, hearsay was excluded. The only conversations that were admitted was after the Court deemed that we had prima-faciely proved a conspiracy, and I can point that out to the Court in the transcript, because I know I argued that point long and loud and lost it.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I don't think there is any point in Mr. Alcock and me standing here arguing what is in the transcript when we can look at it and see what is in it.
THE COURT: I will get a copy somewhere, perhaps from the Clerk's Office. I would like for you, if you can, to cite me the particular pages.
MR. DYMOND: Given a few minutes I am sure we can.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I believe if you will read Dr. Chetta's testimony you will find the citation of the Court's authorities and everything else in there.
THE COURT: What is this evidence --
MR. WEGMANN: I have a copy of the Law Review article which is underlined.
MR. OSER: My questions to Dr. Chetta were based on hypothetical questions and not what Russo told Dr. Chetta. There is no testimony in there by Dr. Chetta as to what Russo told him. His answers were to my hypothetical questions to the expert, Dr. Chetta, at the time, not what Mr. Dymond said.
THE COURT: I understood you wanted to read the entire testimony of Dr. Chetta to the Jury?
MR. DYMOND: Correct.
THE COURT: I understand the State wishes to read the entire --
MR. OSER: But all my questions were propounded on the basis of hypothetical questions.
THE COURT: I will tell you what I think. The suggestion by Mr. Dymond probably is a solution to the problem we have now, I would think. I will take the testimony and also this exhibit you have. Do you have anything? You submitted me two citations, Mr. Oser. Do you have a brief on them or a memorandum on them?
MR. OSER: The Esposito case, Your Honor, is covered in the Temple Law Quarterly.
THE COURT: Which is what you have?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: If we are going to argue it tomorrow morning, I would like to have a copy of it so we can review it.
MR. DYMOND: Do you want to make a copy for the Court?
THE COURT: We will make a couple of copies. Have a couple of copies made. We will get it in the next ten minutes. Do you have any other witnesses you want to put on now?
MR. ALCOCK: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I will recess until tomorrow morning, and I will read the transcript plus the authorities and when we get here tomorrow morning, I will permit both sides to be heard in argument on it. Now, we are only contending about the testimony of Dr. Chetta?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Well, the argument about the hearsay that Mr. Alcock points out was originally made -- if you wait a second I can tell you where, because there is a long colloquy that went on. I believe, Judge, if you will read the very beginning of Perry Raymond Russo's testimony, which begins at Page 20, you will find the colloquy between Alcock --
MR. ALCOCK: You will find the answer on Page 41.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: You will find eventually what was done, but you will find what took place in the comments of the three-judge court.
THE COURT: To Page 41?
MR. WEGMANN: I don't say it ends there, Judge. I am afraid it is a long night of reading.
THE COURT: Where is Dr. Chetta's testimony?
MR. DYMOND: It is indexed.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have more than one copy of it, Mr. Oser?
MR. OSER: No, sir.
THE COURT: It would be in Judge Bagert's Court. Could you let me have your copy overnight? I will let you have it back tomorrow morning.
MR. OSER: Yes, sir (handing document to the Court).
THE COURT: All right. Bring the Jury down. I am going to have to tell them we are adjourning for the night.
(Whereupon, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Gentlemen of the Jury, a legal point has come up that has to be researched by myself tonight, I have to refer to the transcript that was made of a preliminary hearing in the matter. Rather than keep you gentlemen up there, it is 5:00 o'clock now and we are sending for the agents to take you back to the motel. Do not discuss the case among yourselves or with any other person.
Mr. Shaw, you will be released on your same bond, and Court will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock.
. . . . Thereupon, at 5:00 o'clock, p.m., the proceedings herein were adjourned to Wednesday, February 12, 1969 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. . . . .


MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Are we going to argue this in the presence of the Jury, or what? We are not going to argue this in the presence of the Jury?
THE COURT: Tell them to stay upstairs. I notice in the Clerk's records they did not have a copy of the transcript, they searched for it yesterday and this morning, no copy of it in the record itself. The offer, the offer has been made, as I understand it, by the State to which the Defense has opposed. I will listen to the opposition and I will listen to you, Mr. Alcock.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: We gave the Court last night the Law Review article which is the basis upon which the State believe it is permissible under the Esposito case, and as the Court observed is a New York City case. We rely on the case of Lindsey vs. The United States of America which is cited in 237 F. 2d 893, it is an opinion out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, May 7, 1956.
In this particular case, there are very pertinent observations with relevance to the use of sodium-pentothal and with relation to the admissibility of the results of the sodium pentothal tests into evidence, and in this particular case the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge who had admitted the results into evidence.
Now, at the very outset, and I won't be long, but at the outset I think we ought to point out what the State is trying to do by putting into evidence the testimony of Dr. Chetta which is some seventy-five or eighty pages in all, is to put into evidence, in the record, indirectly what this case definitely says it cannot do and for which there is no authority in law.
What the State in effect attempting to do is to rehabilitate Perry Russo, this is the sole purpose that I can see upon which they can even state that Dr. Chetta's testimony is admissible, and what Dr. Chetta's testimony consists of is a series of hypothetical questions asking whether if certain facts existed, whether that individual was sane, and it also goes into the fact that he had administered sodium pentothal to Russo and that he had been present at the Russo hypnotic session with Dr. Fatter, so the only conclusion I can draw is they are trying to show the man is not insane and he is sane.
Now, without reading the whole case to the Court, I would like to read just sections which I think set forth the situation which existed in the case. I quote, "Here the Government's witness was subjected to psychiatric examination for the avowed purpose of determining whether the story originally told the authorities was the truth. Obvious motive existed then to repeat that story. So if the original story were indeed a fabrication, it would be unreasonable to hold that motive did not exist to fabricate during the test insofar as will could assert itself."
It goes on to say, "In order to accept the Government's view, we must be able to say affirmatively that the sodium pentothal interview is a test of truthfulness that is not only trustworthy, but reliably so in all cases."
It goes on, "Although Narco analysis in in general, and the sodium pentothal interview in particular, may be a useful tool in the psychiatric examination of an individual, the Courts have not generally recognized the trustworthiness and reliability of such tests as being sufficiently well established to accord the results the status of competent evidence."
Then it goes on to say that, "The expected effect of the drug is to dispel inhibitions so the subject will talk freely, but it seems scientific tests reveal that people thus prompted to speak freely do not always tell the truth."
They cite a series of medical journals in support of this opinion that people who undergo this test do not always tell the truth.
It then states rather extensively from a Yale Medical School article which appeared in the Yale Law Review, and it says, "In summary, experimental and clinical findings indicate that only individuals who have conscious and unconscious reasons for doing so are inclined to confess and yield to interrogation under drug influence. On the other hand, some are able to withhold information and some, especially character neurotics, are able to lie. Others are so suggestible they will describe, in response to suggestive questioning, behavior which never in fact occurred."
Now, this is one of our objections, every time that we have asked to review anything the State has said as they have, for instance, in the case of the VIP book, they want their agent present, and this is something they insist on, and our point is that they have rehabilitated the witness when nobody from the Defense was present, despite the fact the Defendant at this time had been arrested, the Defendant was arrested March 1, the tests took place after March 1, and they knew who Clay Shaw was, the Defense was not given an opportunity to be present at the rehabilitation tests.
The only one who submitted questions, the only one who did the suggesting to these people were representatives of the District Attorney's office, and I think it is significant to this Court that the District Attorney's office saw fit within a week after they first met this witness to attempt to rehabilitate him.
In other words, they were rehabilitating him before they even put him on the witness stand, and it goes on to say, "but drugs are not truth sera, they lessen inhibitions to verbalization and stimulate un- repressed expression not only of fact but of fancy and suggestion as well. Thus, the material produced is not truth in the sense that it conforms to empirical fact."
They cite various Law Review articles again.
Then it cites in Article -- in the 46th J. Crim. L., page 259, it says, "The intravenous injection of a drug by a physician in a hospital may appear more scientific than the drinking of large amounts of bourbon in a tavern, but the end result displayed in the subject's speech may be no more reliable. It goes on to say, "Hence it was error to admit the recording of the sodium pentothal interview, even as a prior consistent statement for the limited purpose of rehabilitating the impeached witness."
"Authorities who recommended use of the sodium pentothal interview as an auxiliary procedure to full psychiatric examination, nevertheless caution that a transcript of the interview should definitely not be admissible in evidence, because of the difficulty that a lay jury would have in properly evaluating this evidence." This is the problem that we have there.
Now, one of the things that is continually before us in the preliminary hearing, and once again the Court has not had the benefit of reading the transcript, but one of the things before us in the preliminary hearing was the three-judge court telling us all the time "We are three judges who are hearing this," and we argued that they were making a record that might eventually be used before a Jury. The took the opinion they were judges and they were able to make the distinction, and the Court sitting here day in and day out is much more qualified to make a hairline decision or distinction between certain facts and fantasies than is the lay jury that we have in this case.
THE COURT: In my opinion, the only exception for hearsay is in a motion to suppress. That is the Agular case out of the Supreme Court. I do not believe the rules of hearsay are waived in a preliminary hearing.
MR. WEGMANN: I believe that is true, while at one time when you read the preliminary hearing, at one stage it appears that they sustained us on this motion, if you read it throughout you will find that they did not. Judge Braniff, during Dr. Chetta's testimony the question of hearsay came up, Dr. Chetta says what Perry Russo told him on occasion, and this is what we objected to in the testimony.
As I say, I see no other argument, and I would like a chance to reply to the State. I see no other argument that they have but that they intend to prove that Dr. Chetta said that he found Mr. Russo sane at the time of his examination.
I lay the additional predicate that the question now before the Court is not whether Russo was sane in March of 1967, but the question before the Court is now whether he is sane on February 11, 1969, when he is testifying, a period of more than two years later. Certainly the Court on any kind of a psychiatric hearing would not accept a psychiatric record of two years past to determine a man's sanity at the present time. They are not trying to rehabilitate Russo in 1967, they are trying to rehabilitate him today in 1969.
THE COURT: I will be glad to hear from the State.


