Chapter XVIII: Front Matter (18)

I believe they said they had a post office box here, a blind post office box that the recipients of that had identified as Oswald as the guy or something that received it.

In other words, he went directly over the evidence connecting him with the gun.

Mr. RANKIN. You say there was a crowd there. Who was the crowd around him?

Mr. WADE. Newsmen. You see, I was at home. I was watching it on television.

Mr. RANKIN. I see. Did you do anything about that, then? Did you call him and ask him to quit that?

Mr. WADE. No; I felt like nearly it was a hopeless case. I know now why it happened. That was the first piece of evidence he got his hands on before Fritz did.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain what you mean by that?

Mr. WADE. Well, this went to the FBI and came to him rather than to Captain Fritz, and I feel in my own mind that this was something new, that he really had been receiving none of the original evidence, that it was coming through Fritz to him and so this went from him to Fritz, you know, and I think that is the reason he did it.

So I stayed home that afternoon. I was trying to think, it seems like I went back by the police station some time that night, late at night.

Mr. RANKIN. This way of giving evidence to the press and all of the news media, is that standard practice in your area?

Mr. WADE. Yes; it is, unfortunately. I don't think it is good. We have just, even since this happened we have had a similar incident with the police giving all the evidence out or giving out an oral confession of a defendant that is not admissible in court. You know, oral admissions are not generally admissible in Texas. And they gave all the evidence out in it.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you done anything about it, tried to stop it in any way?

Mr. WADE. Well, in this actually, in the same story they quoted me as saying, I mean the news quoted me as saying they shouldn't give the information out, that is the evidence, we have got to try the case, we will get a jury, it is improper to do this, or something to that effect. So far as taking it up with--I have mentioned many times that they shouldn't give out evidence, in talking to the police officers, I mean in there in training things, but it is something I have no control over whatever. It is a separate entity, the city of Dallas is, and I do a little fussing with the police, but by the same token it is not a situation where--I think it is one of your major problems that are going to have to be looked into not only here but it is a sidelight, I think, to your investigation to some extent, but I think you prejudice us, the state, more than you do the defense by giving out our testimony.

You may think that giving out will help you to convict him. I think it works the other way, your jurors that read, the good type of jurors, get an opinion one way or another from what they read, and you end up with poor jurors. If they haven't read or heard anything of the case--well, not generally the same type of juror.

The only thing I make a practice of saying is that I reviewed the evidence in this case in which the State will ask the death penalty, which may be going too far, but I tell them we plan to ask the death penalty or plan to ask life or plan to ask maximum jail sentence or something of that kind.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say that at any time about the Oswald case?

Mr. WADE. Oh, yes, sir; I have said that about both Oswald and Ruby.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you say it about the Oswald case?

Mr. WADE. I guess it was Friday night probably. I was asked what penalty we would ask for.

Mr. RANKIN. When the police made these releases about the evidence, did they ever ask you whether they should make them?

Mr. WADE. No, sir; like I told you. I talked Saturday morning around between 11 and 12, some time. I told him there was entirely too much publicity on this thing, that with the pressure going to be on us to try it and there may not be a place in the United States you can try it with all the publicity you are getting. Chief Curry said he agreed with me, but, like I said about 2 hours later, I saw him releasing this testimony.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you consult any State officials about how you should handle either the Oswald or the Ruby case?

Mr. WADE. I don't know. It seems like I talked to Waggoner Carr that night, but I don't remember.

Didn't we talk some time about it?

I don't know whether it was consulting about how to try it or anything. But I know I talked to Waggoner's office some time within 2 or 3 days, but I don't know whether it was before the Ruby assault or not. But he doesn't actually----

Mr. RANKIN. Does the Texas attorney general have any jurisdiction to tell you how to try such cases?

Mr. WADE. No sir; I think Waggoner will agree with that. They don't have any jurisdiction to try criminal cases other than antitrust, but I assume we would ask for their assistance if we wanted it. We don't generally, and I don't, the law doesn't contemplate that.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Carr didn't try to tell you in any way how to handle either case?

Mr. WADE. Not that I know of.

Mr. CARR. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. May we proceed.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Wade, will you give us the substance of what Mr. Carr said to you and what you said to him at that time?

Mr. WADE. All I remember--I don't actually remember or know what night it was I talked to him but I assume it was that night because he did mention that the rumor was out that we were getting ready to file a charge of Oswald being part of an international conspiracy, and I told him that that was not going to be done.

It was late at night and I believe that is----

Mr. DULLES. It must have been Saturday night, wasn't it?

Mr. WADE. No; that was Friday night.

Mr. DULLES. Friday night.

