Chapter XXXVI: Part 36

Mr. RUBY. We manufactured a product that wasn’t engineered or designed properly and we had a lot of rejects and we were having to pay freight both ways and——

Mr. HUBERT. What was the product?

Mr. RUBY. It was this plastic spinner that you see on these wires in front of service stations and used car lots and the weather—when they are spinning around would force them to crack in half and they would fall on the cars and maybe damage them and they weren’t satisfied with them and we found out later that this man who made our mould for us didn’t design it properly.

Mr. HUBERT. Where are Lasser and Weisbrod now, do you know?

Mr. RUBY. They are partners in the wholesale distributing business of sunglasses.

Mr. HUBERT. In what city?

Mr. RUBY. In Dallas—I believe the name is Mode (spelling) M-o-d-e, Imports.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you have occasion to see those people frequently?

Mr. RUBY. No; I haven’t seen those people in maybe—maybe for about 3 years.

Mr. HUBERT. They were friends of Jack’s?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Jack get you interested in this venture with these two men?

Mr. RUBY. Well, he introduced me to them and he did say that they had a very good business and that they were hard working fellows.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you invest any money with them?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. How much?

Mr. RUBY. $3,500.

Mr. HUBERT. When you dissolved, did they buy you out?

Mr. RUBY. No: the whole company was dissolved. We just liquidated it. We paid all of our debts.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you have any part of the investment returned to you?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. So, you lost the $3,500 in that venture?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. After that was completed, what did you do?

Mr. RUBY. In the latter part of 1956, I investigated this coin-operated washateria business and I succeeded in purchasing and in installing a new coin-operated washateria at 3608 Oak Lawn in Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the name of it?

Mr. RUBY. It was Speedy Wash, I believe it was.

Mr. HUBERT. And that was just a trade name?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you borrowed some money from some banks to do that?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; I borrowed some money from some banks.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you have any other ventures since that, or is that still in existence?

Mr. RUBY. No; I lost my lease—my lease was up and Ward’s Drug Store next door somehow managed to get the lease on the store and, of course, I had to vacate and discontinue that place, but while I had that place of business I purchased the Bonnie Washateria at 2002 East 11th Street in Dallas and I also purchased another washateria at 2524 North Fitzhugh in Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you still operate those?

Mr. RUBY. No; I sold both of those.

Mr. HUBERT. How long ago?

Mr. RUBY. Well, this one at 2425 North Fitzhugh was the Ruby Washateria and I sold that 2 years ago last March—let me see—that would be 1962, wouldn’t it?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. RUBY. In March 1962.

Mr. HUBERT. That was the last one you sold?

Mr. RUBY. No; that was the Ruby Washateria. Then, the Bonnie Washateria, which was at 2002 East 11th Street, I sold just last December, I believe it was.

Mr. HUBERT. Whom did you sell that to?

Mr. RUBY. To a Mr. George Cernorsky.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the purpose of your selling it?

Mr. RUBY. Well, I had a lot of competition—there was a new washateria opened up there on the street from me about a block away next to a supermarket and I was sort of in an isolated corner myself and also I was at that time engaged in extensive repair work and I tried to go more into the repair of washing machines and I thought it was taking a lot of my time and I wasn’t making any money there and in fact I was losing money, and I thought—why have something like that on your hands and I would rather devote my time to repair work.

Mr. HUBERT. And that’s what you have done?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And that’s what you are doing now?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; but I also since that time—I also purchased a little manufacturing business in Coppell, Tex., which of all days, I purchased it on November 20, 1963.

Mr. HUBERT. What kind of business is that?

Mr. RUBY. It was a little stuffed animal business and the name of the company was the Autographic Mascots that they use around these colleges and universities and high schools—all of these schools have little mascots, you know, and the purpose was to have these kids—these various classes—have their classmates autograph them as sort of a remembrance or souvenir of their school days.

Mr. HUBERT. Are you still operating that?

Mr. RUBY. No; we sold that—we just sold that recently—April the 15th this party took over complete possession of it.

Mr. HUBERT. Whom did you sell it to?

Mr. RUBY. To Mrs. M. Frances Cole, I believe her name is.

Mr. HUBERT. C-o-l-e (spelling)?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Is she operating it now?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, I understand that you loaned some money to Jack in 1955; is that correct?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right.

Mr. HUBERT. How much and under what circumstances?

Mr. RUBY. Well, he said he was having difficulty in paying his Federal excise taxes and I let him have $1,000, and then sometime later—that was probably in May or June of 1955 when I let him have the $1,000, and then sometime later—that was probably May or June when I let him have the $1,000 and later that summer, it may have been in July or August, I let him have $4,500, and he had some more difficulty with the Government on his Federal excise tax and he had to pay off these taxes or they would have padlocked his club—it was the Vegas Club.

Mr. HUBERT. When you made these loans to Jack, did you receive any evidence of the loan, such as a note?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir; I had him make out a bill of sale to me for the Vegas Club.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that recorded in any way?

Mr. RUBY. Well, I think I still have it at home—I think I still have it at home. I don’t remember whether it was recorded or not—the attorney made it out.