MR. OSER: It is the State's contention that the jurisprudence on the point is that the use of drugs such as sodium antothal and sodium pentothal cannot be used and introduced into a court of law in order to show the truthfulness of the statement made by a person, or to establish the credibility of the person making the statement; however, the State's contention under the case of People vs. Esposito, Mr. Wegmann referred to, which is cited in 287 New York 389, 39 N.E. 2d, 925, the Court in this particular case allowed the testimony of the psychiatrist which was based on reactions and information received by the psychiatrist while the subject was under sodium anthothal to determine the question of sanity, also covered in the case was the fact that the only purpose that the testimony of the psychiatrist was given in the case was to determine the question of insanity, and not to determine the truthfulness of the statements made by the subject under the influence of the drug.
Furthermore, the State wishes to rely on the case of People vs. Cartier, 35 Pac. 2d, 114, wherein this particular case there was a question of insanity and the testimony of the psychiatrist was allowed regarding his sodium antothal treatment or administration of the drug as a diagnostic aid.
Now, in these particular matters before the Court today, the State is not attempting to introduce the testimony of Dr. Chetta to show the truthfulness of the statements made by the witness under sodium pentothal, nor to establish the credibility of the witness. The State is attempting to use Dr. Chetta's testimony to show that Dr. Chetta made a determination of the question on sanity of the individual Perry Russo and that one of the diagnostic aids used by the doctor was that of sodium pentothal, and based on the jurisprudence, Your Honor, the State feels it should be allowed to introduce this testimony only for that purpose, as it was the only purpose introduced in the preliminary hearing, and this is the State's position.
MR. WEGMANN: The cases cited by Mr. Oser, or the case which was cited in that Law Review article, both of which are State cases, the case that we cite to you is a Federal Court of Appeal case, which we submit has more binding effect upon this Court than would a New York decision or a California decision.
Now, once again, Mr. Oser says exactly what I predicted he would say, it is a question of sanity. Now, we now raise the objection of relevancy as to the relevance of Russo's sanity in 1967 as opposed to today. The State has continuously maintained that this trial is going to go on for several days. Dr. Chetta made his examination based upon an hour, less than an hour's examination of Russo despite the fact that he said one of the true tests of sodium pentothal was to know the patient whom you were treating, and he admitted, and this is a weakness in my humble opinion to Dr. Chetta's, to the validity of Dr. Chetta's testimony, and we questioned him on that face, he knew him only for less than an hour or forty-five minutes, but if they really want to know the sanity of Russo as of today, now is the time to have him psychiatrically examined and have that doctor brought in here and have him subject to cross-examination.
If Dr. Chetta were alive today, the testimony that is contained in this preliminary report, namely the sanity of Russo as of March 1, 1967, would not be admissible at this time because it would not be relevant, whether he was sane or insane when he made that statement. It is not relevant, the condition of Russo in '67 is not relevant on February 12, 1969.
MR. ALCOCK: If I might just be heard on that point. I agree to some extent with Defense Counsel that we are now talking about the Russo testimony in 1969; however, during the course of argument and during the course of presentation in this case, Mr. Dymond announced that he will put a witness on the stand, an expert witness in the area of hypnosis, who will allegedly show that Russo's testimony was the result of suggestions during hypnosis, that sodium pentothal testimony is inadmissible, and the whole question here is that at the time the tests were administered to Perry Russo, that is the critical area and the critical time we are concerned about, and that is the critical time that Dr. Chetta addressed himself at that time.
It is not Perry Russo's testimony today, but it is during the course of these tests which Defense Counsel have announced that they will attack strongly during the course of this trial, so this is the area and the time that we are concerned about, and the fact that Mr. Dymond brought out that Perry Russo had allegedly attempted t commit suicide, he asked him whether or not he had been under psychiatric care, and additionally, if you will recall, at this same time or within this same period Mr. Dymond asked Mr. Russo whether or not he had made a statement whether or not he knew the difference between fact and fantasy, and again these things are critical, and we wish to show by this testimony of Dr. Chetta, who saw him often during that period, the stability of this witness, which would in effect negate the arguments of Defense Counsel that he was unstable and the tests were used merely to buttress him up, which is not the case at all.
