Chapter VII: Part 7

Mr. SORRELS. I don’t recall any statement like that.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, Mr. Stern is going to take over, and I am going to ask him to handle the identification of your notes.

(Mr. Hubert left. Mr. Stern requested Mr. Griffin to handle the identification of documents.)

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me state that for the limited purpose of having Agent Sorrels identify three sets of documents I am going to ask a series of questions of Agent Sorrels.

Mr. Sorrels, I want to hand you a Xerox copy of a document which is a part of our files, and numbered Commission No. 354, and is your Secret Service serial 1,007, consisting of four pages, which you have previously identified, and Mr. Hubert has marked “Deposition of Forrest Sorrels, Washington, D.C., May 6, 1964,” and signed Leon D. Hubert.

I have added the additional designation “Exhibit 1,” on the first page of this four page exhibit. I want you to look at that and tell me if that is in fact the same exhibit you identified previously as I have described it.

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, let me hand you what I have marked for the purpose of identification as deposition of Forrest Sorrels, May 6, 1964, Washington, D.C. This exhibit consists of four different pages which I have numbered consecutively Exhibits 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D, and purports to be a Xerox copy of notes that you made of the interview that took place with Jack Ruby in Captain Fritz’ office at 3:15 on November 24, 1963.

Would you examine Exhibits 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D and compare them with the pages of your notebook which you have referred to previously in the deposition, and tell us if that is a true and exact copy of all of the notes that you have that pertain to the 3:15 interview with Jack Ruby?

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me hand you what I have marked for the purpose of identification deposition of Forrest Sorrels, May 6, 1964, Washington, D.C., which is a document consisting of three pages, which I have numbered consecutively Exhibit 3-A, Exhibit 3-B, Exhibit 3-C. This exhibit purports to be a Xerox copy of notes that you took at an interview with Jack Ruby in the fifth floor jail cell shortly after Ruby shot Lee Oswald on November 24. I want you to compare these exhibits to pages which you have testified to previously are in your notebook, and tell me if Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C are true and exact copies of those pages which appear in your notebook?

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, they are. But there is portions that do not pertain to the interview with Ruby in the Dallas City Jail on the morning of November 24, 1963--but certain portions happen to be on the same page as the notes made at that time were made.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 3-A, would you tell us if that portion which pertains to Ruby--the Ruby interview in the jail cell, and appears on that page, follows consecutively from some point on that page?

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, from about the center of the page, below a wavy line drawn across it, continuing on the second page, marked Exhibit 3-B, and the third page marked Exhibit 3-C, down to the lower portion ending with “deceased mother.”

Mr. GRIFFIN. All right. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 3-A, would you read the first two lines on Exhibit 3-A that consist of the notes taken at your interview with Ruby in the fifth floor jail cell?

Mr. SORRELS. “Chicago, 3-25-1911, Jack Ruby (Rubenstein), Entertainment, Carousel Club. Had business closed for 3 days.”

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, let me hand you again Exhibit No. 1, and ask you if that is a true and accurate copy, to sign your name on the first page of that exhibit.

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, it is.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you sign your name, then, on the first page of the exhibit?

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me hand you what has been marked as Exhibit 2-A, B and C, and D, and ask you if that is a true and accurate copy to sign your name on the first page of Exhibit 2-A.

Mr. SORRELS. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me hand you, Mr. Sorrels, Exhibit 3-A, B, and C, and ask you the same question with respect to that, and ask you to do the same thing.

Mr. SORRELS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, let the record reflect that I am putting my initials, BWG, on pages 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D. Let the record reflect I have done the same thing with pages 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C.

Mr. STERN. Mr. Smith, are there any questions you would like to ask Mr. Sorrels at this stage of his deposition, to clarify any points on the record?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, just with respect to one point.

Mr. STERN. Please go ahead.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Sorrels, you testified that in your interview with Jack Ruby in the jail, you did not warn him of his constitutional rights. Was this due to oversight on your part?

Mr. SORRELS. No, it was not.

Mr. SMITH. Will you state, then, the reason why you did not do so?

Mr. SORRELS. My purpose in getting to Jack Ruby and talking to him as quickly as I did was to determine whether or not he was involved with anyone else in connection with the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and also to determine whether or not Jack Ruby had any connection or association with Lee Harvey Oswald. I did not warn him of his constitutional rights, because insofar as I was concerned at this particular interview, my conversation with him was not--strike was not--had no bearing insofar as the murder case against Jack Ruby was concerned.

My purpose was trying to obtain information for my service to determine whether or not there were others involved in this case that would be of concern to the Secret Service in connection with their protective duties of the President of the United States and the Vice President.

Mr. STERN. Is there anything else, Mr. Smith, you would like to cover?

Mr. SMITH. No. Thank you.

Mr. STERN. Mr. Sorrels, you have had a lengthy session here today. If it is convenient for you, I would prefer to carry on that part of it that I am interested in tomorrow morning, rather than to try to finish late today. Would that be convenient for you?