Mr. HUBERT. I understand that you had to file a legal proceeding against Jack in order to recover your money?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right.

Mr. HUBERT. A judgment for it?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that a contested suit—did you file suit against him?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. HUBERT. This bill of sale, was that sort of a security device or actual transaction of sale?

Mr. RUBY. It was an actual transaction of sale and also a security.

Mr. HUBERT. What you did—you sued on the note, I assume, that was involved; is that correct?

Mr. RUBY. No; we sued that I was the legal owner of the business and that he told me he would—in December he said he would purchase the club from me. He wasn’t satisfied with me as a partner and he said he was going to buy me out, but he failed to meet his financial promises and so I kept calling him and so I wasn’t getting any satisfaction and I hired an attorney. Mr. Harold I. Berman.

Mr. HUBERT. And then he filed suit on your behalf?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And he obtained a judgment?

Mr. RUBY. Right.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that a contested suit or did it go by default?

Mr. RUBY. It was contested—he had his attorney there, Mr. Klepak.

Mr. HUBERT. He actually went to trial?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And you won the case?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. And the result of the judgment was that you were declared to be the owner of the Vegas; is that it?

Mr. RUBY. Well, that Jack should—he agreed to pay me the amount of money he owed me, which at that time amounted to about $4,500. He had paid me some money.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that after you obtained the judgment that he agreed to pay you?

Mr. RUBY. Well, it was during the judgment—that’s the way we settled it in court.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, the case was compromised, was it?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And the compromise was that he agreed to pay you—what sum of money?

Mr. RUBY. $4,500—that was the balance that he owed me at the time—at that time.

Mr. HUBERT. Then didn’t he then execute a note to you or was that just simply part of the judgment?

Mr. RUBY. That was part of the judgment and we have a legal document showing that the judgment was entered and agreed upon and I think was signed by the judge, and I have that document at home. It’s still on file in the records building—it has never been removed.

Mr. HUBERT. Has the $4,500 been paid off?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. How much is yet due upon it?

Mr. RUBY. Oh, about $1,300 or so.

Mr. HUBERT. Was it to be paid off in installments or any period of time or just what was the arrangement or compromise made?

Mr. RUBY. I believe he gave me a thousand dollars in the Court that day and they had to take a hundred dollars off for his attorney—his attorney wanted a hundred dollars from that thousand dollars, and so I only received $900 and the rest was, I believe, to be paid off in $200 monthly installments.

Mr. HUBERT. So, that in any case there now remains a balance of $1,300 due on that?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever live in Youngstown, Ohio?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. During what period?

Mr. RUBY. From 1939 to 1941. I registered there for the draft.

Mr. HUBERT. What was your occupation there?

Mr. RUBY. I was what they call a siding applicator—you know—these siding manufacturers like Johns-Manville and Ruberoid and these various other siding manufacturers. I worked for a construction company and we secured contracts and I was one of their—what they call—shingle applicator.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the name of the company? Do you recall?

Mr. RUBY. The National Improvement Company.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you work with it only?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And that was for a period of 2 years?

Mr. RUBY. I think it was 3 years—1939, inclusive—1939 to 1941.

Mr. HUBERT. And then you went into the draft?

Mr. RUBY. And then I worked in Chicago for a few months and then I went and enlisted in the Navy in February 1942, and they turned me down because of my eyes, and I went to the draft board and tried to find out how soon my number was coming up and they took my name and address and it was within the next few days that they let me know that they wanted me to come down for an examination.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know Ralph Paul?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; very well.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you known him?

Mr. RUBY. Well, practically since I have been in Dallas—since 1955, I would say.

Mr. HUBERT. How did you meet him?

Mr. RUBY. Through Jack at the Vegas Club.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you ever in partnerships with him yourself?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir—I forgot to mention that. I just recall that now. We were in an ice cream business venture.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the name of that; do you know?

Mr. RUBY. I think it was the Rainbow Ice Cream Palace.

Mr. HUBERT. Where was it located?

Mr. RUBY. In Wynnewood Shopping Center.

Mr. HUBERT. What happened to that venture?

Mr. RUBY. It just wasn’t successful.

Mr. HUBERT. How long did it last?

Mr. RUBY. Well, let’s see—about 4 months I believe—March, April, May, and June—I think it only lasted 4 months.

Mr. HUBERT. Have you had any other business arrangements or enterprises with Paul?

Mr. RUBY. No—but I was in another business with a fellow named Robert Eisman.

Mr. HUBERT. I-s-m-a-n [spelling]?

Mr. RUBY. No—[spelling] E-i-s-m-a-n.

Mr. HUBERT. What was that business?

Mr. RUBY. Washateria—we were partners in a coin-operated business—washateria at the time—two of them.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the name of this?

Mr. RUBY. One was the—what was the name on it—it was on 1713 South Ervay Street.

Mr. HUBERT. That was different from the other two you have mentioned here?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. How long did that arrangement last?

Mr. RUBY. Oh, about 3 years.

Mr. HUBERT. When was it dissolved?