MR. WEGMANN: First of all, it would appear to me that what we say in argument before the Court is not evidence before the Jury, what was stated by Mr. Dymond was stated specifically out of the presence of the Jury as it should have been.
THE COURT: You offered two exhibits and they were marked for identification and he has not reoffered them.
MR. WEGMANN: And the State refused to join in the offer, which means they are not in evidence, and if everything that you offered was considered evidence, it would be a wild affair.
THE COURT: It has been marked for identification only.
MR. WEGMANN: Is the Court saying at this time it is going to admit it into evidence?
THE COURT: I don't know if --
MR. WEGMANN: What is offered by the State at this time is premature, the Court may never admit it into evidence. I would like to have a lot of things for the Court to put into evidence, but what is offered and what is admitted is two different things, and once again it gets back to whether or not this Jury is going to know the nicety of the fact that the testimony of Dr. Chetta refers to this man's condition on a specific date in 1967 as opposed to his condition in 1969.
THE COURT: We have no transcript except the transcript of 1967.
MR. WEGMANN: Going back to my argument, and not to be repetitious, if Dr. Chetta were here today, I would make the same objection to Dr. Chetta's testimony that I am now making. Dr. Chetta's examination of 1967 is not admissible at this time. If they want to rehabilitate the witness, they have to rehabilitate him with a 1969 psychiatric examination.
THE COURT: If you say this transcript has no legal effect today, then the criticism of the Defense as to what Dr. Fatter or Dr. Chetta did is not relevant either. That is two years ago.
Mr. WEGMANN: That is not true either, Judge, that is not true at all, because one of the things we were trying to show with Russo which the Court would not let us go into was a prior inconsistent statement made under hypnosis which was different from what he was testifying to, and this is entirely different, a prior inconsistent statement as opposed to a man's psychiatric examination, these are two different things.
MR. ALCOCK: That is contrary, he announced he was not trying to impeach him with his hypnotic testimony, he was trying to show the testimony that he gave in Court was the result of suggestions during hypnosis, and I think I am correct --
THE COURT: On the part of the State, do you intend to oppose the introduction of those documents?
MR. ALCOCK: I announced Dr. Fatter was going to take the witness stand and he would have an opportunity then to cross-examine him relative to the document and put their expert on the stand.
THE COURT: You will not object to those documents being introduced?
MR. ALCOCK: Not at all, but under the proper predicate, not with Perry Russo testifying.
THE COURT: There is a question of much hearsay being in the record. There is no question about it, it did get into the record, and of course that was ruled on by a three-judge court.
MR. DYMOND: Who admitted it was hearsay but admitted it because it was a preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: Well, the ball game has been played already.
MR. WEGMANN: Just so that we understand the legal situation which exists, we challenged the validity of the three-judge court at the time that it was heard. We said there was no authority for it under law for three judges. The rule out here for generations in the whole history of Criminal Court has been one judge runs his section, and we admit it is all one big court, but unheard of for two, three, or four judges to get together and say "We are hearing this case;" and we challenged the validity of it, we still do. This Court on more than one occasion has stated this preliminary hearing did not form part of this record and the Court has refused us permission to attach the bills of exception that we have taken at one time or another because it did not form part of this record, and what the Court is now getting ready to do, if it is going to rule with the State, reverse its position and say yes, this preliminary hearing is part of the record. Now, I admit I am on the horns of a dilemma.
THE COURT: Because Dr. Chetta is deceased, that is the reason.
MR. WEGMANN: If it was not part of the proceedings last week, I don't see how it could be part of the proceedings overnight by osmosis this week.
THE COURT: I consider it to be admissible.
