Chapter XXXIX: Front Matter (39)

Mr. JOHNSTON. I wish I could answer that.

Mr. HUBERT. I gather from what you say that there must have been nearly a hundred people in that room?

Mr. JOHNSTON. There was every bit of a hundred people in that room.

Mr. HUBERT. Were the policemen armed?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; all of the officers as far as I know, other than the plainclothesmen--the uniformed officers all had their sidearms on. I’m sure the majority of the detectives had their sidearms on.

Mr. HUBERT. When you first went in, was the room empty or were there people in the room?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; because the sequence of this was that after Oswald was charged, Chief Curry, Captain Fritz, Henry Wade, and myself went to the door--Captain Fritz was the first to speak and he advised the press that we were going to move to the detail room or the assembly room, that Oswald had been charged with the murder of President Kennedy, and that they could go to the detail room in the basement, and that Chief Curry would then give them instructions, and then Chief Curry spoke to them and then Mr. Wade spoke to them, because there were several members of the press there that wanted a statement from Henry Wade before they moved away from that door. Then the hall was vacated, I would say, to the extent that there were only maybe 15 or 20 people left standing in that hall.

Mr. HUBERT. Everybody went downstairs?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Everyone went downstairs, and in order to let you know this, and I’m sure that others have stated this--it was almost a human impossibility to get down the hall to the homicide office. They finally had to bring uniformed officers in and stationed two uniformed officers at each door of the forgery bureau, the homicide bureau, the auto theft bureau, and the burglary and theft bureau so that people could be maneuvered down there to get in and out of these offices for other routine business. That’s how packed it was with newspaper people in that hall.

Mr. HUBERT. There were television cameras there too?

Mr. JOHNSTON. They had two live television cameras set up there, they had one of these portable tape deals with a sound system on it and everything, right in front of the door.

Mr. HUBERT. So what happened is that after it was announced that there would be this interview granted, they all went down to the room?

Mr. JOHNSTON. They went downstairs to the room, and when I arrived there, I would say about 11:35 or 11:40, somewhere right along in there, the room was nearly full at that time with newspaper media.

Mr. HUBERT. So you don’t know whether they observed any security precautions in checking people?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; they did not check me when I went through the door.

Mr. HUBERT. But you went in with Curry?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You went in alone?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; I went in alone.

Mr. HUBERT. There was no one at the door checking?

Mr. JOHNSTON. There was some uniformed officers there. Now, I’ll say this in all fairness to them--maybe some of them knew me, I don’t remember, because I can’t recall the officers names that were out there.

Mr. HUBERT. You had no identification on you?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. Of course, I’ve been an officer here a long time and also 6 years as justice of the peace.

Mr. HUBERT. You were a police officer prior to that time?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Nine and a half years as deputy sheriff of Dallas County.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us what pressures, if any were exerted by the press on Chief Curry to grant this interview? Did you hear them say anything or murmur or do anything at all?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; but as far as trying to tell you what any of them said verbatim--this was the main thing----

Mr. HUBERT. I don’t mean verbatim, I just want to see if I can get the atmosphere of it.

Mr. JOHNSTON. There were many remarks made. Each time any one of us would go out the door from the homicide bureau, “When are we going to see Oswald? When are you going to let us talk to him?” Yet, Oswald was taken in and out of that room some five or six times while I was there. He was taken to the restroom. He was taken to get a drink of water.

Mr. HUBERT. When that was done with him, did he have to pass through this crowded area?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; those newspaper people--he certainly did.

Mr. HUBERT. Did they make any remarks to him or ask him questions?

Mr. JOHNSTON. They were asking questions--yes, sir; “Did you do it? Did they get the gun? Was that your gun?” Everything imaginable--that’s what your newspaper people were calling to him as he would go out of there. Every time I would leave to get a drink or get a cup of coffee or anything, it was the same thing. “What’s happened? Tell us what’s going on? Has he said anything? Has he admitted anything?”

Mr. HUBERT. Was there real pressure brought in the sense that the press was being denied any rights or that they thought that Chief Curry was curbing their rights as press people?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I think maybe to a degree some of the press might have thought they were being curbed, because they were not being allowed into the homicide office. It is a small office. It consists of an entrance office, the lieutenant’s office and the captain’s office, and an interrogation room, and a small office with a detective’s desk. There were some 25 or 30 officials that were in this office and it was pretty crowded. You couldn’t have let the press in. I think personally that pressures were put on Chief Curry by the news media.

Mr. HUBERT. In what way? Do you remember anything significant along that line?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, I think the chief bent over backwards to them, giving them every opportunity he could within reason to allow them to get their stories and to get their pictures and to get their live television. They even moved a live camera down to the detail room or the assembly room.