Mr. RUBY. This is 1964—that must have been in March 1960, or 1961.

Mr. HUBERT. Is this man Eisman still in Dallas?

Mr. RUBY. No; he’s living in Fort Worth at the present time—he is in the washateria—not washateria, but coin-operated washing machines at the present time.

Mr. HUBERT. What caused you to dissolve that arrangement with Mr. Eisman?

Mr. RUBY. We had an awful lot of vandalism there in that neighborhood. They cut down water hoses and they would break into the machines and there was just too much vandalism to be profitable.

Mr. HUBERT. Have you ever been charged or convicted of any felonies?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. What has been your relationship with Jack since you came to live in Dallas?

Mr. RUBY. How do you mean that?

Mr. HUBERT. Well, as brothers—do you visit socially often—you have told us about some of the financial matters between you and I was wondering what was the personal relationship between you?

Mr. RUBY. Well, outside of that difference we had about the club, he used to come over and visit us for the Jewish holidays and sometimes we would invite him over for an evening to dinner.

Mr. HUBERT. On the average, how often did you see him a year, for instance?

Mr. RUBY. Well, I would see him, oh, maybe anywhere from three to six times a year.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you have other contacts with him by phone or otherwise?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; we talked to him on the phone on different occasions. There was nothing important—I mean—just about maybe something about his family or how he was doing or inquire about the children.

Mr. HUBERT. What about your relationship with his sister, Mrs. Eva Grant?

Mr. RUBY. Well, I have seen her more often and we are off and on like brothers and sisters and we argue at different times and maybe in a week or so we’ll forget about it and make up. She has her own views on things.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you have occasion to see Jack during the period September 25 through November 24, 1963?

Mr. RUBY. September—you say?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. RUBY. Yes—September 25, yes, I believe I did. I may have seen him at the club one night and then on one occasion, I remember it was the week of Halloween, because the man I was working for went out of town and Jack called me—he called me—I don’t know whether he called me or my wife called me, and wanted me to go to Fort Worth with him to look at this twistboard factory which he was handling as a distributor at that time and I wasn’t too anxious to go, but he insisted and he said maybe if that distributing business went all right, he would like me to become interested in that.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you go with him then?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; I did. I had some work but I thought I could make it up either later in the day or the following day—just repairing washing machines. I was working for a man that had three washaterias at the time and I took a ride with him to Fort Worth to see this manufacturing plant.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you enter into the venture with Jack?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know to what extent he did?

Mr. RUBY. No; he told me that he was a distributor for these boards and he was thinking maybe of going into the manufacture of them.

Mr. HUBERT. When did he tell you that?

Mr. RUBY. At that time.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know whether your brother Earl had any interest in it?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir; I don’t.

Mr. HUBERT. You don’t know to this moment whether he does?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Jack never mentioned that Earl might be interested?

Mr. RUBY. No—no; he never mentioned one way or the other whether Earl would be interested.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you recall whether you had any contact whatsoever with Jack during the periods, say, from the 16th of November through the 24th of November—that would be about the week before the President died until Oswald was shot?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; I think he called me on the phone a few times and wanted me to go visit my sister Eva in the hospital.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you go?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir; I didn’t.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, do you remember any other contacts between you and Jack other than the one you just mentioned concerning visiting your sister in the hospital?

Mr. RUBY. Well, he may have called me twice on the phone—I didn’t see him during that period. The last time I saw him was the week of Halloween—it was on a Wednesday, I believe.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, then, the last time you saw him was before Oswald was shot?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. That was approximately a month or 4 weeks before Oswald was shot?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right; before.

Mr. HUBERT. And you recall at least one telephone conversation which you have just made reference to about visiting your sister in the hospital?

Mr. RUBY. Yes—he was very upset about me not going. I promised him I would go and then I happened to be very busy working for this washateria owner and I thought it was more important I stay at my job and maybe go at night, but he became very upset about me not going and sort of became abusive.

Mr. HUBERT. That was all over the phone?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he contact you after the President was shot?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir—no, he didn’t contact me.

Mr. HUBERT. Did your sister do so?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, between November 22d and the time Oswald was shot, you had no communication of any sort whatsoever with either your sister, Eva Grant, or your brother, Jack Ruby; is that right?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you aware of his reaction to the President’s death during the period November 22 through November 24?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir; I had no idea. I was busy at the time—I was working for this man, Mr. Dean, and I also was doing repair work at night and I was working pretty late at night and I would get home late and get up early in the morning and had to be at the job at 8 and so my days and nights were fully occupied at that time and previous to that, too.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you have stated in one of these statements that Mr. Paul said he was going to give you 50 percent of the stock of the S & R Corp.; did he say why he was going to do that?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir; that was after Judge Sterrett denied an application for a new license and he wanted to turn his 50 percent over to me so that I should have the obligations of the club, which I wasn’t in favor of because I didn’t have the financial backing to take it over. I have never received that 50 percent.

Mr. HUBERT. Why did he want to give it to you?