MR. WEGMANN: If you give me time, I can find it in here where the State makes the statement that the preliminary hearing was not for the purpose of perpetuating testimony, it is like a deposition, a civil deposition, you either take if for perpetuation or discovery, and when they did it by the strange proceedings before the three judges, they were in effect in a discovery proceeding as opposed to perpetuation of testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: The State is not the Louisiana Legislature, the Louisiana Legislature passed that Act, not the State. The State's personal appreciation of a particular legal procedures is irrelevant. I think that is quite properly being done by this Court.
MR. WEGMANN: The fact remains when you make a representation before a Court, you are making a judicial admission by which you are bound, and this statement that I read in here is a statement by the State, a judicial position which is taken by the State.
THE COURT: The Court --
MR. WEGMANN: Did the Court read the part that I am talking about, about the perpetuation? There is no need for me to find it in the transcript.
THE COURT: That point is covered in the Criminal Code, to cover any bill of discovery, pre-trial discovery.
MR. WEGMANN: It is our position, Your Honor, that the State has taken a position at the preliminary hearing, they made a representation to these three judges it was not for the purpose of perpetuating testimony. They are doing now a flip-flop and coming before this Court and saying yes, that is whey we did it. It is for the reason of perpetuating testimony, and I don't see how they in good faith can appear before this Court and say it was for the purpose of perpetuating testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: I have one small point and I won't perpetuate this argument. I think it is quite obvious on its face and rather the statements, the rather ludicrous statements that the State is using the preliminary hearing as a fishing expedition. We put our own witnesses on, and what were we doing, fishing from our own witnesses? Obviously it was not a fishing expedition.
MR. WEGMANN: This is Judge Bagert, Page 30, "Suppose this was taken by deposition in a civil matter, for instance. Let's remove it from this type of procedure. If there wan an objection made and the attorney propounding the question says I insist that my question be answered, who rules on that -- nobody, certainly the Reporter doesn't. Certainly this is a matter being taken extra judicially. Now, isn't that handled when the matter is presented to the Court who has to try the case before a Jury that they then rule on the admissibility of the questions and the testimony." Judge Bagert at one time was a civil lawyer, why the State asks for it I don't know, and we were under no obligation to put any witnesses on and we can't be criticized or we can't be penalized for not putting any witnesses on. They are the ones that put the witnesses on the stand, they put the witnesses on in their admosphere. We had nothing to do with the control of the proceeding.
THE COURT: The whole preliminary examination was a useless effort because the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Shaw, the Grand Jury indicted the Defendant.
MR. WEGMANN: I submit --
THE COURT: I have heard enough argument, Gentlemen. Under Article 295, "The transcript of the testimony of a defendant who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible against him upon the trial of the case, or, if relevant, in any subsequent judicial proceeding. The transcript of the testimony of any other witness who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in the case, on behalf of either party, if the Court finds that the witness is dead, too ill to testify, absent from the State, or cannot be found, and that the absence of the witness was not procured by the party offering the testimony."
I understand that the State is offering these pages of the transcript concerning Dr. Chetta's testimony -- let's see, Pages 314 to 361, then 361 to 381. That is roughly, that is roughly sixty-seven pages of transcript of Dr. Chetta. Now, the purpose, as I understand it as stated, is that they are trying to rebut the inferences that Perry Russo was undergoing psychiatric examination consultation care for some twelve to eighteen months, that he attempted to commit suicide, and from the way he answered the questions, they were trying to give the impression publicly that he was not -- he was not completely sane. I understand from Mr. Oser and Mr. Alcock that they are offering this for a specific purpose, they are offering this not to buttress the credibility of Mr. Russo, they are not offering it to show that the statements made were truthful or not, but the total substance of Dr. Chetta's testimony is whether or not he thought with the aid of diagnostic psychiatric aid that Mr. Russo was a sane person. I think that is the purpose of their offering, and for that limited purpose I am going to permit it, so I will permit it, and you can take a bill, and let's get the Jury down. Now, one other thing while I have the floor, just a second, if there is no objection on the part of the State or Defense, and this is going to be read verbatim, I would make a request that we do not impose another hardship on the Court Reporter if it is read verbatim and you follow it, would you permit it to be Xeroxed and put into the record.