Mr. HUBERT. Was it used there?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; it was in operation when I walked in that room.

Mr. HUBERT. It was televised?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir. Now, whether they taped it, whether it was live at that point--they had a live camera there set up.

Mr. HUBERT. In the room?

Mr. JOHNSTON. In the room--just inside the doorway of the assembly room, because you had to step over the cables to it to get into the assembly room.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you ever hear any such remarks like this one, “Well, we knew what Oswald looked like a few hours ago, but since he’s been in the hands of the Dallas police several hours, we don’t know what he looks like now.”

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Or some side remarks like that?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I saw Oswald the first time and I imagine it was around 6 o’clock, and I was in Captain Fritz’ office with him at this arraignment. I have now seen pictures--the first pictures that were made of him. I have seen him there and seeing him during that evening and early the next morning, I saw absolutely no change other than maybe a little tiredness--no physical change in his appearances.

Mr. HUBERT. I did not mean to infer at all, let me get that straight, that any force was used.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes; I understand. I know what you mean.

Mr. HUBERT. But--I was saying to you that we have some information that the press, in an effort to get an interview, started making such accusations?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I did not hear any of these.

Mr. HUBERT. You did not?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. I’ll say this again in all fairness to the officers that were involved in this thing, with knowing the seriousness of this incident, the international importance of it--that Chief Curry and his subordinate officers made every effort to allow Lee Harvey Oswald to be seen by the press--to see that the man was not being physically abused, that he wasn’t being tortured in any way. I saw none of it personally myself. That would have been out of the realm of reasonableness. He was spoken to in a normal, calm voice by the officers who spoke to him, and I just can’t see it any other way except that Chief Curry tried every way he could, with the national and international importance of this thing, to allow the press to make its coverage of it.

Mr. HUBERT. You never saw any indication of maltreatment of Oswald at all?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; none whatsoever in the period of some 7 or 8 hours that I was connected with it.

Mr. HUBERT. Oswald made no such accusations in your presence?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. As I say, the only thing he said was when he was brought in for the arraignment on President Kennedy, and he says to me, “Is this the trial?” I said, “No, sir; I have to arraign you again on another offense.” And, there was some seven or eight officer witnesses to that arraignment and an assistant district attorney, and that assistant district attorney at that time was Mr. Maurice Harrell [spelling] H-a-r-r-e-l-l.

Mr. HUBERT. I believe that is all, sir. I’m obliged to ask you these questions to end it up: I don’t think that we have had any conversation that has been off the record?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Nor any conversation prior to the beginning of this deposition?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. So that all that has passed between us has been recorded?

Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming down.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I hope that some of it might help shed a little light.

Mr. HUBERT. I’m sure it will. I’m sure they have copies of the affidavits?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; I’m sure they have. Those were turned over to the FBI, however, no one from the Commission has ever asked for those.

Mr. HUBERT. Could we make copies of those affidavits?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Then, I will mark the copies for identification. Mr. Johnston, you will furnish for me certified copies--you have shown me the originals of the affidavits, F-153, F-154 and F-155. We are going to have photostatic copies made of those. The originals will be returned to you, and when the photostatic copies are brought back to me, I will mark them for identification as follows, to wit: F-153 will be Exhibit No. 3 of the deposition of David L. Johnston, F-154 will be Exhibit No. 4 of the deposition of David L. Johnston, and F-155 will be Exhibit No. 5 of the deposition of David L. Johnston, which will be marked by me for identification after you leave, but these will be photostatic copies of the originals which will remain in your possession.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I could do this--make copies now?

Mr. HUBERT. Let’s discuss this a little bit more before you leave--you think you can get the copies made and just bring them to the office here and hand them to me this afternoon?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; and I will take these affidavits over to the company across the street myself and bring them back for you.

Mr. HUBERT. All right. That will be fine.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I’ll do that now.

TESTIMONY OF STANLEY M. KAUFMAN

The testimony of Stanley M. Kaufman was taken at 9 a.m., on June 27, 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 Stanley M. Kaufman.

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

In particular as to you, Mr. Kaufman, the nature of the inquiry is to determine what facts you know about the death of Oswald and any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry and about Jack Ruby and his operations and associations and so forth.

I think you have appeared here today by virtue of a letter written to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff of the President’s Commission, asking you to come, isn’t that correct?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That is correct.