Mr. WADE. And I told him, and then I got a call, since this happened, I talked to Jim Bowie, my first assistant who had talked to, somebody had called him, my phone had been busy and Barefoot Sanders, I talked to him, and he--they all told that they were concerned about their having received calls from Washington and somewhere else, and I told them that there wasn't any such crime in Texas, I didn't know where it came from, and that is what prompted me to go down and take the complaint, otherwise I never would have gone down to the police station.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to support such a complaint of a conspiracy?

Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I don't know what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was.

I never did see, I was told they had a lot of Fair Play for Cuba propaganda or correspondence on Oswald, and letters from the Communist Party, and it was probably exaggerated to me.

I was told this. I have never seen any of that personally. Never saw any of it that night. But whether he was a Communist or whether he wasn't, had nothing to do with solving the problem at hand, the filing of the charge.

I also was very, I wasn't sure I was going to take a complaint, and a justice of the peace will take a complaint lots of times because he doesn't have to try it. I knew I would have to try this case and that prompted me to go down and see what kind of evidence they had.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you mean by taking a complaint under your law.

Mr. WADE. Well, a complaint is a blank form that you fill out in the name, by the authority of the State of Texas, and so forth, which I don't have here, but it charged, it charges a certain person with committing a crime, and it is filed in the justice court.

The law permits the district attorney or any of his assistants to swear the witness to the charge. The only place we sign it is over on the left, I believe sworn to and subscribed to before me, this is the blank day of blank, Henry Wade, district attorney.

Over on the right the complainant signs the complaint. We mean when we say take or accept a complaint is when we swear the witness and we draw it up ourselves and word it and take it.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that what you did in the Oswald-Ruby case?

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; we did that. Now, as a practical matter that is not really filing the complaints. The complaint is not really legally filed until a justice of the peace takes it and records it on his docket.

Now, it goes to the justice of the peace court to clear the whole thing up and his purpose, he has--the law says you shall take him immediately before a magistrate, which is the justice of the peace.

The courts have held that it is not necessary in Texas, but there is a statute that says that, and then he--his purpose is to hold an examining trial to see whether it is a bailable case or not.

Then he sends it to the grand jury and the grand jury hears it and returns an indictment or a no bill and then it is in a certain court set with a docket number and then it is ours to try.

Does that answer some of the questions?

(At this point, Senator Cooper returned to the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Which route did you follow in regard to the Oswald case?

Mr. WADE. The same route. I accepted the complaint on him in the homicide department, and gave it to David Johnston, the justice of the peace who was there incidentally, or there in the homicide department.

But I didn't actually type it up. I don't know who actually typed it up, somebody typed it up, but we file about a 100 a year, murders "did with malice aforethought."

It was a straight murder indictment, murder with malice charge, and that was the procedure we followed in the Oswald case.

Mr. RANKIN. Why did you not include in that complaint a charge of an international conspiracy?

Mr. WADE. Well, it is just like I said, it is surplusage to begin with. You don't need it. If you allege it you have to prove it. The U.S. attorney and the attorney general had called me and said that if it wasn't absolutely necessary they thought it shouldn't be done, and---

Mr. RANKIN. By the "attorney general" who do you mean?

Mr. WADE. Mr. Carr. And actually it is never done. I mean, you see that got clear, apparently you had the press writing that up, radio or whoever was saying that was--had no idea about what murder was.

Now, to write in there, assume he was, assume we could prove he was, a Communist, which I wasn't able to prove because all I heard was he had some literature there on him and had been in Russia, but assume I knew he was a Communist, can I prove it, I still wouldn't have alleged it because it is subject actually to be removed from the indictment because it is surplusage, you know, and all a murder indictment, the only thing that a murder indictment varies on is the method of what they used, did kill John Doe by shooting him with a gun or by stabbing him or by drowning him in water or how, the manner and means is the only thing that varies in a murder indictment, all other wordage is the same. Does that clear that up?

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator COOPER. As I understand it, under Texas law there is no crime which is denominated under the term "international conspiracy."

Mr. WADE. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. I assume that conspiracy is a crime in Texas, isn't it, conspiracy to commit a crime?

Mr. WADE. Conspiracy is a crime. It is a joining together of a group, your conspiracy where they enter into an agreement to commit a crime, and that is usually the one is indicted as a conspirator, the one who doesn't participate in the crime.

Senator COOPER. My point is, though, that conspiracy is a crime under Texas law?

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; conspiracy to commit murder is a crime.

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Let me ask this question.

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. As I understand it then, one of the reasons that no warrant of indictment was rendered upon, touching upon an international conspiracy is that there is just no such crime in Texas as an international conspiracy?