Mr. RUBY. So that he wouldn’t have to assume any financial responsibilities incurred by the corporation.

Mr. HUBERT. And you refused it?

Mr. RUBY. I didn’t refuse him at the time, but I didn’t agree one way or the other, but I suggested my sister Eva take over the 50 percent of the corporation.

Mr. HUBERT. Were any shares of stock ever delivered to you?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir; not any shares.

Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Burleson, do you have any questions you would like to ask of Mr. Ruby?

Mr. BURLESON. Yes. First, Sam, have you, since this incident occurred back on November 24, 1963, had an occasion to have any threats on your life, your well-being, your future or that of your children, or your family?

Mr. RUBY. Well, there was one man that called and said he was a friend of Jack’s and he wanted to come over and he said that he was from up North—I believe he was from Minnesota and he had come down here to look for a job—he wanted to get a job and he was a friend of Jack’s and it didn’t sound sensible or logical and he had talked to my wife, and we didn’t give him our address or any other information and he said he wanted to talk to Jack.

Mr. BURLESON. But you have had no direct threats?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. When was this occurrence?

Mr. RUBY. The conversation—well, my wife would know more about that, I believe, since she talked to him—I believe it was in December.

Mr. HUBERT. You have never heard any more from this individual?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. BURLESON. Now, you have been visiting Jack recently, have you not, in jail?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us what you found Jack’s condition to be since the verdict and at the present time?

Mr. RUBY. Well, to be frank with you, I always thought there was something odd about Jack, but I thought he was just the type of a person that’s hard to get along with and that was before—years ago—but since I have been visiting him lately, his mental condition has deteriorated very rapidly. He keeps saying that people are being killed in the streets and he hears screams in the building of people being slaughtered.

Mr. BURLESON. Are these just people or are these Jewish people?

Mr. RUBY. Well, he says, “People,” and then he says “Jewish people” and he always imagines that Earl is killed and his children’s bodies are being dismembered.

Mr. HUBERT. Does he say anything about Eva?

Mr. RUBY. No; he tells me to leave and sell my home and get out of Dallas. He says that the police hate him here.

Mr. HUBERT. Does he tell you to do anything as far as self-destruction is concerned?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; he has done that quite a few times. He says he is going to take his life and I’ve tried to talk him out of it, and tell him everything will be all right.

Mr. HUBERT. He said he was going to take his own life?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; and I have never heard him talk like that before.

Mr. BURLESON. Does he appear to be normal to you?

Mr. RUBY. No; he has that—I don’t know how to describe his look, but he has sort of a look of a person that is being tortured or tormented by something and I don’t know what you would call it, but it is sort of a—he has that look in his face of not seeing you, like he is looking—staring at you but not seeing you.

Mr. HUBERT. Does he recognize you?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; he does.

Mr. HUBERT. When did you last see him?

Mr. RUBY. Last Sunday.

Mr. HUBERT. How many times since his conviction have you seen him prior to last Sunday?

Mr. RUBY. Well, I have seen him at least once a week.

Mr. HUBERT. And this condition that you have described that he has, did it exist right after the conviction or was it a progressive matter?

Mr. RUBY. Well, it has been progressive and during the course of the bond hearing and the change of venue and the jurors and the trial itself—he didn’t seem to communicate with me very much. He didn’t have anything to say to me, so to speak, like he didn’t have all of his faculties, you might say.

Mr. BURLESON. Now, let me ask you—do you know anything about the financial situation of the so-called defense fund—the money that has come in for the defense of Jack Ruby, have you had anything to do with it yourself?

Mr. RUBY. No; I had nothing to do with it, but I understand they sold a story. Do you want to know about that?

Mr. BURLESON. Well, we know about that. That’s the newspaper story that this Woodfield fellow bought?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. BURLESON. Have you personally received any money from any source from persons who have contributed it to you to use in the defense fund?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You have not received even any money in the mail; is that right?

Mr. RUBY. Not one penny.

Mr. BURLESON. And no one has given you any to be utilized for the defense?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. BURLESON. Have you contributed any of your own, other than the expense that you have been out personally during the trial and things of that nature, have you contributed any?

Mr. RUBY. No, sir.

Mr. BURLESON. And have you heard from any members of the family who are maybe more aware of it than you are that many large sums have come in, other than this one for the sale of the news story?

Mr. RUBY. Yes: I heard that one come in from one of Jack’s friends in Chicago.

Mr. BURLESON. Is that the $250?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Who was the friend, do you know?

Mr. RUBY. Kelman, I think his name is Joe Kelman.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know that man?

Mr. RUBY. Not personally; I met his brother years ago. His brother was a personal friend of Jack’s, Morris Kelman, and they are, I believe, in the auto windshield glass manufacturing business in Chicago.

Mr. HUBERT. Then, I believe there was another check of some sum from Walter Winchell?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know how much that was?

Mr. RUBY. My sister Eva said it was for $100.

Mr. BURLESON. You were reported as saying to some news media that there was several thousand dollars?

Mr. RUBY. I didn’t say that. I said it was very generous—I didn’t give any amount. I didn’t even say whether it was a dollar or what amount it was.