Mr. HUBERT. The rules of the Commission provide that every witness is entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of their deposition, to commence from the date of the letter of request. It’s probable that the letter request was dated the 22d and therefore the 3 days have passed, and on the other hand, you may not have received it until later, and therefore I want to say to you that the rules also provide that a witness may waive the 3-day notice in the event the 3-day notice has not actually been given, and so I ask you if you are willing to waive, in the event that technically the 3-day notice has not elapsed.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, I don’t know when the notice was received. I do know that I did talk to Mrs. Stroud of the U.S. attorney’s office, who helped rearrange the appointment which originally was scheduled at 1 o’clock. If there was not sufficient notice, we would certainly agree to waive it.

I would like to point out probably another error in your notice and that was in the name. It was addressed to Stanley F. Kaufman. The correct name is Stanley M. Kaufman, and as far as that notice is concerned with respect to the name being incorrect on the notice, we would likewise waive that.

Mr. HUBERT. What does the “M” stand for?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mike.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you stand and raise your right hand and I will administer the oath?

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?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you state your full name?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Stanley Mike Kaufman.

Mr. HUBERT. Where do you reside?

Mr. KAUFMAN. 6831 Northport.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation?

Mr. KAUFMAN. An attorney.

Mr. HUBERT. You are admitted to the bar of the State of Texas?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I am admitted to the bar of the State of Texas; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you been practicing law?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Actually, I graduated from SMU in 1942 and was admitted to practice law in 1942. I immediately went into the service and was discharged in October 1945, and have been in active practice since a little after October 1945, when I returned to Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Kaufman, do you know Jack L. Ruby?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; I am acquainted with Jack Ruby.

Mr. HUBERT. How long have you known him?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Actually, Mr. Hubert, it has been difficult in my own mind to really go back, but I did go back into my files some time ago and I believe that the statement you have here that I knew him since 1954 is pretty accurate. It may be a few years difference either way.

Mr. HUBERT. Mr. Kaufman, on several occasions in the past you have been attorney or lawyer for Mr. Ruby, is that not so?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I have handled some matters for Mr. Ruby; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you have any connection as an attorney for Mr. Ruby with reference to the homicide of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, in the course of this examination, Mr. Kaufman, it may be that some of the questions that I would ask would require answers which may invade or violate in some way the lawyer-client privilege which might exist between you and Mr. Ruby. I might not know that. On the other hand, I think you are in a position to know it. I want to state to you that it is not my purpose or the Commission’s purpose to cause you to violate or to jeopardize or compromise that lawyer-client relationship or privilege in the slightest way whatsoever. Therefore, I invite you to state to me at any time that you think the questions I ask require an answer that may violate or jeopardize or compromise that lawyer-client privilege. I assure you we will drop the matter immediately. Perhaps you wish to state your position on that problem now.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hubert. I would make this statement that you inquired about my contact with Jack Ruby regarding the homicide. I did not visit or see him prior to the trial of his case other than seeing him in the courtroom when I testified in the change of venue hearing and also on the date I testified as a defense witness.

I saw him on three occasions subsequent to that, all within a week. Other than that, I have had no immediate contact with Jack Ruby or discussed his case with him, and I give you this so that, not able to anticipate what you might ask, I can outline this to you and this would be the relationship--the only relationship that I have had with him since the date of this homicide.

I have had a number of contacts with him on civil matters and if any of these encroached upon the privilege, I personally believe that if Jack were asked, and if he is mentally able to, he would waive the privilege. Had we known that you wanted this done, we probably could have arranged it as time permitted. However, I don’t feel that there is anything that I could add or give the Commission that he would hesitate about or want me not to give, and I would like the record to reflect that even if we take advantage of the privilege at this time, that I would like the record to reflect that we would like at that time to present this matter to Ruby so that he could waive the privilege and that we could give you this information in the event we encroach upon the privilege at any time during the taking of the deposition.

Mr. HUBERT. Let me commence then by asking you this. I have previously handed to you and I think you have read, a document which I have marked for identification as follows: In the margin of the first page “Dallas, Texas, June 27, 1964, Exhibit No. 1, Deposition of Stanley Kaufman” and I have signed my name below that and on the second page, and the document consists of two pages only, I have marked my initials in the lower right-hand corner.

This document, Mr. Kaufman, purports to be a report of an interview of you by FBI Agents Neeley and Rice on November 26, 1963. I think you have read it and I now hand it back to you and ask you if it’s correct or if you have any changes or modifications to make in that document.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, I would say that there are a number of inaccuracies in this report, probably not of a major concern.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, I wish you would point them out, identifying them, so that a person reading the record later can know what you’re talking about.