Mr. WADE. There was no such crime. If it was any such crime it would be a Federal rather than a State offense. If there is such crime as being a part of an international conspiracy it would deal with treason rather than murder, I would think.

But there is no such thing as being a part of any organization that makes that it is a crime to commit murder. This was a straight murder charge.

If we would have had four or five co-conspirators who conspired with him, planned the thing and could prove it we would have. That would have been a conspiracy to, conspiracy to commit murder.

Senator COOPER. But conspiracy is not essential to the crime, to describe the person accused as belonging to any organization?

Mr. WADE. No, sir; it is not necessary and it is entirely what they call surplusage.

Senator COOPER. Now the last question, was there any evidence brought to you or any evidence of which you had knowledge upon which you could base an indictment or a warrant for conspiracy to commit murder in this case?

Mr. WADE. No, sir; you mean parties other than Oswald?

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Mr. WADE. No. I might say on that score, to clear that up, I haven't seen any evidence along that line. I haven't even seen any of the correspondence that they had, allegedly had with the Communist Party here in New York or the Fair Play for Cuba, I haven't seen his little black book where he is supposed to have had the Russian Embassy's telephone numbers in it which I am sure you all have gone into it.

I never did see the book, none of that.

Of course, I have been told by a lot of people and undoubtedly a lot of it was exaggerated that he was a Communist, and you have had people say he was a Communist who might say I was a Communist, you know, if they didn't agree with me on something, so I have absolutely no evidence that he was a Communist of my own knowledge, I have heard a lot, of course.

Mr. DULLES. What you are saying in this last answer relates to the present time, not only the way your knowledge has----

Mr. WADE. At that time and up to the present.

Mr. DULLES. Rather than the day of assassination.

Mr. WADE. I have no evidence myself now that he was a Communist, or ever was a Communist, and I never did see what evidence that they had on him there gathered on him. I never saw any of the physical evidence in the Oswald case other than one or two statements, and I think I saw the gun while they were taking it out of there bringing it to Washington, because I told them at that stage, they didn't want to take it out, didn't want to let the FBI have it and I told them I thought they ought to let them bring it on up here that night and get it back the next night.

There was arguing over that. I am getting off, rambling around, but their argument over that was they were still trying to identify the gun through a pawn broker or something like that and the police wanted to keep it but I said, "Let it go up there and they said they would have it back the next afternoon."

Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever had any evidence that Oswald was involved with anyone else in actually shooting the President?

Mr. WADE. Well, I will answer that the same way. I have absolutely no evidence myself.

Now, of course, I might have some type of opinion or some connection with reference to the Fair Play for Cuba and these letters that they told me about. If that was so there may have been some connection or may not, but I have no evidence myself on it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any evidence as to whether Jack Ruby was involved with anyone else in the killing of Oswald?

Mr. WADE. No, sir; I have no evidence on that. We have some and I think you have them all, some 8 or 10 witnesses who have said they had seen Ruby and Oswald together at various times.

Some of them were, I know one of them during the trial was a lawyer there in Dallas, which I presume you all got his four-page statement, said he heard them discussing killing Connally a week before then, came out to my house and that had been sent to the FBI, and that was during the trial, and I gave him a lie detector which showed that he didn't have, this was a fanciful thing.

That, I can't think of his name, some of you all may know it, but he is a lawyer there in Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. You found that was not anything you could rely on.

Mr. WADE. I didn't use him as a witness and after giving him the polygraph I was satisfied that he was imagining it. I think he was sincere, I don't think he was trying--I don't think he was trying to be a hero or anything. I think he really thought about it so much I think he thought that it happened, but the polygraph indicated otherwise.

Mr. DULLES. Did you have any other evidence than the polygraph on this point that he was not telling the truth or that this was a fiction?

Mr. WADE. No, but I didn't--but I did see a report where the FBI interviewed the girl that was allegedly with him in Ruby's place in October, and she didn't corroborate all of it. I think she did say he was in there but I am not even sure of that. I didn't interview her but I just read a report on it.

I read where they checked with the Department of Public Safety and they did not, were not able to--he said he reported all this to the Department of Public Safety, and I don't think they found any record of him reporting it. It is very difficult to get him to come in to see me. He didn't just walk in, this went on for a month, I kept hearing that there was a certain person knew about it and I kept telling him to come on and talk to me and he finally came out to my house late one night.