Mr. BURLESON. Do you know of any other sums of money that may have come in, of any substantial sum?

Mr. RUBY. No; I don’t.

Mr. BURLESON. That’s all I have. I need to go off the record for a moment. I need to talk to Mr. Ruby on a matter that we had not completely discussed.

Mr. HUBERT. All right. Would you like to leave the room for your conference?

Mr. BURLESON. Yes; please.

(At this point counsel Burleson and the witness, Sam Ruby, left the conference room for approximately 10 minutes, returned thereto, and the proceedings of Mr. Ruby’s deposition continued as follows.)

Mr. BURLESON. I would like to go back on the record and ask you, Mr. Ruby, is there anything you would like to bring out—anything that you would like to tell Mr. Hubert here on any version of the case, either something we have already talked about, to amplify, explain that, or either something new—some new area that you feel like that he would be interested in?

Mr. RUBY. Well, I don’t know, except that I talked to some of the people from the Liquor Commission, the Texas State Liquor Commission, and they think that he may have felt sorry for the Tippit family as well as the Kennedy family, and he always took it personally when a police officer was killed. I mean, he made it his business to contribute something financially when an officer was killed.

Mr. HUBERT. Who told you that?

Mr. RUBY. Well, they are up at the Liquor Commission in Oak Cliff—I don’t think I know that just now.

Mr. BURLESON. That would be the Liquor Control Board—some of the personnel there?

Mr. RUBY. I believe that’s it.

Mr. BURLESON. Do you know their names?

Mr. RUBY. I believe one was Johnny Cranks.

Mr. HUBERT. When was this told to you?

Mr. RUBY. Well, they called me up there to inquire whether I was a member of the corporation.

Mr. HUBERT. And then they volunteered their opinion as to what his motivation was?

Mr. RUBY. Yes; that was what they thought and I talked to Jack a few times at the county jail and he says he felt very sorry for the Kennedy family.

Mr. BURLESON. Did Jack ever tell you why he shot Oswald?

Mr. RUBY. No; he never mentioned his name to me. He never mentioned his name.

Mr. BURLESON. You were in the service?

Mr. RUBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURLESON. I know one of Jack’s brothers was in the intelligence?

Mr. RUBY. I was in the Army intelligence.

Mr. BURLESON. You were in the Army intelligence—for how long?

Mr. RUBY. Well, we were stationed at Langley Field in 1942 and 1943 and a Captain Southern swore me in as an agent, to keep an eye on Communists and Nazi saboteurs and to see whether anybody was leaving subversive literature around for the boys to read, and if I did see anybody acting suspicious to write a letter into a certain box number in Newport News, Va., which was about 20 miles away from Langley Field, and have a general theme, in fact, he says he checked up on my family history and all of the members of the family, and to write just like I am writing to my family, in fact he mentioned my brother Jack and write a letter like you are writing, “Dear Brother Jack: Last night we went to town and we had a few beers and we went to a movie and had a few dances and Pvt. John Smith has been acting kind of queer lately,” and he said somewhere in the letter mention that and they would take care of it from then on, and I had to sign my name Johnny Newman.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the captain’s first name; do you recall?

Mr. RUBY. I don’t recall his first name, but his name was Southern.

Mr. HUBERT. How do you spell it?

Mr. RUBY. S-o-u-t-h-e-r-n [spelling].

Mr. HUBERT. And he was part of what organization?

Mr. RUBY. The Army Air Force—it was the Third Army Air Force based at Langley Field, Va.

Mr. HUBERT. But what was the specific organization in which he was in?

Mr. RUBY. Well, our outfit was called the Tenth Tow Target. They used to tow targets and train pilots at the same time for these anti-aircraft guns, to fire these guns behind the planes.

Mr. HUBERT. All right.

Mr. BURLESON. Do you have anything else you want to bring out on any subject or matter of any nature that you think either the Commission or Mr. Hubert would be interested in?

Mr. RUBY. Well, all I know is that Jack had a very deep feeling about this anti-Semitism in this country and, of course, with the massacre of the 6 million Jews in Germany, and he had that on his mind quite a bit, and he was the most religious of the boys in the family. The brothers went to say prayers for my dad after he passed away for a full year, which is customary, of course, we went for a few months—the other brothers, but Jack is the one that went for a full year, and he observed going to the synagogue more regularly than the other brothers did.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he, in fact, go to the synagogue regularly, do you know?

Mr. RUBY. Well, all I can say is that he went more regularly than the other brothers.

Mr. HUBERT. How do you know that?

Mr. RUBY. Well, he used to call from there or when he would be talking, he would say he was going to the synagogue and he was coming from there, and in the conversation he would say he talked to the rabbi and he would call and say he was going there and we would invite him over for dinner or he would go early in the morning and we would invite him over for a late breakfast.

Mr. BURLESON. Do you think of anything else you want to develop or bring out?

Mr. RUBY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir. Now, there has never been, Mr. Ruby, any interview between you and me other than what took place in this room since this deposition began, is that correct?