Mr. SORRELS. That is satisfactory for me, yes.

Mr. STERN. Fine. Why don’t we suspend now and resume in the morning.

TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED A. BIEBERDORF

The testimony of Dr. Fred A. Bieberdorf was taken at 3:25 p.m., on March 31, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. HUBERT. The deposition of Dr. Fred A. Bieberdorf [spelling] B-i-e-b-e-r-d-o-r-f. Right?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. That’s correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Dr. Bieberdorf, my name is Leon Hubert, I am a member of the advisory staff of the General Counsel of the President’s Commission. Under the provisions of the Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, Joint Resolution of Congress 137, and rules of procedure adopted by the President’s Commission in conformance with the Executive order and joint resolution I have been authorized to take a sworn deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In particular to you, Dr. Bieberdorf, the nature of the inquiry is to ascertain the facts that you know about the death of Oswald and then any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry. Now, Doctor, I think you have received a letter addressed to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel for the President’s Commission, is that correct?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that letter received by you in excess of 3 days from today?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, you are appearing here as a consequence of that letter?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. That’s correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you stand and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Please state your name, sir.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Frederick Adolph Bieberdorf.

Mr. HUBERT. Your age?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Twenty-five.

Mr. HUBERT. Your residence?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. 8603 Midway Road, Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. At present, fourth-year medical student.

Mr. HUBERT. Where?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. At Southwestern Medical School, University of Texas.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you happen to be in the basement of the jail of the Dallas police, on the morning of November 24, 1963?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I was.

Mr. HUBERT. In what capacity?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I was, at that time, employed by the city of Dallas, city health department, as first aid attendant for the--I was employed at that time as first aid attendant by the city of Dallas, city health department. The nature of this job is as follows: Mainly administering first aid and emergency medical care to prisoners within the city jail, or prisoners that they’ve brought in.

Mr. HUBERT. Had you been doing that sort of work for some time?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. A little bit over a year.

Mr. HUBERT. You say fourth year at the Southwestern University, does that mean that you are a senior?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. That’s right. I graduate in June.

Mr. HUBERT. You will receive a M.D. in June?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. In June of 1964?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes; that’s correct.

Mr. HUBERT. What time did you go on duty that day?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I arrived down there about 9:30 in the morning.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, Doctor, I have shown you, and I believe you have read what purports to be a report of an interview of you by FBI Agents Mabey and Hughes on December 5, 1963, which I am now marking for identification on the first page by writing as follows: “Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. Exhibit 5123, Deposition of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf.” I am signing my own name on the first page; on the second page I am placing my initials in the lower right-hand corner, the same with the third and the same with the fourth and last. In order that the record may show that we are both talking about the same document, I ask you please to sign your name under my signature, or by it, and place your initials also on the subsequent pages. Now, Doctor, addressing ourselves to the exhibit marked now for identification as 5123, I ask you if you have read it?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I have read it.

Mr. HUBERT. Is it correct and true?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. In the main, it is. There are a few corrections in it and additions that I would like to make.

Mr. HUBERT. Very well. Suppose that we do it this way. If you can identify by page, paragraph and sentence that part which you need to have modified by reading in quotes, as it were, stating then for the record, “quote, unquote,” and then make the comment. I think that the record will be better in that way.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay. First of all, throughout this document my last name is misspelled.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, let’s see. To get that straight, your last name is [spelling] B-i-e-b-e-r-d-o-r-f?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. And it is spelled “B-e-i,” instead of B-i-e.

Mr. HUBERT. I see.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay. And on page 1, paragraph 2, on the second sentence of that paragraph that reads, “He stated he relieved a Bill Hall, former classmate, who had been on duty since noon of the previous day.”

Mr. HUBERT. Now, what is the comment you have to make about that?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Well, he is not a classmate. He is a medical student, but he is not a classmate of mine.

Mr. HUBERT. Otherwise, the sentence is correct?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Otherwise it is correct. Okay. In that same--on page 1, second paragraph, the sixth sentence, which reads, “He advised that from his position he had an unobstructed view of the basement parking area and that he did not notice if there were any doors between them and the basement area.”

The position that they are talking about that has been previously identified, I did not have what you would call an unobstructed view of the area, due to the presence of somewhere around 20, somewhere between 15 and 20 newsmen that were standing between me and the basement parking area.

Mr. HUBERT. Where were you standing?

Does that Exhibit 5123, state?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. It states that I was standing in the basement at an intersection of the hallway beneath the city hall.

Mr. HUBERT. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. That is correct, and I suppose that is the only intersection of hallways underneath the city hall to the basement. I can assure you on this [indicating].