The reason I think he actually must have thought it was so, but--I wasn't too interested in that theory of the case on this thing because I had a theory on this Ruby case from the start because I, even before you are going to get into some of these officers' testimony in a minute, but when this happened I was going home from church, and my own mind I said I believe that was Jack Ruby who shot him because from that Friday night, and from my theory has been from that Friday night, when he saw him there he made up his mind to kill him if he got a chance and I have had that--I didn't even know about Dean's testimony which you are going to hear today, I didn't know about his testimony until the day before I put him on the stand because I had not been preparing the evidence, I had been picking a jury for 2 weeks but that was my theory from the start.

We had a waitress that I think you are all familiar with that was out at B&B Cafe at 3 a.m. on the 22d who said she served Ruby and Oswald there.

B&B Cafe on Oak Lane, I know you have got that, I have seen it somewhere.

I don't think she was ever given a polygraph test. You have about four homosexuals, I think that is probably the word, that have said they have seen them together places. There was some indication that Ruby was either bisexual or homosexual, but at least, I think they testified to that in the trial, I think by mistake.

Belli asked the man, meant to ask him another word and says, he meant to say homicidal tendencies and he said homosexual tendencies and his one witness said yes, sir.

That is in the record which you will get of the trial, I guess.

Mr. RANKIN. I understood you to say when you came home from church, after the killing of Oswald that you thought it was Ruby before you had heard that it was Ruby.

Mr. WADE. You see, they announced Dallas businessman kills him.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. WADE. I took my family, I was in church with the family. I took them on home and on the way down there they kept--they didn't say who it was but this ran through my mind, a businessman.

I said that must be Jack Ruby the way he looked. He looked kind of wild to me down there Friday night the way he was running everywhere, you know, and I said to myself that must be him. I didn't tell my wife. You can't prove that. It is one of those things, that was my theory that he was likely the one. I couldn't, you know, out of a million people I couldn't say he was the one but when they announced his name I will say it didn't surprise me.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, what do you want to do about Mr. Carr?

Senator COOPER. Mr. Wade, can you name to the Commission the names of the persons who told you or who stated in your presence that they had seen Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby together?

Mr. WADE. Well----

Senator COOPER. Start out with the first one, his name.

Mr. WADE. If anybody would mention the lawyer's name, I know him--he has run for the legislature a number of times.

Senator COOPER. A lawyer who lives in Dallas?

Mr. WADE. A lawyer in Dallas, and he has--we have, he made a four-page affidavit about this thing, and mailed it to J. Edgar Hoover.

Senator COOPER. You can supply his name.

Mr. WADE. We can supply his name and I would supply you with copies of his affidavit which I think you have.

Don't you have it, isn't that up here?

Senator COOPER. Without going into that in a moment, you can refresh your recollection and supply to the Commission the name of this lawyer.

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Had he talked to you?

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. What did he say? Did he make a written statement to you or just talk to you?

Mr. WADE. He handed me a written statement. He said, "The day after this happened I made this," it was a copy of a written statement, he said, "I sent this to J. Edgar Hoover in Washington." I am talking to him, we will say, the 10th to the 20th of February, the first time I talked with him.

He said, "I sent this to the FBI, to J. Edgar Hoover, special delivery air mail within a day or two after the assassination," and he left that and as far as I know I have got a copy of that, he left it with me.

He talked to me at length there at my house, just us, and I would say at 11 o'clock at night, it was on a Sunday night I know, but what Sunday night I don't know. It was on a Sunday night in February. I read that statement over. It is a rather startling thing. It didn't ring true to me. It all deals with a conversation between Oswald and Ruby about killing John Connally, the Governor of Texas, over, he says, they can't get syndicated crime in Texas without they kill the Governor.

I know enough about the situation, the Governor has practically nothing to do with syndicated crime. It has to be on a local, your district attorney and your police are the ones on the firing line on that, and they discussed at length killing him, how much they are going to pay him, "He wants five thousand, I believe or half of it now, and half of it when it is done."

Don't you have this memorandum?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. WADE. There is no use of me trying to give it to you.

Senator COOPER. I was just personally trying to get your recollection about it.

Mr. WADE. He told me this is what happened, and I said, "I can't put you on the stand without I am satisfied you are telling the truth because," I said, "We have got a good case here, and if they prove we are putting a lying witness on the stand, we might hurt us," and I said, "The only thing I know to do I won't put you on the stand but to take a polygraph to see if you are telling the truth or not."

He said, "I would be glad to." And I set it up and I later ran into him in the lawyers' club there and he handed me another memorandum which amplified on the other one, which all have been furnished to the attorney general or if we didn't lose it in the shuffle.

This was during the trial actually, and then when the man called me he took a lie detector. There was no truth in it.

That he was in the place. He was in the place, in Ruby's Carousel, but that none of this conversation took place. He said he was in one booth and Ruby was in another booth.