Mr. RUBY. That’s right, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. So that all that has ever passed between you and me has been recorded in this room—right?

Mr. RUBY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much. I’m glad to see you, Mr. Ruby, and I’m glad you came down.

Mr. RUBY. Thank you.

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Ruby, and I will see you outside in just a second.

TESTIMONY OF JACK L. RUBY

The testimony of Jack L. Ruby was taken at 11 a.m., on July 18, 1964, at the Dallas County Jail, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission. Present were: Bell P. Herndon and W. James Wood, special agents of the FBI; Clayton Fowler and Joe H. Tonahill, counsel for Jack Ruby; William F. Alexander, assistant district attorney for Dallas County, Tex.; Allan L. Sweatt, chief criminal deputy for Dallas County, Tex.; E. L. Holman, chief jailer; and Dr. William Robert Beavers, observer.

Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that present at this time are Mr. Clayton Fowler, chief counsel for Jack Ruby; Mr. Joe H. Tonahill, cocounsel for Jack Ruby; Mr. William F. Alexander, assistant district attorney for Dallas County, Tex.; Mr. Allan L. Sweatt, chief criminal deputy and polygraph operator for Dallas County, Tex.; Mr. Bell P. Herndon, the polygraph operator and special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Mr. W. James Wood, special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Odell Oliver, court reporter; and Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

We have discussed preliminarily the procedure to be followed on the polygraph examination, where those currently present may remain while the polygraph operators, Mr. Herndon and Mr. Wood, explain the questions to Mr. Ruby, and then everyone would leave except the operators, Messrs. Herndon and Wood, the court reporter and I, and the question now subject to being resolved is the issue of whether anyone will be present from the sheriff’s office.

As you know, the President’s Commission is trying to bring its work to a close and the Chief Justice promised a polygraph test and that was 6 weeks ago tomorrow. There have been a lot of things we have had to work out, and I think it all ought to be on the record. I would want to give everyone an opportunity to put any request right on the record in any way you want; and, of course, I think that all your objections and comments about this proceeding should go on the record. After you have so stated, I will state responsively the Commission’s position on these proceedings.

I will say further that there is no closed mind on these issues and that they will have to be weighed and evaluated by the members of the Commission themselves.

Mr. FOWLER. Let me first suggest then—why don’t I discuss this with Jack?

Mr. SPECTER. That’s fine.

Mr. FOWLER. And then Jack may say whether he wants to go ahead with this and how I have advised him, and that he has on numerous occasions requested it, and I will tell him that the Chief Justice promised to give it to him and they are here ready to do it, which I am going to tell him, and if he insists on it, I can’t and won’t try to hold him back.

Mr. TONAHILL. That’s a good suggestion.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine; and if he has changed his mind for any reason, I will just want to have it on the record, and that will conclude the issue, so far as the Commission is concerned.

Mr. FOWLER. Let’s see—he’s on what floor?

Mr. TONAHILL. 6-M.

Mr. FOWLER. Let me step down and chat with him for just a few minutes.

Mr. TONAHILL. Do you want me to go with you?

Mr. FOWLER. I may need you later.

Mr. SPECTER. Let the record show that Mr. Fowler left the room, and in approximately 5 minutes thereafter, returned to the room from his conference with Mr. Ruby.

Mr. FOWLER. He says he’s going to take this test regardless of his lawyers, and he says, “By God, I’m going to take the test.”

Mr. TONAHILL. Well, you know the law is in his favor and that he is presumed to be sane, and there can’t be anybody speak for him but himself.

Mr. FOWLER. I have advised him, and I have read this letter to him, and I have explained all of this to him when I talked to him.

Mr. TONAHILL. If he wouldn’t take it now——

Mr. FOWLER. Well, I won’t want to go back there then.

Mr. TONAHILL. If he ever gets his hands on you, they’ll let him have it.

Mr. SPECTER (addressing the court reporter). I hope you have had a chance to put these observations on the record.

Mr. FOWLER. I also want this further put into the record as to how many requests, in addition to this one, that were made for this test.

Mr. SPECTER. We would be willing to accede to that request, and as you know, we have been trying to set this up for a long while. The circumstances of the Commission’s timetable require us to proceed today; that is, either proceed or find out from Mr. Ruby that we would not ever proceed along this line. I have requested Sheriff Decker to have a physician standing by so that he may protect, to the fullest extent possible, Mr. Ruby’s physical condition if he needs medical attention. As to your first request for Dr. Tanay of Detroit to be present, the Commission would permit that. But since Dr. Tanay is not now present, there is no way to implement that. We have no objection to having any other doctor here who can be present here today.

With respect to request No. 2 made during our preliminary discussion, that the results of the tests be held confidential, the Commission has heretofore on other questions refused to make any advance commitment because of the nature of its responsibility to make the final decision on disclosing or not disclosing what it concludes is in the public interest. Or stated differently, the Commission just won’t be committed. The results of this examination will not be disclosed to anyone until the Commission itself has reviewed the results and makes a decision, bearing many factors in mind, including your request, to have the information remain confidential.