Mr. KAUFMAN. First, let me explain how the statement was taken. It’s not a statement as you correctly stated. It’s a report. Whether or not Neeley and Rice were the agents who talked to me, I wouldn’t know because I didn’t take their names down. I was called by the Dallas office of the FBI one evening and asked if they could make an appointment to see me regarding the Jack Ruby case and I advised them that they could and that I was available then and there, so they told me in about 15 minutes they would come over. Both of the agents came by my office at 1520 Mercantile Securities Building, identified themselves, and sat down and asked me a number of questions, most of which are, I would say, covered in the third paragraph here.

Mr. HUBERT. That’s Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; of Exhibit No. 1. Now, three of the--I mean--there were three basic concerns that they talked to me about. They didn’t just ask questions and write anything down. We just conversed similar to a conversation that you and I might have with a person in our office. Their main concern seemed to be (1) whether or not I knew Ruby, and (2) whether or not I knew him to be a Communist, and (3) whether or not I knew of any connection or relationship with Lee Oswald.

Thereafter, we had a lot of other discussions which are not reported here. Primarily, the concern that I had that was called to my attention by a lot of people who called me and seemed concerned that the name Rubenstein had been invoked in this case, and we probably spent a greater part of the discussion on the prejudices that had been invoked, rather than the things that are reported in the statement.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you interviewed by the agents more than once?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No; just once. As I say, the statement does not cover--this report does not cover all of that, and I think they’ve got some of the facts confused by virtue of our discussion, so I’ll go by this paragraph-by-paragraph, and when I say “this,” I’m talking about this exhibit which I am holding in my hand at this time and I think you identified it as Exhibit No. 1.

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMAN. In the first paragraph the name is stated. It should be “Stanley M. Kaufman”. The rest of the paragraph is substantially correct.

In paragraph 2, reference is made that I was acquainted with Jack Ruby and was not familiar with his activities in Chicago, which is true. I knew nothing about his background and in fact I never knew that his name was Rubenstein. In the years that I knew him and in the years that I represented him, his name was Jack Ruby. Every legal instrument that I have in my file has always referred to Jack Ruby, and this is what disturbed me. In all the years that I knew Jack, I never knew his name was Rubenstein, not that he withheld it from me, but he was known in Dallas as Jack Rubenstein.

The conclusion that the agents have in their report that “he considered Ruby one of the most active Jewish bachelors in the synagogue” is something that I don’t know exactly what this meant, and I’ve put a question mark by the side of this line. I indicated and so indicate at this time that Jack Ruby was a bachelor to the best of my knowledge. Mention is made in the third paragraph about Alice Nichols----

Mr. HUBERT. Before you leave the synagogue, I wanted to ask you something more on that.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, I’ll come back to it. I just wanted to say that I did know that he and Alice were quite friendly and at times I think Jack had mentioned to me that he wished he could be worthy enough to marry Alice, but apparently he did not marry her. As far as his activities in the synagogue, the only time that I knew Jack Ruby was active in the synagogue, he did go for a period of time to recite memorial services for one of his deceased parents, which was commendable, because many people today don’t do those things. I mean, it’s a voluntary thing, but as far as other activities, I wouldn’t know what would be meant here. I have served on the board of my synagogue for over 7 years.

Mr. HUBERT. Is that Shearith Israel?

Mr. KAUFMAN. It is Rabbi Silverman’s synagogue. So, when this document says “active,” I wouldn’t know what they meant because frankly I don’t know the facts on which they base this conclusion.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you characterize his attendance or his relationship to the synagogue as “active” when you were interviewed by the FBI?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, as far as the actual words used, I wouldn’t recall. I do say that he attended services more than usual during that period of time. As far as other activities are concerned, I don’t recall that he has been active. To that extent, though, that’s what disturbs me a little when they put this in their report.

Mr. HUBERT. Were you one of the officials--a member of the board of trustees of the synagogue?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I have been. I’m not at this time, but I have been. In other words, in our synagogue we have an autonomous group which is--actually, we are a nonprofit corporation. We have a president and other officers and we have a board of directors, and I have served on two occasions as a director 3 years each. You cannot succeed yourself as director, and I was also secretary for a year in between my term.

Mr. HUBERT. What I’m getting at is did you have occasion to observe whether Ruby was active in the normal sense of that word, with respect to religious activities?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Actually, that’s what disturbs me, Mr. Hubert. As far as I know, he’s never been on any committee, he’s never been an usher during the services--these things--so when you use the word “active”, he attended services.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he attend regularly--there is a regular service, isn’t there?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Oh, there are services every day and there are services on Friday and there are services this morning, and in fact, if I wanted to have been very technical, I could have advised you I didn’t want to testify today, that it was in violation of my Sabbath.

Now, whether I myself could be one who could tell you this would be unfair, because frankly, I can’t say that I’m in attendance every day, and as a result I believe there is only one person that I know who could give you such an opinion and that would be a person such as a rabbi, a person who is in daily attendance, and I personally am not in that category and therefore I would rather not pass on it.