Senator COOPER. Did anyone else tell you that they had seen Ruby and Oswald talking together?

Mr. WADE. No one else personally has told me this.

Senator COOPER. You mentioned a girl.

Mr. WADE. No, I never talked to her but we had the Dallas Police take an affidavit from her and so did the FBI of that which is in all your files. What her name is, I just know it is a waitress out at the B&B Cafe. She lived in Mesquite, Tex., and some of my people interviewed her and she told them the same thing she told the FBI.

The other information was in your FBI reports of where people or somebody who claimed he had seen them together in a YMCA, if I recall correctly, and another one in a store.

The report indicated these, all these people were homosexuals as I believe, or there was an indication of that.

I have an interview, in answering your question, in Lynn's first, but this is the only one I have talked personally about it. But the rest of them I got from reading the FBI and police files.

Senator COOPER. Lynn?

Mr. WADE. I believe that is his first name, and he is a lawyer there.

Senator COOPER. He is the lawyer?

Mr. WADE. That is the lawyer I am thinking about, I am trying to think of his name while I sit here.

Senator COOPER. Have you ever talked to anyone or has anyone ever talked to you or in your presence about Oswald and named any other person, other than Ruby, who they claimed were connected with Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. WADE. Senator, I don't believe anyone has talked to me. I have received, I guess 5,000 letters about this thing from all over the country, which I have down there. I remember somebody wrote me from West Virginia and said that in West Virginia that Oswald was in a used car business and Ruby was across the street from him.

Well, I furnished this information to the investigative agencies but as far as personally, I don't know of any. I have had a lot of letters that said they were connected but not based on anything.

Senator COOPER. But leave Ruby out now for a moment, did anyone ever tell you that Oswald was connected with persons other than Ruby in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Have you heard the names of any other persons who it is claimed had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. WADE. I don't know of any names. Of course, like I said there was the head of the Fair Play for Cuba, whatever his name was, was mentioned. Everything I know on that score was from the police. When I went up there Friday night and again I believe it was Saturday night or Sunday, they told me that they just talked like he was the biggest Communist, they had all kinds of evidence that he was a Communist, and that he was working with other people.

I believe Captain Fritz told me once that he showed at the time that Oswald bristled most was when they would talk about Castro. Apparently he was more friendly to Castro than he was for instance to Khrushchev, I am using those in broad terms.

Senator COOPER. Of course, once Oswald was killed, then your duties were connected with the prosecution of Ruby.

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. And there wasn't any occasion for you then to search out----

Mr. WADE. I had this, Senator.

Senator COOPER. Other persons.

Mr. WADE. I had this, Senator, I had this, when he was killed and they tried to give me the files. I told them no, to give them to the FBI because we couldn't try him, and I went to work on Ruby and actually wouldn't know it.

From what I picked up it appeared to me there was no question that he received his inspiration on this and maybe other help from somewhere.

Senator COOPER. That is what I am driving at here. You know there have been statements made that other persons could have been connected with Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Do you have any facts to give the Commission which would bear upon that question that any person other than Oswald was in any way connected with the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. WADE. I have no facts that I can give you on it. It is one of these things, and the reason I gave you what my opinion on the thing was, I have read what the U.S. World News and Report said the Commission is going to say, and also this deal out in Japan, you know, where they said that he was not instantaneous, impulsive, I believe, killer of the President, which sounded silly to me.

I mean he planned the thing. He practiced shooting, and he had his inspiration from somebody else. Whether he had a--was working with someone, I don't know. I never did know, it was rumored all over town that they had an airplane there to carry him out of town. I am sure you all have checked into that but I never know whether they did or not.

There seemed to have been something misfired in the thing if there was anybody tried to get it. I don't think there was anybody with him in the shooting but what you are getting at is if there was anyone back of him.

I always felt that the minimum was an inspiration from some cause, and the maximum was actual pay, but like you asked for evidence, I don't have any.

Senator COOPER. Did you ever hear about any evidence that there was an airplane stationed any place there?

Mr. WADE. They ran it in the newspapers that an airplane was supposedly to pick him up but nobody ever found the airplane, so far as I know. You have had every kind of rumor, this has been a thing that has been, that the press has been most inaccurate in a lot of things they have reported, and it is because of the pressure from their offices to get a Ruby story.

We have reporters down there coming down and said, "My office said to write something on Ruby today, what are we going to write."

And it has been so very irresponsible.

Like I said, I have no evidence and the only thing where I get my impression is reading and hearing people talking but I haven't actually figured it wasn't any of my business on Oswald, that I had a problem, a big one of trying Ruby and I have concentrated all of my efforts on that and when we had anybody of this nature we would refer them to the FBI or some other agency.

Senator COOPER. Thank you.

Mr. DULLES. You referred, Mr. Wade, to some testimony or some evidence that Oswald was at one time in the Carousel when Ruby was there.

Was that solely from this lawyer whose testimony you have mentioned?

Mr. WADE. The only one of my personal knowledge that I talked with was from the lawyer. He told me he was there with a certain girl, a stripper, and Ruby and Oswald were in an adjoining booth. There is lots of other people, I think your master of ceremonies, they had him on television and said he had seen them there but later on said he hadn't when they got to interviewing him. But my own personal knowledge that you are all interested in was that one man who told me that.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there anyone either from the State or Federal Government that urged you not to state a crime of international conspiracy if you found one was present?

Mr. WADE. No; not in that light. It is like I mentioned to you what Mr. Carr and Mr. Sanders both inquired, said they had heard on the radio about this or talked with someone in Washington about it, and I told them right off that whether it was so or not doesn't make any difference. It wouldn't be alleged. I mean if I had known he was a Communist I wouldn't have alleged it. I mean, suppose I knew he was a Communist, and signed a statement he was a Communist. That was a time when the press blew up when they had nothing else to talk about at the time, actually.

The answer to your question is "No."

Mr. RANKIN. Was any statement made by you as to whether or not there was any international conspiracy, conspiracy with Oswald about the assassination?

Mr. WADE. No, sir; I don't think there was. I think in one of those interviews you will find that I said they found some literature or something from the Fair Play for Cuba at his home, something to that effect. If I did anything, that was all that was said, in one of those interviews.

Mr. RANKIN. Did anybody ask you to say anything one way or another about that?

Mr. WADE. If they did I don't remember it. I am sure they asked that, but I am talking about, I mean in all these interviews, that was the thing where they were trying to prove a connection or something, you know, and I told them I knew nothing about it.

Mr. RANKIN. But no officials asked you to say anything about it publicly or otherwise?

Mr. WADE. No, sir; not that I recall.

Mr. RANKIN. Did anybody ask you at any time not to say that a foreign government was involved if you found it was or anything about that?

Mr. WADE. Your FBI man may have. I don't know. I talked to him two or three times. I wish I could think of his name because I don't think I ever met him. He was an inspector out of Washington.

Mr. DULLES. He is not our FBI man, he is the FBI. We are an independent commission.

Mr. WADE. I see. But he had talked with me something, I think his conversation, as I recall, largely dealt with the giving out of information. He was concerned about it and so was I, and where we had the longest conversation was, I will run through Sunday, and get me up to it real fast because I talked to him Sunday night. We haven't covered one of my television interviews.

After I went down to the police station and I will take this real fast if it is all right with you all, they told me that Oswald had been shot and I was there in the Chief's office when he died, when Oswald died and the Chief says I have got to go out here and announce it.

So as he went out for a press conference, I went down the back door, went home and went to bed because I was tired and disappointed actually because we got even interested in trying Oswald, and I didn't mean to have anything else further to say.

I woke up about 5 o'clock and a national commentator was giving the Dallas police hell, me hell, and just about everybody hell, and saying that I had said that the case, there would be nothing further on the case, it would be closed, in which I had never even had a television interview, I don't know where they got it.

Somebody might have said that. I don't know but it wasn't me because I hadn't talked to anybody.

And then I went out to dinner and got to thinking, I said, well now, the Dallas police did have a breakdown in security here, and they are taking a beating and I am taking a beating, but they did have the right man according to my thinking, so I went down to the police station and got all the brass in there but Chief Curry and I said this stuff, people are saying on there you had the wrong man and you all were the one who killed him or let him out here to have him killed intentionally, I said somebody ought to go out in television and lay out the evidence that you had on Oswald, and tell them everything.

It had been most of it laid out but not in chronological order.

Mr. RANKIN. When was this now?

Mr. WADE. This was 8 o'clock roughly on the 24th. Sunday night. I sat down with Captain Fritz and took a pencil and pad and listed about seven pieces of evidence from my own knowledge and I was going to write it down. They got hold of Chief Curry and he said no, that he had told this inspector of the FBI that there would be nothing further said about it.

I asked Chief Batchelor and Lumpkin, they were all there, I said you all are the ones who know something about it, I said if you have at least got the right man in my opinion the American people ought to know.

This is evidence you can't use actually, because he is dead. You can't try him. And the upshot of that was the police wouldn't say a word and refused actually to furnish me any more of the details on this.