Mr. FOWLER. All right; now in the past, of course we feel this—that as to the other information that we assumed would be confidential and would not be released to the press, this of course has been done, and we strenuously request that this matter not be released to the press.

(At this point Sheriff Decker entered the room.)

Mr. DECKER (addressing Mr. Fowler). Jim Kerr caught you making a 50-yard dash and they are circling around downstairs and Jim Kerr is just going in circles wanting to know what Clayton Fowler is doing up in the jail.

(At this point Sheriff Decker left the room.)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Fowler, as to your last statement, I don’t know what you are referring to specifically, and without taking it up in terms of specific items, I couldn’t comment about it, and I don’t know that it would be really useful to go into it at this time. The material given to the Commission, where the Commission says it will be kept confidential, to the best of my knowledge, has always been honored. There are in these proceedings many chains and it is not possible in some cases to pinpoint responsibility, but the Chief Justice and the Commission have honored every commitment they have made heretofore. If they feel in their judgment—of course they have the paramount responsibility for the entire investigation—that the results of this proceeding ought to be kept secret, you may be assured that it will be implemented to the fullest extent possible.

Mr. FOWLER. Well, of course, our request is that this matter be held strictly confidential because it is being given at the request of the Commission and for the benefit of the Commission, and we feel that the Commission and only the Commission should have this information, and before any of it is released for public consumption or private consumption, No. 1, the sheriff’s office, the district attorney’s office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any other agency of the Government outside the Warren Commission—that we be told that this is going to be done.

Mr. SPECTER. That request, I think, can be honored in that you will be notified in advance of any publication, that the Commission will make a publication if in fact it ultimately decides to make such a publication. Now, there is one facet of this matter which is difficult to control and that is the fact itself that a polygraph examination is being administered. I do not know at this time what circulation has been given to this fact, if any, by any of the people who are involved, since it has touched many bases among many parties in this proceeding. That fact itself may have already been disclosed, but with respect to the results of this examination, I propose to keep those within the custody of the Commission through the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its operators, who are conducting this test, and their report will be made available only to the Commission until the Commission decides whether it should be made public.

Mr. FOWLER. All right. Now then, I would like for this record to also show that this letter from Mr. Gordon Shanklin has been handed to you and that you are fully appraised of what this letter contains, and I want the record to further show that on this date (1:05 p.m.), not later than 10 minutes ago, I talked with Jack Ruby. I read the letter to him. I explained it to him to the best of my ability. I also advised him that the family legal advisor, Mr. Sol Dann, an attorney of Detroit, had made these requests, and that following these requests that I as Jack Ruby’s attorney advised him not to take the test, and that if he did so he would be doing it against the advice of his attorney, against the advice of his family advisor’s attorney, and against the advice of the family, and that notwithstanding this, Jack said that he had requested this before either Mr. Sol Dann or myself came into this case as attorneys, and that Chief Justice Warren had promised that he would give him this test, and that regardless of what Mr. Dann’s wishes would be, together with his entire family and together with his attorneys of record, that he insisted on this test, but that a further proceeding of it would be against the advice of his lawyers, and at this time we do respectfully request that the Commission not disclose any of the questions that will be submitted to Jack Ruby to any other person other than the operators, the investigator for the Warren Commission, and his attorneys present, Mr. Joe Tonahill and Clayton Fowler; and that more specifically that these questions not be given to anyone connected with the Dallas Sheriff’s Office, the Dallas Agency of the Bureau of Investigation, the Dallas District Attorney’s Office, and more specifically, Mr. Bill Alexander, who is present in the room at this time and representing the district attorney’s office, and Mr. Allan Sweatt, who is present in the room and representing the Dallas Sheriff’s Office. Anything else, Joe?

Mr. TONAHILL. I might go back on a little background whenever you finish.

Mr. FOWLER. I wish you would.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the notation for the record concerning the contents of the letter from Mr. Gordon Shanklin, special agent in charge of the FBI office here in Dallas, that identical information has been conveyed through the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the Commission. Having considered those requests and those factors, the general counsel has instructed me to proceed to have this polygraph taken today if Mr. Jack Ruby wants to have this polygraph taken in accordance with his prior request to the Commission on June 7, 1964, and the commitment given by the Commission through the Chief Justice that such a polygraph examination would be given. With respect to the request that none of the questions be made available to anybody from the Dallas Police Department or the Dallas District Attorney’s Office or the Dallas Sheriff’s Office, the Commission’s position on that is that if the questions are to be submitted in advance to the counsel for the defendant, that there is equal standing on the part of the State to have similar treatment.

Previously, I outlined for you the procedure that we proposed to adopt during the course of this polygraph examination, to wit; having the people present in the room who are here at the present time, which includes Mr. Clayton Fowler and Mr. Joe Tonahill, representing Mr. Ruby; Mr. William F. Alexander, representing the Dallas District Attorney’s office; Mr. Allan L. Sweatt, chief criminal deputy of the Dallas Sheriff’s office; Mr. Bell P. Herndon, special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Mr. W. James Wood, special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who are going to administer the polygraph examination.