Mr. HUBERT. There were services on Friday, November 22, the night of the President’s death, and I ask you if you were present at that service?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No, sir; I was not present.

Mr. HUBERT. There were also services on Saturday morning, November 23, and I ask you if you were present at those services?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No; I wasn’t present then. I was supposed to go to Abilene, Tex., to take a deposition on that Saturday and I recall having to cancel my taking of the deposition because I felt so bad about the assassination, but I do recall that I had a plane reservation to leave Dallas at that time.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, will you continue with your comments on Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, getting down to paragraph (3). The statement in regard to trips by Ruby are substantially correct. The comment about a visit to Cuba to visit an acquaintance who works in a casino there--now, I don’t recall that I made any statement that the man worked in a casino. It was my recollection that I felt or thought that the man was supposed to be a gambler, and I think prior to the taking of the deposition, this morning, you and I commented about this when you gave me an opportunity to examine it, and I believe this man’s name was McWillie, if I’m not mistaken, but whether he worked at the casino or not, I don’t know. I didn’t know then and I don’t know now. I wouldn’t make the statement that he worked in the casino.

Mr. HUBERT. In any case, the only thing you would know about it would be what Ruby told you?

Mr. KAUFMAN. What Jack had told me, correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember when that was?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, I wouldn’t even try to guess. I don’t believe Castro was in office at that time. As I recall--of course--it might have been right at the time when the takeover took place. I would rather not even try to venture a guess.

Mr. HUBERT. Are you aware from any source, including Ruby, whether he took more than one trip to Cuba?

Mr. KAUFMAN. If he took more than one trip, I am not aware of it. Actually, I couldn’t even swear he took this one, except he told me he was going and I assumed he went, but he sent me no postcards, I got no souvenirs or anything that would actually put me in a position where I could tell you definitely he was in Cuba.

Mr. HUBERT. Could you tell us why he would inform you that he was going to Cuba?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I think Jack liked me. I think we discussed a lot of things that were not lawyer-client conversation. I think that over the period of years we discussed many subjects from physical education--taking exercises, to his nightclub business, the changeover from one type of operation to another, and these matters in my opinion don’t relate to law, Mr. Hubert.

Mr. HUBERT. I was just wondering why he told you and I think you’ve given me the answer.

Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, continuing with paragraph (3)--the report is correct that I did not know and do not know, and never did know Lee Harvey Oswald. I have never heard Oswald’s name mentioned by Ruby and have no knowledge or information that Ruby ever knew Oswald.

This portion that “Kaufman stated he heard over TV Ruby had asked for three attorneys”--this is correct. My first acquaintance with the case, that my name was attached to the case was when Judge Pierce McBride was interviewed after talking with Ruby and he indicated that Ruby had asked for Fred Brunner, Tom Howard, and Stanley Kaufman, and at times I feel that knowing Jack like I did know him that the only reason he even did this is probably he thought he would offend me by not mentioning my name, but if you knew Jack, you would know he’s very sensitive and he’s very, very thoughtful, and I at times feel that that was his reason for mentioning my name.

Although, I must confess that if I could practice criminal law I wouldn’t hesitate to represent Jack, that I do feel that he respected my legal ability, and I’m not flattering myself or not trying to be modest, but I do feel that if I could have helped him, and I want the record certainly to reflect this, that had I felt capable, I certainly would not have hesitated to have been his lawyer.

Mr. HUBERT. All right.

Mr. KAUFMAN. About the bank-account business--this is correct. I don’t recall Jack having any bank accounts. I didn’t make any big money off of Jack over the period of years. I did represent some ventures that might have been referred to me through him. I remember one of the girls that worked for him was involved in an automobile collision and he was kind enough to--when she needed an attorney--to recommend me, and I might have made money in that direction from different people, but as far as Jack himself, he just didn’t have, Mr. Hubert, that kind of legal business.

We had some problems with some bands and we did go to court on one or two occasions. I think at one time we tried a case in the presence of the present U.S. district judge here for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Sarah T. Hughes, down at the State court. We had an injunctive matter before her.

We do have or did have at the time this was pending, a case in which we filed an answer in a case which he had been involved in, and I did offer my files to the FBI, and they were in my office, which they didn’t want.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you incorporate the S&R Corp.?

Mr. KAUFMAN. The S&R Corp.--I believe I handled the incorporation on that, but Jack Ruby, to the best of my recollection there was someone who opened a club up there at the same location where Jack was and Jack was not involved, to the best of my recollection, and S&R was supposed to have been a management company or something of that type, and I don’t believe that Jack had any financial interest in the S&R Corp. Now, I believe I was asked about this and I don’t know whether the FBI asked me about it or not, but I’m sure I had been asked about it.

I know Jack’s name was not involved as an incorporator, and I don’t believe he was ever an officer. He may have been an officer, but as far as owning any stock in the S&R, I am very, very doubtful about that.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know who did own the stock in S&R initially?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I would rather not guess. Frankly, if I had the papers before me--if I have the papers. Now, there were some of his papers, and when I say “his papers,” I have all of my file, I believe, but as far as these corporations were concerned, I don’t remember whether the bookkeeper had this or whether the bookkeeper had custody of some of these matters, but as far as Jack Ruby’s having a financial interest in S&R, I would say to the best of my recollection Jack Ruby did not and does not have such an interest.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember whether it was a part of your function as attorney handling the incorporation to supervise the issuance of stock certificates?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I can’t even tell you if we ever issued stock certificates in the corporation. Ofttimes, Mr. Hubert, a person will come to the office, and we form many, many corporations and we have even served as dummy incorporators in these incorporation matters and I’m sure you likewise have. I don’t believe there were dummy incorporators on this incorporation, as I recall, but that the actual owners of the stock had signed the application for a charter, but ofttimes instructions are never forthcoming as to whom the stock would go to. Now, if we did have such instructions, I’m sure that the stock was issued. I’m inclined to recall and believe that Earl Ruby at one time might have been a stockholder. This is a brother of Jack’s, and whether Ralph Paul was one of the stockholders or not, I don’t recall.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, the records would reflect that.

Mr. KAUFMAN. The records would reflect that and I’m sure there should have been franchise taxes which were filed which would likewise show who the officers and directors were.

Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir; would you continue?

Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, going back here to this third paragraph--I don’t think it’s fair to report, “He states he knows only two persons who might be able to furnish pertinent information.” I think the question that was asked me was who would know the most about Jack and I told them that I thought that Ralph Paul was probably the closest friend that Jack Ruby had and that I thought Ralph Paul would be probably the best informant that they could get, and further, that Alice Nichols, who was secretary for a very fine lawyer who used to be associated with my father-in-law, Bob Dillard. They shared offices in the old Southland Building and Bob is general counsel for Southland Life, and Alice was his secretary, and Jack and Alice had gone together for many, many years and it was my feeling--it’s not a question of the only people, it’s a question of who were best qualified to furnish them some information and I did say that I thought Jack’s acquaintance with Ralph Paul and with Alice would qualify them more than anyone I knew to give them any information. Now, in regards to this next paragraph relating to Jack calling me at home.

Mr. HUBERT. That is on the 23d day of November?

Mr. KAUFMAN. The 23d of November, the day after the assassination of the President. I don’t think this correctly reflects what took place, and I would like to modify it to this extent.

Mr. HUBERT. All right; go ahead.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Jack called me at home and I’m pretty sure that the hour was somewhere between 3:45 and 4 o’clock and as I recall, I gave this information to the agents, and the reason I’m sure about the time----

Mr. HUBERT. That’s in the afternoon?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes, sir; and the reason I’m so sure about the time, I was sleeping and I was awakened, and we do have a clock on our nightstand and I recall Jack calling and he was very upset, and the nature of our conversation was in regard to this Bernard Weissman or Wiseman and the ad that he had run in the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. HUBERT. What manifestations of his being upset did you observe?

Mr. KAUFMAN. It wasn’t observing, I was talking to him on the phone and you could just tell the way he was talking and the manner in which he was rambling on that this man was just real--really concerned about this business.

Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, about the Bernard Weissman ad?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Oh, definitely. He told me how he went down to the post office and sat in front of this man’s box and watched, trying to find out who he was if he came to get his mail.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you when he had done that?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I didn’t ask him. In other words, apparently it had taken place from the time he called me back to the time the President was assassinated--it had to be within 24 hours, I would assume.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he tell you how long he had stayed watching to see who would come?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No; he just told me that he thought it was terrible that this man had run this ad, and when I say “this,” I’m not quoting him verbatim, I’m sure, but this was his sentiment. He was just upset about it and he wanted to know how he could locate him. This was the reason he called. He wanted to know if I could help him--give him some information where he could find Bernard Weissman. He felt, I guess, as an attorney that I had some power of investigation or ability or know-how, and frankly, I told him the best I could recommend was that he go over to the city library and look at the city directory, that I had no knowledge of where he could be located.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he indicate to you what he wanted to do if he did locate Weissman?

Mr. KAUFMAN. He didn’t say what he wanted to do. I think the nature of his discussion was that he was trying to be helpful to either the FBI or the police in locating him. I mean, as far as his talking about he was going to go out and bodily harm him or beat him up or something like that, there was no indication in this conversation that that’s what his intent or motives were.

Mr. HUBERT. You gathered rather that he was trying to be helpful to the police authorities?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; and I felt that he felt maybe they were overlooking this and that maybe this fellow--at that time, as I would feel, he was trying to see if Weissman had anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words in his own mind, as you gathered it, he did associate the Weissman ad with the assassination?

Mr. KAUFMAN. There’s no question about that. Now, this is correctly pointed out in the report. He made special emphasis about this black border. Frankly, I went back, after talking to him and looked at it and it didn’t really mean that much to me when I first looked at it. I mean--I was upset about it--about the ad. Frankly, I talked to a number of people about the ad and a number of people talked to me. I happened to talk to the Jewish Welfare Federation that very day that the President was killed in the afternoon, and the secretary I talked to asked me if I had any idea who Bernard Weissman was. It so happens that I have been active in the community, in the Jewish community as well as the non-Jewish community and we were having some discussions back and forth at that time on a matter that had nothing to do with this, and in our conversations, and this was before the assassination of the President. It was that morning before the President even arrived, that we were queried by one of the secretaries over at the Federation as to who in the heck was Bernard Weissman. So, it was not unusual that we would talk about this subject because there were a lot of people that were concerned about it, but Jack was particularly impressed with the border as being a tipoff of some sort--that this man knew that the President was going to be assassinated and that probably in the advertising field, perhaps in Jack’s knowledge of the entertainment world, and knowing something about setting up advertising, this had impressed him.

Mr. HUBERT. That black border?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That--when he saw that black border, this was a key. Now in the conversation Jack had gone through, and he rambled on maybe for, oh goodness, 10 or 15 minutes, talking about how he had closed up his clubs and how some of his competitors didn’t do so and how this provoked him and how the Dallas News--he gave them hell about running this ad. I mean--don’t think that this brief statement of summary that is reported by the agents by any means covers the entire conversation, because Jack just--well he just was upset. It was just the most upsetting thing that I’ve ever heard with him and in all my conversation, this seems to have really stirred him up.

Mr. HUBERT. You mean the Weissman ad?

Mr. KAUFMAN. This Weissman deal.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he make any comments about Oswald during this conversation?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Jack?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No. All that this conversation was directed to was at Bernard Weissman, and the closing up of his club and the refusal of his competitors to close up, and the attitude of the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he associate Oswald in anyway with any kind of a group, be it leftist, rightist, middle, or any kind of “ism”?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Jack had never mentioned the name Oswald at that time, and I’ll say this, without in any way I think violating any client or attorney relationship, the three times that I saw Jack he never mentioned the name Oswald. He referred to him but never referred to him by name. He called him “the deceased” when I talked to him in his cell. I say “cell,” but I’ve never been in his cell. I saw him in a little visitation or conference room, but he didn’t even mention him by “deceased” when I talked to him. I mean, of course, he wasn’t deceased at that time--when we talked on the phone--the name “Oswald” was never used by Jack.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he seem to think that the Weissman ad and its possible relationship to the assassination would hurt the Jewish community or the Jewish people?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No, sir. No; this wasn’t even discussed. There was no mention even of whether this Weissman may or may not have been Jewish. We didn’t even discuss this. Actually, the Jewish subject did not come up at any time in our conversation.

Mr. HUBERT. In any aspect?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he indicate that he was concerned about the death of the President, because of the effect it might have on business in general in Dallas and in particular with reference to his operations?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No; this wasn’t discussed. Incidentally, I forgot one thing that he did also point out and that was that he had taken some pictures of this sign “Impeach Earl Warren.” He also mentioned that.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he say what he proposed to do with those pictures?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No; he did not say. He just asked me if I had seen the sign. I drive by that place every day and never noticed it, but he had asked me whether I had seen the sign and told me he had taken some pictures but did not indicate what he was going to do with them.

Mr. HUBERT. All right; will you go on then?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Now, as far as the rest--“Kaufman stated that Ruby wanted to know who Weissman was and how he could get in touch with him”--as I say, he did want to know the means or methods of how a person could locate him. As I say, I did indicate that he might consider looking at the city directory.

Mr. HUBERT. All right.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Now, they go on, “and if Mr. Freedman of the Anti-Defamation League could furnish him any information as to the whereabouts of Bernard Weissman.” Now, this is, I think, an inaccurate statement. Now, during the course of our conversation with the agents, we told them----

Mr. HUBERT. When you say “we,” who is that?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Me--I should say--I told them that I had been active with B’nai B’rith and that one of our children, so to speak, is the Anti-Defamation League, and that I had been called, when my name was mentioned, by people all over the country who knew me--I had calls from Peoria, Ill. and from New York--regarding the Rubenstein being invoked into this and whether it was a matter of antisemitism. I had been called by Mr. Ted Freedman of the Houston, Tex., Anti-Defamation League, who came to see me to see whether or not antisemitism had been invoked into this and whether I personally felt that the name Rubenstein had been injected here for prejudicial purposes, and I think that someone is confused in the reporting of this.

I don’t even recall Jack and I talking about the Anti-Defamation League. I know that Jack was not a member of B’nai B’rith, not that he didn’t want to be or not that they wouldn’t have had him, I don’t think he had the money to join. I’m sure he would have liked to have belonged to a lot of things that he was not able to afford, and it’s not that expensive an operation, but notwithstanding that, I think that there is some confusion in this report as to conversations going on between Jack and myself. Actually, when I was on the witness stand, Mr. Alexander interrogated me about this very point and I just couldn’t imagine what the report said and he had the report in his hand, and he asked me whether or not Jack didn’t want to know or ask me how to get in touch with the Anti-Defamation League. I don’t remember the exact question, but this is not correct.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, what you are saying is that you don’t recall that you spoke to Jack about that?

Mr. KAUFMAN. About the Anti-Defamation League, although I do say I talked to the agents about it, but not in connection with a conversation with Jack. I do admit that the agents and I, in talking about that, they were very kind and they stayed there and they related to me how they had Jewish agents in the FBI, Bob Strauss of Dallas had been an agent, and I mean that they spent a lot of time discussing this matter with me, and I’m sure they had a lot of things on their mind, Mr. Hubert, and they were not sitting down taking notes although I think they did take names down maybe on the back of an envelope or a scratch pad, but I mean, they didn’t sit down such as the reporter is doing here this morning and take notes of the things that we were saying. In other words, I don’t believe that it’s that significant, but I do want the record to be correct, because I don’t think that Jack Ruby and I ever discussed the Anti-Defamation League. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

Now--“He stated Ruby had also told him he had tried to locate this Weissman through the Post Office Department”--that’s correct--“but was not able to do so.” Now, I think I’ve elaborated on what he did attempt to do, but whether he had conversations with the Post Office and I don’t know, but he did tell me that he did locate the box and that he did put it under surveillance, so to speak, and told me that he saw lots of mail in the box and that the box was loaded with mail.

Now--“Kaufman stated that Ruby told him he had been to the Dallas Morning News and had raised ‘hell’ with the ad department for accepting such an ad.” I would say that’s correct, and he went into great details about this.

“Kaufman stated that from his contacts with Ruby and the civil matters he had handled for him that he is aware that Ruby is quick-tempered,” and that is correct, “and that in his opinion Ruby had no assistance or guidance in connection with the shooting of Oswald.” I would say that is a correct statement.

I will say Jack not only is quick-tempered, and I tried to explain to these people, and that’s the two agents, that Jack was this type of person--he would do things and then come ask you for advice, and I related to them and showed them, Mr. Hubert, that he had been in my office maybe a few days before all this with a little twistboard that he had seen for sale, and he was going to take this twistboard and have the Goodwill Industries make it so they would have a good deal, and they were going to go out and sell twistboards. I mean, he just thought this was a tremendous thing, and I got the twistboard out and showed it to the agents. I still had it in my office at that time. I’ve given it away since that time. Somebody wanted a twistboard so I let them have it. Now, he had copied, practically without exception, the instructions that someone else had on their twistboard. He had already gone to the expense of having it printed and here he was coming to me to say, “Was this all right?” Now, this is the type of a boy Jack Ruby was. He would do things on impulse and then he would come back and say, like a child, “Daddy, did I do right or did I do wrong?” This is the matter that I tried to convey to them, that he is not only quick-tempered, but his mentality--Jack is a smart boy, but Jack a lot of times would want you to give him assurance that he was doing right, and I’ll say this--the more I think about his telephone call to me, I think that maybe he would like to say, “Well, Stanley, am I doing right?” I mean--this is the way I would interpret it--“Pat me on the back and tell me I’m doing something to help,” and unless a person knew him and had talked to him and had been associated with him, you would have to have that relationship before you could have this feeling.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you talk to him or see him after this conversation and until the homicide?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. The conversation lasted, you say, about 15 or 20 minutes?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I would say it was extensive--it was longer than usually people talk on the telephone. I’m sure you as a lawyer know that there are times when you get bored listening to people on the telephone.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you know Louis McWillie at all?