MR. WEGMANN: I think the easiest way would be to furnish the Reporter with a copy and let him re-copy it.
THE COURT: You have a copy to follow it, do you not?
MR. WEGMANN: May I ask the Court one question? So that the record is clear, Your Honor, I would now like to ask the Court to include in its ruling whether or not -- what I understand to be the Court's ruling, the Court is now ruling that this transcript, preliminary hearing, is part of this proceeding?
THE COURT: No, I am not.
MR. WEGMANN: The Court is standing by --
THE COURT: I am only admitting that part of Dr. Chetta because he is deceased. the whole transcript is not a part of this record, no indeed.
MR. WEGMANN: Is the Court going to rule on the admissibility of each question and the objections we made at the time, or is the --
THE COURT: I will let him read the whole thing in toto. I suggest we read the whole thing. I am going to let it all go in and see what you object to. I am going to give them both sides of the picture.
MR. WEGMANN: You are still ruling the transcript is not part of the proceeding?
THE COURT: If he was here, I would not let that in, we would let him testify.
MR. DYMOND: We would like to object on the grounds, first, proper predicate has not been laid for the introduction of this transcript of the testimony of the preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: Dr. Chetta is now deceased, that was the predicate, Dr. Chetta is deceased.
MR. WEGMANN: It is not in the record that he is deceased, Judge.
THE COURT: I will ask you this, Gentlemen: Can you tell me that you will supply me with a copy of the death certificate?
MR. OSER: I will send down and get it.
THE COURT: Contingent upon you presenting that to me, I will proceed with the case and I will permit you to make that offer from the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the death of Dr. Nicholas J. Chetta, Coroner.
MR. DYMOND: Further on the grounds that the preliminary hearing was not conducted according to the rules of evidence as set forth in our law, and it was so held by the three-judge panel, and that this Court has in the course of its ruling on the admissibility of this material, affirmatively stated that objections to particular questions contained in the transcript of Dr. Chetta's testimony will not be permitted, and on the further ground that it is the contention of the Defense that the said three-judge court was illegally constituted and had no basis in law, and the further reason that the testimony of Dr. Chetta which is approximately two years old is not at this time relevant for the purpose of trying to refute alleged testimony or alleged questions to the effect that there was doubt or question as to the sanity of Perry Raymond Russo at the present time in view of the fact that the testimony of Dr. Chetta relates to a period some two years ago.
We will reserve the bill making the entire testimony up to this point, the Defense objection, the State's offering, the transcript of Dr. Chetta's preliminary hearing testimony, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: Bring the Jury down. Let the record show the Jury is present, the Defendant is present, both Counsel are present.
Now, let me get the status of the case as it is, as of this moment. There has been an offer made by the State to read from the transcript of testimony of Dr. Nicholas J. Chetta, based on Article 295 wherein he alleged and will prove by the offer of the death certificate from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, and the offer is made by the State not to buttress or improve the credibility of Mr. Russo, it is not to buttress or prove the truthfulness of the statements he may or may not have said, but it is merely for the purpose of contradicting the implication that Perry Raymond Russo was not of sound mind. With that limited purpose, I will permit the reading of the transcript from pages 314 to 381 inclusive from the transcript, and you may take your bill of exception.
MR. DYMOND: At this time we would like in the presence of the Jury to renew our objection to the Court's ruling on the grounds of relevancy and on the grounds previously stated.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DYMOND: Including in the bill of exception the Court's ruling, the Counsel for the State's offering, the transcript of Dr. Chetta's testimony, the Defense objection and the reasons given by the Court.
THE COURT: Now, take this down, Mr. Reporter. There has been no objection, and in fact there is agreement in the request by the Court that the Court Reporter need not take down the reading of the transcript of Pages 314 to 381, but that Mr. Oser will let me have his copy and we will Xerox those pages and give it to the Court.