I mean what the seven points. I went on out there in from front of the cameras and ran them through those points. Actually my purpose in it was, good or bad was, because the Dallas police were taking a beating because they had solved the crime and had good evidence and I told them it was good but I did leave out some things and I was a little inaccurate in one or two things but it was because of the communications with the police.

I didn't have the map, incidentally. I wanted the map at that time but forgot all about it, and I ran through just what I knew, which probably was worse than nothing.

It probably would have been better off without giving anything, because we didn't give what all we had.

Mr. DULLES. Do you remember the elements of inaccuracy that got into this statement of yours?

Mr. WADE. I think I told them about the palmprint on the bottom of the gun, that Lane has made a great issue of and I still think I was right on it but he has made an issue. I think Oswald snapped the pistol over there in the jail or at least in the theater where they arrested him. There was a question of whether the gun had been snapped or not and I was told it was, you all may have seen the gun; I never have seen the gun. You had--I might have at that stage said what bullets are supposed to hit whom. That might have been somewhat inaccurate then but that is all I can think of.

I don't think there is any basic thing. But my purpose in that, and I know the minute I got off that television, inspection called me and said please say nothing further about this case.

Well, you see, at that stage----

Mr. DULLES. Who was it that called you?

Mr. WADE. The inspector at FBI called me in the police station. He was the one the police had talked to. He was the man from Dallas down there. It wasn't Shanklin, Shanklin was in charge of the office.

But I told him what my purpose was but apparently someone told him. I gathered since he had delivered a message, apparently someone had told him to have me quit talking about it. But my purpose on that was, I never did think that the people or the television were giving the right facts on the thing and they were making believe that probably they didn't have the right one, that the Dallas police had him in there to kill him, they even had commentators saying practically that, don't you know.

So, I did that entirely--not anything for me. You may think I wanted to be on television. I didn't care a thing about being because I don't run for office in New York and Washington and other places, but I thought the police needed, because their morale was awfully low and they were at fault in Ruby killing him.

There was undoubtedly a breakdown on security there in the basement.

Mr. RANKIN. On the seven points were any of them that were new that hadn't already been told to the public?

Mr. WADE. To tell you the truth, I don't know. I think there were some of them that hadn't been but I think most of them had. But I couldn't see at this stage the evidence on this thing, nobody, the situation where you had an assassination, and a dead person and another case pending, and it was against my interest actually, to trying Ruby, it would be a whole lot better trying Ruby if he killed the wrong man than if he killed the assassin of the President, but I was trying to establish that this was the assassin of the President.

And I didn't give all the evidence, and I don't know whether there was anything new or not because I didn't see much of television during all this time. I don't actually know everything that was given out, and there was so much in the papers that I didn't have time to read them, so I didn't know for sure what all the police had given out.

Senator COOPER. Substantially then, you were laying out to the public the facts which had led you to issue a warrant for Oswald as the killer of President Kennedy?

Mr. WADE. That was the purpose of that interview.

You also have to--I don't know where you gentlemen were, but you have to get a picture of what was going on. You had, of course, there in Dallas, you had threats on people's lives everywhere.

As a matter of fact, it ran over the radio that I had been assassinated, for 2 hours, on Monday morning. I wasn't listening to the radio. My wife called me up--called me up and I denied it. [Laughter.]

Mr. WADE. But you had lots of things of that kind. And I thought you needed some type of, somebody--and your whole thing was wrong with this whole deal, you had no one in charge of the thing. You had the police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Department of Justice, my Department, Waggoner Carr's department, but no one had any say to offer the rest of them.

Mr. RANKIN. Tell us how that affected it. You had the jurisdiction of the crime itself.

Mr. WADE. Of the trial of the case.

Mr. RANKIN. And the police department, what jurisdiction did they have?

Mr. WADE. They had the jurisdiction, the primary responsibility for the investigation of the assassination, and--they had the primary job of finding out who did it and getting the evidence. They were assisted, the Secret Service, of course, had the job of protecting the President. The FBI, they have criminal, pretty general, investigation, I am not sure, but they were in on it, they were all there, and assisting. It was a deal where nobody had any actual control over another person.

Mr. RANKIN. Had the State authorities any jurisdiction or effect on the operation?

Mr. WADE. You mean the State?

Mr. RANKIN. Of Texas.

Mr. WADE. They actually had none. They had no authority. The Governor has no authority in a situation like this nor the attorney general other than in a vague sort of way, as the police, I guess they had the police powers to some extent of maintaining order but you didn't need the National Guard or anything. I mean this was more dealing with a situation of information. I think this situation is true in many States, in practically all of them.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that confusing, did that make it harder to try to solve the crime and handle the problems?