Mr. HUBERT. Yes. All right, now, in connection with your explanation of the sentence you have just quoted, I want to ask you what your position was in the jail basement area. Now, you have examined the mockup which is in this room, and in order to make a permanent record of where you pointed out you were, I am marking a chart of the basement as follows: “Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. Exhibit 5124. Deposition of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf.” I am signing my name, and below that, and in order that the record may show that we are both talking about the same document, I ask you to sign your name below mine, and then correlating the mockup and the chart marked Exhibit 5124, ask you to place an “X” and encircle the “X” as to the position you were standing at the time of the shooting.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Let me look at this. Yes, that is the exact way. This is accurate [indicating].

Mr. HUBERT. Now, you have marked----

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I drew in another line to represent the wall around the corner.

Mr. HUBERT. You have also placed an “X” in your own handwriting, and I am writing now the following: “Position of Dr. Bieberdorf at the time of shooting.”

I am encircling that language and connecting it by a line with the circle drawn by Dr. Bieberdorf. All right. Now, have you any other comments to make about Document Exhibit 5123?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. A few more minor ones. Several more minor ones.

Mr. HUBERT. All right.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Page 1, second paragraph, the last sentence on that page states “He stated that he then immediately saw Ruby laying faceup in the jail office lobby, approximately 10 feet inside the jail lobby door.”

Mr. HUBERT. Now, your comment.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. My comment is that I did see Ruby’s feet, at least, but I did not notice whether he was lying faceup or facedown. He was surrounded by a number of police officers.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you know Ruby at the time?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. No, I didn’t have any idea who it was, and that is the reason that I got so close there, that I thought that this was Oswald.

Mr. HUBERT. You thought it was the man who had been shot?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. All right. Correction, not Oswald, but the person who had been shot. At the time I did not know who had been shot, if, any shot--if, indeed it had been a shot and I did not get a look at the person to see his face, or even to see whether he was lying faceup or facedown. I could just see him on the floor surrounded by a number of men.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, any other modifications or corrections?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. On page 2, it is actually a continuation of the same sentence that ends on page 1. On page 2, “And he then saw Oswald in the same position.”

Well, “same position,” refers to “faceup,” and indeed, Oswald was faceup, but if this is an amendment where Ruby is no longer faceup, better change this to “faceup.”

Mr. HUBERT. All right.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay. On page 2, the first paragraph; about the third sentence there begins, “He noticed that someone had pulled Oswald’s shirt up to his chest, and he could see a puncture wound in the left side of Oswald’s stomach just below the rib cage.”

He did have this puncture wound on his left side, but it wasn’t below his rib cage. It was--I’d like to correct that “stomach”. Just below the rib cage to the left side of his lower chest. I don’t really--I didn’t count what rib it was under, but I believe it was between the two ribs, probably down just below the fifth or sixth.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, any others?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Oh; I skipped one or two. Excuse me. Back on page 1, the second paragraph on page 1, the sentence that begins near the bottom of the page, that begins: “He stated this took him several minutes due to the confusion and by the time he reached the general vicinity of the location--”. This “several minutes,” I don’t believe is accurate. I don’t recall whether I said several minutes at the time. I later--well, I think it was a matter of, say, “something like 1 to 2 minutes, rather than several minutes” and again, in the same paragraph, next to last sentence on the page that begins, “He stated he searched the immediate area for several minutes before proceeding.”

I think this, again, is way too long and had better read, “a few seconds,” than several minutes.

Mr. HUBERT. Any other corrections?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. On page 2, second paragraph, the third sentence which is the last sentence, “He stated the latter two,” referring to the ambulance driver and his assistant, “--ambulance driver and his assistant were riding in the front seat, and the two detectives were in a seat immediately behind the front seat, and Detective Leavelle was sitting immediately to his left in the rear of the ambulance.” The two detectives, and rather than “sitting in the seat in--immediately behind the front seat,” they were behind--just inside the tailgate of the ambulance, about Oswald’s feet, and Officer Leavelle and myself were sitting in the seat directly behind the front seat.

You earlier made the query about when I had left him. It states in here--on page 2, the last sentence of the last paragraph, “He stated 2 minutes after entering the emergency room, also known as the trauma room, Oswald was removed to the operating room.” He was removed to the operating room via an elevator, and at that point that was the point I last saw him.

Mr. HUBERT. Was he alive at that point?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. He was still alive at that time. I am just going by hearsay, now. He was said to have died--well, he was still moving around at that time, so, he was definitely alive.

Mr. HUBERT. You were with him in the ambulance all the way through?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. And when he got to the ambulance you saw signs of life?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Although, I did not until we got about halfway to Parkland.

Mr. HUBERT. You thought he was dead?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. He--I surmised he was dead until he started moving a little bit.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he make any statement at all?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. He did not utter any sound at all, that I heard.

Mr. HUBERT. Any other corrections?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Let’s see. On page 3, the second paragraph, “Bieberdorf states that he was not acquainted with Jack Ruby, but that he did interview Ruby in the police jail on Sunday, November 24, at about 4 or 5 p.m.”

This time--I looked it up at a later date, and it was at exactly 2:05 p.m., rather than my estimation at that time of 4 or 5 p.m.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, have you any other on that document 5123?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Well, there are a few more.

Mr. HUBERT. Otherwise, it stated correctly the nature of the physical examination that you gave to Ruby and the findings?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. The next sentence that follows that is correct, but then there is another. That same paragraph, the last sentence in this paragraph reads, “Bieberdorf states that he gave Ruby a physical examination at this time in order to insure Ruby had not concealed any weapon on his person.”

This is not correct here. Later on in the afternoon of November 24, I was asked by the police or Lieutenant--I believe in charge of the jail at that time, to go upstairs and at the request of detectives and one of the FBI agents, I performed a rectal examination on him to make sure he had not smuggled--or to see if he had brought anything in on his person.

This was at 6 p.m., so, I did see Ruby on two occasions. One at 2:05 and one at 6. I think that report tends to indicate it was only one.

Mr. HUBERT. It really was two, and you have explained it.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. All right.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay, on page 3, the last paragraph, second sentence, “He stated he had no knowledge of security measures in effect in the basement on November 24, 1963, other than the fact that he was asked to remove himself from the basement, and he assumed only police officers and press men were allowed to remain.” I think that sentence ought to be deleted and changed to something like: “I was asked to remove myself from the basement parking area at--prior to Oswald’s being moved, and was told by police officers at that time that only police personnel were being allowed in the area, and I, of course, later saw that press men were able to gain access to the area by presenting their credentials.”

And that is, I think, the only correction.

Mr. HUBERT. About what time did you move from the first aid----

Dr. BIEBERDORF. 9:45. It states that earlier in here. States that on the first page.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you remain in the position indicated by you on the chart, which has been identified as Exhibit 5124, all that while? In other words, you were told by the police to leave the----

Dr. BIEBERDORF. To leave the parking area, and I left there, and at the time of the shooting I was at that particular spot.

Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, the spot that----

Dr. BIEBERDORF. That I marked on that you have marked the--No. 5124.

Mr. HUBERT. Between the time that you left and the time of the shooting, where were you?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I was, the majority of the time, down at the subbasement in the locker room. I was no closer to the spot that Oswald was shot--at which Oswald was shot than I was at the time of the shooting, and no time was I--well, with the exception of crossing through about 9:45.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, when you left the first aid room in the bottom floor, did you leave anybody in there? Was there anyone in those rooms at that time?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. There was no one in the room. It was empty. The fellow that I had relieved left the building.

Mr. HUBERT. Were those doors locked?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Those doors were locked, and I had a key to them. The police officer, just before I left, looked in the rooms, searched them. I unlocked the rooms for them. Now, I don’t know----

Mr. HUBERT. To your knowledge, was there anyone in those rooms at all?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. There was nobody in those rooms, and I had the only key that is commonly used to open those rooms, other than the keys that the janitors have.

Mr. HUBERT. And all doors were locked and you had a key, and as far as you know, you are the only one who does have a key unless there is a general key?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Well, I am sure there is.

Mr. HUBERT. All right. Any other corrections to be made on that exhibit?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I don’t believe so. I could add, to what Ruby said, or what----

Mr. HUBERT. Well, yes; I should like you to say if there is anything in there that--or if you heard something that Ruby said which is not in your report denominated as Exhibit 5123, I wish you would add that.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay; well, as I stated earlier, I saw him on the two occasions. Once at approximately 2:05, and the second time at approximately 6 p.m., both on November 24.

At the 2:05 time that I saw him, he, as I stated in this document--Well, let me just go through what, as best I can recall, what was said. I identified myself to him. I don’t recall that he said who he was or that either the police officer with him or the FBI agent with him at the time identified him to me. I told him that I had been asked to see if he had any complaints or injuries as a result of the earlier scuffle he had in the city hall.

He assured me that he was not injured in any way. He took off his coat, which he had on at the time, and showed me a few bruises on the medial aspect of his right arm, and I also noted a few bruises on his right wrist which appeared to be fresh, but, he assured me these weren’t bothering him, and he had no other injuries. He, at that time--oh, I don’t recall the exact words he used, but he expressed an admiration for the police officers. And in saying that he had no injuries he stated that the police had just done what they had to do, that they hadn’t injured him any more than necessary, than he would expect in such a scuffle, and again spoke of how the police were doing their job and how they were doing their job well.

At 6 o’clock. Well, excuse me. Delete that 6 o’clock.

He, at that time, did not seem to act--I did not make any observation of his behavior at that time.

Just saw him for a matter of 2 or 3 minutes during that time. I did not attempt to do any mental status observation or examination on him, and really couldn’t say anything, hadn’t formed any opinion as to the state of mind that he was in at that time.

Mr. HUBERT. Is that last statement of yours true as to both interviews, or only the 6 o’clock one?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Both interviews. I saw him 2 or 3 minutes at 2 o’clock, or 2:05, and another 2 or 3 minutes at 6 o’clock. Now, the conversation that I mentioned occurred at 2:05.

Mr. HUBERT. No conversation in the evening, in the later call, later visit?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. At that time--6 o’clock when I saw him, I had stated that I had been asked to do additional and rectal examination to make sure he had not smuggled anything into the jail. By this time he had on a pair of white pants and white shirt that apparently, looked like a uniform that cooks in the city jail wear. He had on different clothes than he had on at 2:05, and I explained to him what I had been asked to do and we found a little room just off the main lobby there, and went in there, and he bent over and I performed a rectal examination on him, and he made the comment that this was the worst massage that he had ever had, and that is all the conversation that I recall. The only comment that I recall that he made. That was at the 6 o’clock visit.

Mr. HUBERT. All right. Any other corrections you have to make?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I believe that is all.

Mr. HUBERT. As to Exhibit 5123?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. That’s all.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Ruby, at any time, make any comments as to his motive, or his intent?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. At neither time that I saw him was the shooting brought up. I did not mention it and he did not mention it, and it was all the talk we had.

Mr. HUBERT. Let me put it to you this way; do you consider that taking the FBI report which has been identified as Exhibit 5123, and taking also your deposition today, including your identification on the chart, which is 5124, that there has now been recorded all you know about this matter, completely?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, have you been interviewed by any member of the Commission’s staff prior to the time----

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Not by the Commission.

Mr. HUBERT. None of the Commission’s staff?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I mean by the Commission’s staff.

Mr. HUBERT. Other than myself?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Well, not that I know of. I was interviewed, of course, by the FBI man.

Mr. HUBERT. Insofar as our interview is concerned, today, prior to the commencement of this deposition, was there anything in that interview which is inconsistent with your deposition taken after the interview ended?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I believe not.

Mr. HUBERT. Anything of material nature which was discussed in the interview which has not been brought out in this deposition?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. No.

Mr. HUBERT. All right; I think that is it, sir.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. FRANCES CASON

The testimony of Mrs. Frances Cason was taken at 4:10 p.m., on April 1, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Mrs. Frances Cason [spelling] F-r-a-n-c-e-s?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Mrs. Cason, my name is Leon Hubert, I am a member of the advisory staff of the General Counsel on the President’s Commission. Under the provisions of the Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, the Joint Resolution of Congress No. 137, and the rules and procedure adopted by the Commission in conformance with the Executive order and joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn deposition from you. Mrs. Cason, I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular as to you, Mrs. Cason, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine the facts you know about the death of Oswald and any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry.

In particular, with reference to your duties as a dispatcher of the Dallas Police Department.

Now, Mrs. Cason, you have appeared here today by virtue of an informal request made by the General Counsel of the staff of the President’s Commission, and under the rules adopted by the Commission you would normally be entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of your deposition, but those rules also provide that that 3-day written notice may be waived, and I ask you if you are willing to waive that notice at this time?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, I will.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, stand and raise your right hand, please, Ma’am, so as to be sworn.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mrs. CASON. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. State your name, please.

Mrs. CASON. Frances Cason.

Mr. HUBERT. Your age?

Mrs. CASON. Age 26.

Mr. HUBERT. Are you married, Mrs. Cason?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, I am.

Mr. HUBERT. Then I suppose we should have your husband’s name?

Mrs. CASON. Jimmy D. Cason.

Mr. HUBERT. What was your name prior to the marriage?

Mrs. CASON. Shanz [spelling] S-h-a-n-z.

Mr. HUBERT. Where do you reside?

Mrs. CASON. 2822 Greene [spelling] G-r-e-e-n-e, in Irving, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?

Mrs. CASON. Telephone clerk in the telephone dispatcher’s office at the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been so employed?

Mrs. CASON. Since September 6, 1963. Before that I had a 6 months’ leave of absence and was employed for the police department for 2½ years.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you on duty between the hours of 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., on November 24, 1963?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, I was; actually, it is 6:30 to 3:30.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, Mrs. Cason, I have marked for the purposes of identification a document which is to be found in Commission’s report 81-A, which is entitled “Investigation of the Operational Security Involving the Transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 24th, 1963.” On page 14, thereof, I have also marked Exhibit EE in that document, the following for the purposes of identification, “Dallas, Texas, April 1, 1964. Exhibit 5135, Deposition of Frances Cason and C. E. Hulse.” I have signed my name below that and ask you if you have not signed your name, for the purposes of identification, also on this same document?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state in your own words just exactly what part you had to do with this Exhibit 5135, which you now have before you?

Mrs. CASON. You want me to just go ahead?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mrs. CASON. At approximately 11:20, or 11:21, I received a call from the basement of city hall there from Officer Slack, who works in the jail office.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you know Officer Slack prior to this time?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. Had you spoken to him on the telephone before?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; I have.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you state that you are able to recognize his voice?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you recognize the voice then speaking to you as being the voice of Officer Slack?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. All right; now, go ahead.

Mrs. CASON. In addition, he told me it was Officer Slack when he called. It is not unusual for them to say, “This is Slack in the jail office.” So he would identify himself and ask to speak to Officer Farr, that is J. G. Farr, who is our corporal.

Mr. HUBERT. How do you spell his last name?

Mrs. CASON. [spelling] F-a-r-r. And he was in charge on that Sunday because we did not have a sergeant there, and he had asked to speak to Farr, and I told him Officer Farr was working channel 2, which is a separate channel that we have, and so he told me, he said, “They just shot Oswald,” or “Somebody just shot Oswald,” and I told him, “Okay.” And placed him on hold and told Farr that he had a red light on 531, and I proceeded to call the ambulance service on the hot line.

Mr. HUBERT. Please describe the hot line?

Mrs. CASON. The hot line is a straight line from our dispatcher office to the ambulance company which requires no dialing. You just lift it up and it rings from our office to theirs.

Mr. HUBERT. So, then, immediately upon getting this information from Slack you passed it on to Farr by word of mouth?

Mrs. CASON. I did not tell Officer Farr that Oswald had just been shot. I felt it was more important to get the ambulance and in time they would know soon enough. I told them he had a red light, and I knew Slack would tell him what happened in the basement.

Mr. HUBERT. So then you flipped the button for the hot line at O’Neal Funeral Home?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you get it immediately?

Mrs. CASON. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. What happened then?

Mrs. CASON. It is just a matter of seconds until they answered, and I told them that someone just shot Oswald in the basement, and we needed a white ambulance, code 3, to the basement.

Mr. HUBERT. What does code 3 mean?

Mrs. CASON. Code 3, red lights and sirens, as fast as possible.

Mr. HUBERT. What did the man on the other end say to you?

Mrs. CASON. He told me he would send ambulance 607, from his office, and I told him, “Okay,” and hung up the phone.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, who were you speaking to, do you know?

Mrs. CASON. I do not know. Sometimes they will give their names when they answer, and sometimes they do not, and I do not remember if he did or not.

Mr. HUBERT. He told you that 607, ambulance 607, would answer this call?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; he did.

Mr. HUBERT. And answer it under conditions of code 3, that is to say, as fast as possible, red lights and sirens.

Mrs. CASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. What happened next?

Mrs. CASON. Apparently I must have told Officer C. E. Hulse, who was on the radio, that Oswald had just been shot, and I had ordered an ambulance, and by then I proceeded to make up the call sheet, which is just routine work that we do in the office on every call that we take.

Mr. HUBERT. All right. Now, you have before you Exhibit 5135, which is the call sheet we are talking about, and I notice written in hand, “605 on air,” and it seems to be next to the initials, “F.C.” Is that language, to wit, “Ambulance 605 on air,” in your handwriting?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; it is.

Mr. HUBERT. Are the initials “F.C.” your initials?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; they are.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, can you tell us about when you made up that card?

Mrs. CASON. Immediately after ordering the ambulance I made up the call sheet. I did not have to look up the district or any of the information because I knew it all by memory, and we have a lot of calls to city hall, and normally use 2000 and Main, and I knew, of course, it was district 102, and----

Mr. HUBERT. And the top of the card shows it is district 102?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, there is also on that Exhibit 5135, and it appears in blue ink printed by someone in the column entitled, “Ambulance ordered,” the following: “C--11:12 a.m., November 24th----”

Mrs. CASON. 11:21, it said----

Mr. HUBERT. “11:21,” I beg your pardon. Then the column immediately below that, “Time received,” “C--11:21 a.m., November 24th.”

Can you explain that to us, please?

Mrs. CASON. Well, the writing was not on the original call sheet. The original call sheet was stamped in the timeclock. The only reason I can see for it is that in the copying of the call sheet, the printed matter did not show up, and it was necessary to write this in in ink.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, it is your thought that the original of which 5135 is a photostatic copy, has got the time printed, and that someone just simply wrote it in?

Mrs. CASON. I feel like it was stamped; yes, sir. I am almost positive it was.

Mr. HUBERT. This writing in blue ink that I referred to is not in your handwriting?

Mrs. CASON. No, sir; it is not.

Mr. HUBERT. What would have been the normal procedure for stamping the time in those two columns?

Mrs. CASON. Well, ordinarily, we make up the call sheet before we stamp it in complete form. In other words, we don’t do part of it and stamp that and then do part of it again and stamp that time. I, myself, always stamp the time that the ambulance is ordered regardless of whether it is on the air or whether it is sent from the office itself. Whereas, some other telephone clerks may have left the “Ambulance ordered” place blank for the dispatcher to stamp.

That is, if it was an ambulance on the air call.

Mr. HUBERT. You feel certain, therefore, that you, having prepared the card, did put it into the time clock?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, sir. I feel sure I stamped the card twice as to the time. Once for the ambulance and----

Mr. HUBERT. How long would it take you to prepare the card?

Mrs. CASON. Just a few seconds. It is very routine, and it just takes a matter of a few seconds if you are familiar with it.

Mr. HUBERT. What kind of time clocks are these? I don’t mean the make of them, but how do they work? Are they automatic?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; they are. They are all electric clocks, and I believe the name of them is Synchron. They show the time on the face of the clock, and you insert the call sheet on the place marked by a red arrow, and when you place the call sheet in, the weight of it causes the clock to stamp the time.

Mr. HUBERT. You do not have to punch anything down?

Mrs. CASON. The weight of the card causes the clock to stamp the time.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, is that clock checked at any time as to accuracy?

Mrs. CASON. I don’t know how often they are checked. I do know that sometimes we find a discrepancy as to the time on the clock insofar as sometimes when we dispatch--when we sent a call sheet through and the time received may be--it says, this could have been 11:23 on the time I received the call, and when we dispatched it it would have shown 11:22, then we would know that the clocks were off, because we couldn’t--I couldn’t receive a call after we had dispatched it.

Mr. HUBERT. But, the dispatcher would be using a different clock from you?

Mrs. CASON. And when we find these errors in these clocks this way, someone in the office usually adjusts them to where they all are stamping the same time. It doesn’t happen very often that they get out of time, but sometimes they do.

Mr. HUBERT. They are not all tied into a master clock?

Mrs. CASON. No; not as far as I know. I don’t really know how the system works, but I don’t believe they are. I believe they are all on individual basis.

Mr. HUBERT. I notice that Exhibit 5135 shows an “M.J.”; is that in your handwriting?

Mrs. CASON. Yes; it is.

Mr. HUBERT. Well----

Mrs. CASON. These are the initials of Officer M. J. Jackson who was working on the radio with Officer C. E. Hulse at the time the calls were dispatched. The way our radio is set up part of the squads are handled by this officer on one side of the board and part of the squads and the ambulances and APB, which is traffic investigators are handled by the officer on the other side of the radio board, and Mr. Jackson was sitting on the side of the board that would handle a call in the downtown area. That is why I placed his initial on the call sheet, but when it got in there Officer Hulse had already been talking to the ambulance and was dispatching the call rather than Mr. Jackson.

Mr. HUBERT. Have you stated yet whether you conveyed the information about Oswald being shot to Officer Hulse by word of mouth?

Mrs. CASON. No.

Mr. HUBERT. Tell us what happened there?

Mrs. CASON. There is a discrepancy in the number of the ambulance that was on the call sheet and the number of the ambulance that was told to me that would be sent by the ambulance company. I feel that the reason for this is because I called Officer Hulse over the intercom that we have between the telephone clerk’s office and the radio dispatcher’s office and told him that Oswald had been shot, and I was sending an ambulance, and it is my understanding that ambulance 605 was cleared in the downtown area, and he gave it to ambulance 605, and told me to clear 607 through the office, so, rather than put 607 on the call sheet, I put ambulance 605 on the air, because he was giving the call on the air.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, Officer Hulse got the information that Oswald was shot and that an ambulance was needed from you?

Mrs. CASON. I do not have total recall about the matter, but I feel like Officer Hulse knew Oswald had been shot. This is my only explanation for it. It was busy that day and things were confusing, and I just feel like this is what must have happened. It’s not unusual for us to tell them about things like this on the intercom that is placed there for that reason, like if we have an armed robbery they can tell them the location and they can have a squad practically there before we can make up the call sheet, because it takes longer to make up a call sheet if you have to look up the district, and we do not know all of the districts. I happened to know what district this call was in.

Mr. HUBERT. That is why it was easy and quick for you to make up your call sheet, identified as Exhibit 5135?

Mrs. CASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, is there anything that we have not covered, to your recollection?

Mrs. CASON. I can’t think of anything other than that we did not know the exact time that Oswald was to be transferred and I might clarify the matter as to why Officer Farr was on channel 2. Channel 2 was maintained throughout the whole time that President Kennedy was in town and was used for special services such as the--if we have a whole lot of extra traffic men and solo motorcycles and things of this sort to keep them off of channel 1, they set up channel 2, and put all of those people on that channel 2, and I feel sure that this must have been the case this day, because they must have had all sorts of extra people set up for the transfer from the city hall to the county jail and this is probably why Officer Farr was maintaining channel 2.

Mr. HUBERT. But this call went out on channel 1?

Mrs. CASON. This call went out on channel 1, but other than that, I can’t think of anything else I know that might have any bearing on this whatsoever.

Mr. HUBERT. Let me ask you this: We did have an interview, didn’t we, immediately before the beginning of this deposition?

Mrs. CASON. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you think of anything that we discussed in the course of that interview which has not been covered in this deposition?

Mrs. CASON. Only pertaining to the squad dispatched, and I believe Officer Hulse can cover that. Other than that, I can’t think of anything.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, now, do you perceive any inconsistencies between the interview and the facts brought out in the interview and your deposition now being taken?

Mrs. CASON. No; I don’t.

Mr. HUBERT. I think that is all, then. Thank you very much.

Mrs. CASON. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HARDIN

The testimony of Michael Hardin was taken at 4:30 p.m., on March 31, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of--Michael?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. [Spelling] M-i-c-h-a-e-l? H-a-r-d-e-n?

Mr. HARDIN. -i-n.

Mr. HUBERT. [Spelling] H-a-r-d-i-n?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. My name is Leon D. Hubert, I am a member of the advisory staff of the General Counsel of the President’s Commission. Under the provisions of the Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, Joint Resolution of Congress 137, and the rules of procedure adopted by the Commission in conformance with that Executive order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn deposition from you, Mr. Hardin, identified in my authority as the proper representative of the O’Neal Funeral Home. I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission’s inquiry, to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and subsequent violent death of Harvey Lee Oswald. In particular to you, Mr. Hardin, the nature of our inquiry today is to determine the facts you know about the death of Oswald and any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry including the ambulance call and the documents relative to that of the O’Neal Funeral Home.

Now, Mr. Hardin, I think you have appeared today by virtue of a general request made by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, who is the General Counsel of the Commission’s staff. And that general request--rather it was a particular request to the O’Neal Funeral Home to have its representatives come and have their depositions taken and to produce certain documents relative to the matter under inquiry.

Have you received a copy of that letter?

Mr. HARDIN. No, sir; I haven’t.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, under the rules adopted by the Commission you would be entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of this deposition, but the rules also provide that you can waive that 3-day written notice if you so wish. Do you desire to waive it?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Then, will you raise your right hand so that I may administer the oath. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Mr. HARDIN. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name, please?

Mr. HARDIN. Michael Norfleet Hardin.

Mr. HUBERT. And your age?

Mr. HARDIN. Twenty-three.

Mr. HUBERT. Your residence?

Mr. HARDIN. 1311 Exeter.

Mr. HUBERT. Dallas?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir; it is in Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. And your occupation?

Mr. HARDIN. I drive one of the city contract emergency ambulances.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, on November 24, what was your occupation?

Mr. HARDIN. City ambulance, or contract emergency ambulance driver.

Mr. HUBERT. What connection have you with O’Neal?

Mr. HARDIN. I drive the ambulance for the funeral home. We are under contract to the city for emergency ambulance service.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, you have produced written records which you have in your hand now. Do you, from your own knowledge, know those records to be the official records of the O’Neal Funeral Home?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes; I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Are those records relied upon by the O’Neal Funeral Home in the course of their ordinary normal business transactions?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Is it a normal administrative matter to make such records as you now hold in your hand, which you are producing?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, now, we’ll mark these various documents for identification, as follows, to wit: And I might add that although you have the originals we have compared the originals, have we not, with these photostatic copies, and, of course, they are identical. Therefore, I am not going to take the original from you, or even mark them for identification, but use, for all purposes the photostatic copies that you have supplied and you may keep the originals, or return them where you got them from. But for the purposes of identification, now, let us mark the documents as follows: There is an ambulance call record which I am identifying as follows:

“Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. Exhibit No. 5125, deposition of Michael Hardin,” and signing my name on it.

Mr. HARDIN. Okay, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. There is another ambulance call record which I am marking as follows: “Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. Exhibit 5126. Deposition of Michael Hardin,” and signing my name on it. Finally there is a call ticket bearing number 35127, which I am marking, “Dallas, Tex., March 31, 1964. Exhibit 5127, Deposition of Michael Hardin,” and signing my name on the bottom of it, and for the purposes of identification and so that the record may show that we are both talking about the same documents I will ask you to sign your name near mine, or below on each one of the three.

Mr. HARDIN. All right.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, Mr. Hardin, I hand you the document which has been marked for identification as Exhibit 5125, and ask you to identify that document for the record.

Mr. HARDIN. That is the ambulance call sheet--we--that was the original call sheet from the--made from the call itself, or at the time of the call itself.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, whose handwriting appears on that?

Mr. HARDIN. That is our dispatcher, or Hal Priddy, this is his handwriting.

Mr. HUBERT. That is Harold--Hal Priddy. [Spelling] P-r-i-d-d-y?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. He is outside in the hall right now?

Mr. HARDIN. Yes, sir; he is.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you recognize the handwriting?

Mr. HARDIN. I am not too familiar with it, really.

Mr. HUBERT. That is all right. He will identify it.

Mr. HARDIN. Well----