FEBRUARY 12, 1969
AFTERNOON SESSION

ROWLAND CHARLES ROLLAND, a witness for the State, after first being duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified on his oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: For the record, would you state your full name, please?

A: Rowland Charles Rolland.

Q: Mr. Rolland, where do you reside?

A: Houston, Texas.

Q: In the month of November 1963 where did you reside?

A: In Houston, Texas.

Q: And in that month what was your occupation or business?

A: I was President of Winterland Ice Skating Rink, Incorporated and also General Manager.

Q: Was that business establishment also located in Houston, Texas?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. Rolland, do you recall being at that location, that is your place of business, on the day of November 23, 1963?

A: I do.

Q: Do you recall approximately what time of day or night you arrived at that location?

A: Yes, I was there that morning. That afternoon we had from 1:00 to 3:00 -- we give lessons to Girl Scots, which I handled this procedure. I left at approximately 3:25 to 3:30, somewhere in that neighborhood, to go for lunch. Our doors opened and we started selling tickets at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon for public skating. Skating started at 3:30. I left after seeing that the ice had been resurfaced for this session and went out to eat and was gone approximately 45 minutes I would say.

Q: Would you approximate the time you returned?

A: Somewhere between 4:00 and 4:15.

Q: How long had you been in that business at that time?

A: I have been connected with ice rinks and the ice business since 1946.

Q: Are you a professional skater?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, Mr. Rolland, calling your attention to the time you returned to the ice rink, did you have occasion to meet someone?

A: Yes.

Q: Who was that?

A: A very unusual thing, Mr. Dave Ferrie. The reason this is such a memory to me was because of the way he approached me. He had called the week before or several days before asking about our services. We get many calls from people coming from out of town because ice skating is an unusual thing to many people and they like to try the sport.

Mr. Ferrie made quite a point, actually he made a little bit of a pest of himself at the time.

Q: Mr. Rolland, I am going to show you an exhibit marked for purposes of identification S-10 and ask you if you recognize the person depicted.

A: Yes.

Q: Who is that person?

A: Mr. Dave Ferrie.

Q: Is that the man you are now talking about?

A: Yes, would you like a description of him?

Q: Yes, go ahead.

A: He had red hair, wore a toupee, sort of ruddy complexion.

Q: When was, approximately how long after you returned to the ice rink did you first meet Dave Ferrie?

A: Practically upon walking in I was told several people -- that --

MR. DYMOND: I object to what was told to him.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you have a conversation with Ferrie at that time?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: What was that?

A: He came in and made known he was there, his party, himself and two others.

Q: Was he with anyone at the time?

A: He was by himself when he came up but later he brought two others over and introduced them to me but I do not recall their names and frankly he came back and talked to me. I was waiting on people and he made quite a point of the fact he was there --

MR. DYMOND: I object to his conclusion.