Mr. WADE. It did; very much so. Your press was the most confusing thing. I mean you couldn't get in the police station. I mean I just barely could get into the police station myself for stomping over the press and you had a lot of reporters, not like the reporters we usually deal with down there. I mean we don't have trouble usually with the local press, people we pretty well know.

We would tell them what is going on, and they will go on, but these people just followed everybody everywhere they went, and they were throwing policemen on the corner, if he made a statement about he saw someone running that way dressed maybe like the killer--they ran all that on. They were just running everybody. There was no control over your public media. It made it worse since all television networks were on the assassination all--24 hours, I mean all day. And there was no central thing from--there was no central person who had any control of handling the thing that information was given out. You see they interviewed some of your patrolmen who were giving out evidence, you know, some of your foot patrolmen on the corner, they were interviewing anybody.

Mr. RANKIN. Would it help or hinder the handling of such a crime of the killing of the President if it was a Federal crime, in your opinion?

Mr. WADE. Well, offhand, I think probably it would, but----

Mr. RANKIN. It would help?

Mr. WADE. I think it would help, but you are going to have the same situation. I am thinking if you had, if it is a Federal crime, for instance, it is still murder in Texas. If Captain Fritz and the Dallas police had arrested this man, the FBI wouldn't have had him. I don't care if it was a Federal crime. We have bank robberies where there is joint jurisdiction. The one that gets him, if it is the State police or the city police gets them, they file with me and if the FBI gets them they file with the Federal.

Mr. RANKIN. You need more control over the police investigation in order to carry out your duties, is that----

Mr. WADE. Of course; my idea if you had it to do over, it is easy to do that, but I think you need someone where all the information is channeled through one person. If anything is given out and getting an intelligent person, not just a police officer, you know. Now, your city manager of Dallas is a newspaper man, Elgin Crull, he would have been an ideal person and he was there but I don't think he ever said anything in any way. He was there in the middle of all that thing.

Mr. RANKIN. Is the lawyer that you referred to in answer to Senator Cooper's questions Carroll Jarnegan?

Mr. WADE. Carroll Jarnegan is his name; yes, sir. Let me mention another thing for the record here. I don't know whether it is mentioned. Saturday, most of my day was spent in talking to Dean R. G. Storey, and the dean of the Harvard Law School, raising, wondering what the situation was with reference to attorneys for Oswald.

Mr. RANKIN. What Saturday are you talking about?

Mr. WADE. Saturday the 23d, 1963; November 23. I told them that, all of them, we had calls from various people, and most of them was from people here in the East calling lawyers there in Dallas rather than me, and them calling me.

Mr. RANKIN. What were they saying to you about that?

Mr. WADE. Well, they were very upset, one, in looking at American justice where the man didn't have an attorney, as apparently, and two, that too much information was being given to the press too, by the police and by me, some of them had said, and that is what prompted me probably to talk to Chief Curry about the thing, because I had received some of those calls.

I told them they ought to appoint the president of the bar association and the president of the Criminal Bar Association to represent him.

Mr. RANKIN. Who did you tell that to?

Mr. WADE. Told that to Mr. Paul Carrington and also to Mr. Storey, I believe.

I believe they are the two that discussed it more at length with me.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether anything was done about that?

Mr. WADE. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What?

Mr. WADE. They got ahold of Louis Nichols who is the president of the Dallas Bar Association. They got ahold of the president of the Criminal Bar Association, but they had started a Tippit fund in the meantime, and practically every lawyer was scared they were going to be appointed, you know, and they had gone and subscribed to that fund so they were having much trouble getting a lawyer appointed.

Now, I must go a little further and tell you that under Texas law that is an improper time to appoint them. The only one who can actually appoint him is the judge after indictment under the Texas law, no one else has really authority.

Louis Nichols, I talked to him, the president of the bar, and he was trying to get some criminal lawyer to go down there with him, and I said, "Go down there yourself and talk to him because they are raising just so much cain about it and see what they want and tell him you will get him a lawyer."

Senator COOPER. You are speaking now about a lawyer for Oswald?

Mr. WADE. Yes; for Oswald.

This was around noon or some time on Saturday, noon, early afternoon. This went on all day. He called me back and said, "I have talked to him and told him I would get him a lawyer, that I would represent him or get him a lawyer." Louis Nichols is a civil lawyer, not actually a criminal lawyer.

He says, "He doesn't want but one lawyer, John Abt, in New York."

Mr. RANKIN. Who is he?

Mr. WADE. He is an attorney in New York.

Mr. RANKIN. You said he didn't want any attorney?