The questions to be asked of Mr. Ruby at the time of administration of the examination would be set forth to Mr. Ruby so that he would understand them fully; and with the other people present, it would be known what questions were going to be asked of Mr. Ruby in advance of the actual asking.

Then, it was the Commission’s view that everybody should leave the room except for the two special agents of the FBI who would be administering the test, the court reporter and me, so that the minimum number of people would be present.

I have conveyed that request to Sheriff Decker and he has insisted that a member of his staff be present as custodian of the body of Jack Ruby, since he has that responsibility. It is not yet determined who that will be, but the Commission proposes to proceed on the administration of the polygraph test under those circumstances, with the only open question being the identity, if anyone, of the representative of the sheriff who has charge of the custody of the body of the defendant here or Jack Ruby, since he is not a defendant in this proceeding, actually.

Mr. TONAHILL. I should like to say as one of Jack Ruby’s defense counsel along with Chief Defense Counsel Clayton Fowler, that when I entered the defense of Jack Ruby back in December of 1963, with Mr. Belli, at that time we insisted before undertaking his defense that he agree to a polygraph test and truth serum test or any other scientific test that would reflect whether or not there was a connection between him and Lee Harvey Oswald or in any respect a conspiracy. He agreed and insisted at that time that there was no such conspiracy. He did not know Lee Harvey Oswald and there was no connection between them and that he would undertake any type of a scientific test that we could have made available for him. Jack Ruby has insisted on those tests ever since.

We have from time to time proposed to the FBI through Mr. Gordon Shanklin and others, that a lie detector test be given Mr. Ruby. We have filed motions to obtain scientific tests. Mr. Ruby has insisted on these tests very strenuously and has felt that I have stood in the way of him obtaining them.

I was present during the Warren Commission deposition of Jack Ruby along with Mr. Jim Bowie of the district attorney’s office some 6 weeks ago when Chief Justice Earl Warren on numerous occasions responded to Jack Ruby that he had it in his power to make available to him some day in the future a polygraph test and would do so at Mr. Ruby’s request.

Now it has come down that Chief Justice Earl Warren and the Warren Commission are now in the process of keeping faith with their promise to Mr. Ruby.

Mr. Fowler and I have talked with the various psychiatrists, Drs. Tanay, West, and Beavers, each of whom feels that because Jack Ruby is of unsound mind and mentally ill, this polygraph test is a mistake and would produce nothing by way of an accurate result of deception, truth, or conclusiveness in any regard and feel that it should not be made.

As cocounsel with Mr. Fowler. I yield to his position here and concur with him, but as a personal individual, very close and very knowledgeable of the entire history of this polygraph demand on the part of Ruby, it is my personal view that even though he is of unsound mind, does not know right from wrong, is mentally ill, and his psychiatrists are opposed to it, unless he is given the polygraph test there will never be any satisfaction in any respect. His condition might even grow worse without it, and in the interest of satisfying everyone concerned, the State, the Nation, and the world—that in all probability if this polygraph test is not given, there will be left hanging in the clouds certain doubts as to whether there was a conspiracy between Ruby and others or Oswald, or whether they knew each other, despite the fact that his mental condition may be such that it will not demonstrate any effective results.

Nevertheless my personal view is that it might be well to go forward with it, and certainly if all appellate efforts are exhausted on behalf of Jack Ruby and his case is affirmed all the way up, which I feel that it won’t be; if his family and Jack Ruby should refuse to undergo a polygraph test, certainly the Board of Pardons and Parole may look with disfavor upon that fact and infer possible premeditation on his part in the shooting of Oswald or a possible conspiracy and might rule against him in granting clemency, in the event it ever reached that stage. And, irrespective of whether an effective polygraph test can be run of this man at this time in his present mental state or not, I personally feel that an effort should be made to do it.

Mr. SPECTER. For the record I want to add that requests have been received by the Commission, requests made on behalf of Mr. Ruby, to have a polygraph test, prior to the time the Commission heard his testimony on June 7 of this year, and that the Commission has not initiated any effort whatsoever to have a polygraph test taken but is only conducting these proceedings today to make available to Mr. Ruby this examination if he wishes to have it at this time, in accordance with the promise made by the Commission through the Chief Justice on June 7.

I want to be emphatic and clear on this question that we do not now and have never asked for or insisted on a polygraph examination. If Mr. Ruby does not want to have such an examination taken, that is acceptable to the President’s Commission on the Assassination. As we discussed informally before we started a record proceeding, in this event we are willing to have anything put on the record that Mr. Fowler or Mr. Tonahill wish to place on the record as his attorneys; and of course, we do not wish to, have not, and will not interfere in any way with your representation of Mr. Ruby, as his counsel, so that he may take your advice and proceed in accordance with your advice.

If you wish to put on the record any medical evidence, I am authorized to have that done here today or at a later date. Mr. Tonahill and I discussed this matter by telephone last Wednesday and I indicated to him at that time that the Commission was willing to have such evidence placed on the record as an aid to their evaluation of whether to place any credence in the tests which are going to be administered.