THE COURT: You can testify as to how many times he met with you or spoke with you, but you are drawing a conclusion.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Rolland, after this first encounter or introduction by Ferrie, did you have occasion to talk to him again that same afternoon?

A: Yes.

Q: How many times?

A: Approximately five.

Q: And what was said on these occasions by Ferrie?

A: Unh, nothing except to let me know he was there.

MR. DYMOND: I object to that Your Honor, as the witness is interpreting what [sic] said. If he knows [text missing] him say it but no [text missing].

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Rolland, is there a public telephone in Winterland Ice Rink?

A: Yes, there is.

Q: And approximately where is that located in the ice rink?

A: Near the entrance.

Q: And principally where were you during the time that Dave Ferrie and his companions were in the ice rink?

A: The area in which I worked and handled was around the entrance because that is where the Pro Shop, a Skate Counter, Ticket Window and office and telephone is centrally located in that area, and if you need a diagram of this I will be happy to give it to you.

THE COURT: Are you going to have the gentlemen sketch a diagram?

MR. DYMOND: No objection.

THE COURT: Beg pardon?

MR. DYMOND: No objection.

THE COURT: How would it be convenient, do you wish to leave the witness stand or can you do it there?

THE WITNESS: I can do it anywhere.

THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, you want to step up here?

THE WITNESS: (Complying with request by drawing an illustration.)

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Mr. Rolland, would you just explain the diagram to the Court?

A: Yes, this is the entrance to the ice rink, double doors. This is glass. This is the ticket window area with our offices, the Skate Shop, the skating area itself, the Pro Shop with the window in here. This is all open in this area.

Q: Go ahead.

A: Mr. Ferrie, this over here being public telephone, Mr. Ferrie spent the majority of his time in and around this area over here.

Q: Where did you or would you have spent the majority of your time?

A: I was either at this window in the Pro Shop or in the work shop and at one time Mr. Ferrie did ask for me, and I was back sharpening a pair of skates and had to come back to the window.

Q: Where did the two gentlemen or persons that accompanied him to the ice rink spend their time?

A: They spent most of their time skating. They did skate.

Q: To your knowledge did David Ferrie even rent any skates on that occasion?

A: No, he did not buy a ticket of admission for skating purposes.

Q: Did you ever see Dave Ferrie use the public telephone?

A: Yes, I did, a number of times.

Q: Did Dave Ferrie, to your knowledge, ever receive a telephone call at the skating rink?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Were you in a position to hear any conversation which he might have had?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Can you approximate how many times Ferrie used the public telephone?

A: Approximately three.

Q: Now approximately how long was David Ferrie at the ice rink while you were present?

A: He left at approximately 5:45.

Q: Did you actually see him leave?

A: Yes. Excuse me. He made a point outside once again to --

MR. DYMOND: Object. Just a moment --

A: (Continued) I wouldn't say made a point but he spoke to me outside saying they were leaving and they would be back that evening, he and his two companions.

Q: Did you see him later on that evening?

A: No, he never returned.

Q: Mr. Rolland, did you report these activities of Ferrie to the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

A: Yes, I did. Oh, I guess the men from the FBI spent about one hour and a half with me.

Q: Approximately when was that?

A: It was on a Sunday morning, the following week.

Q: Mr. Rolland, did you have occasion at that time to have a conversation at all with the two persons who accompanied Ferrie to the rink?

A: No, I was introduced to them and that was all. No conversation.

Q: And I think you said Ferrie did not rent any skates?

A: That is correct, he did not skate. He spent most of his time walking around in the lobby, looking in the Pro Shop and watching the skaters. He made a number of trips to the telephone booth and then to his two companions and he was talking to his companions and talking to me on a number of occasions.

MR. ALCOCK: You know my next number?

THE CLERK: Twenty-six.

MR. ALCOCK: No, I didn't introduce twenty-five.

THE CLERK: Twenty-five is going to appear in the transcript.

MR. ALCOCK: It will? Then it will appear as being not filed so now it would be No. 26 then.

Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of this witness the State offers, introduces, and files in evidence, having marked same for purposes of identification as "State-26," a diagram, a sketch of this witness of the ice rink.

MR. DYMOND: No objection.

THE COURT: Let it be received.

(RECESS)













No comments: