Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Did you know he went out at 3 o’clock in the morning with George Senator and Larry Crafard, the kid that watched the nightclub, at nighttime and took tickets for Jack, Jack charged $2 a ticket to get into his club. It was no bums’ hangout. It was a classy joint. So Larry used to take the tickets and also sleep there at nighttime. Jack got up to go at 3 o’clock in the morning one time, and this was told to me by both, George Senator and Larry, they went out and they took a picture of a great big billboard, “Impeach Earl Warren,” the pictures and camera were in the car that Jack was going to use as evidence when the city policemen confiscated his car, you can make a note of this, they took the camera, they took the pictures, they took his adding machine, and they took his spare tire. What a bunch of characters down there.

Mr. GRIFFIN. What has become of that?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. We would like to know. They took his diamond ring, they took a very good wristwatch.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Have you asked for that?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. And his blue suit he wore when he shot Oswald, we would like to have that all back, and his gun.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Have you asked for it?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I think they have but they haven’t had any success. If Jack cannot have the gun, then we would like to submit it to the Smithsonian Institution or in his library.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Kennedy’s Library?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. That is right. Because Jack bought the gun legitimately in a Dallas store under his name. And also when he walked into that newspaper office, and there was a big black border around, a full page ad signed by somebody by the name of Weissman, Jack didn’t like that.

Mr. GRIFFIN. When did you hear about that?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Eva told me this. Eva says, “You know, Jack came here one day showing me all this thing and I couldn’t believe it.”

You know, when a person reads a paper you don’t always pay attention. It was addressed not to the President of the United States. I understand the ad was addressed to Mr. Kennedy with grievances, signed by the committee. With a post office and box number in Dallas, with a black border around a full-page ad. When Jack was changing the ad of his closing dates of the club the minute the President got shot in the newspapers, he got ahold of someone in the newspaper office, as I understand it, and that man will have to testify, and Jack said to him, “Do you have to accept an ad like this? Is business that bad? The other newspapers in town didn’t take it.” Then he went over Saturday morning to the post office and got ahold of one of the clerks and he says, “Can you tell me who belongs to this post office box number,” and the clerk says, “We can’t tell you that.”

Mr. GRIFFIN. Hyman, what do you think is the significance of Jack’s concern with the ad and with the “Impeach Earl Warren” sign?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. And the ad calling Mr. Kennedy instead of “Mr. President,” with the grievance committee to----

Mr. GRIFFIN. What do you think that signifies about Jack’s concern?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. He didn’t like the signature for one which was a Jewish name. And he thought it was another organization disgracing the Jews.

Mr. GRIFFIN. How do you get that impression that that was his--how do you get that impression?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. That is the way it would hit me. Why would an organization like this put down the name Weissman and put down all these grievances in the newspapers with a black border around it and then--oh, when he couldn’t find--when Jack couldn’t find--the name of the owner of the post office box so he asked the clerk, “Does this ad belong to Oswald,” and the clerk says, “I can’t answer you that, either.” He thought there was a connection between this and Oswald, and Oswald was using a phoney name in the ad.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Has Jack told you any of that?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Eva, because Eva spoke to Jack about it, and Jack told Eva that.

Mr. GRIFFIN. So it is your understanding that Eva learned this from Jack?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. From Jack directly.

Mr. GRIFFIN. And he thought Oswald was using a phoney name in the advertisement and trying to disgrace the Jews?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. And also disgracing the President. You don’t call a President Mr. Kennedy. You call him Mr. President with respect to his title. And also trying to disgrace the name of Earl Warren, Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

Mr. GRIFFIN. And he thought Oswald might have done the same thing?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Right or his organization or somebody connected with that group whoever it was. He couldn’t understand it, somebody was doing it. There was the evidence and that bothered him. It kept boiling in him and boiling in him and finally he blew up and when he saw Oswald then he really blew up, and that is all I can tell you, gentlemen.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you know or have you heard of anything that happened in Dallas between the time the President was shot and the time that Jack shot Oswald----

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. That would have led Jack to think that other people thought the Jews were behind the assassination of the President?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No; I did not hear anything like that. You see we didn’t go down to Dallas--I didn’t go down there to Dallas--until almost Christmas time. That was almost a whole month so I didn’t know anything about it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to make sure my question is clear because it is possible that it can be misunderstood. I am not suggesting that the Jews were--that the Jews were behind the assassination.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Of course not.

Mr. GRIFFIN. What I am suggesting is that there might have been that kind of talk in Dallas which might have disturbed Jack and whether you heard that there was, whether you heard that there was such kind of talk going on in Dallas that did disturb him.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. The only talk that I heard from people in Dallas that there are a lot of anti-Semites who don’t like Jews. That is the only talk I heard.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Where? Had you heard that before you went down to Dallas?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No; after I got down there.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you have any personal experiences with Jack that would shed some light on his sensitivity about his position as a person of Jewish background in the community--personal experiences that you would have?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Except what I heard from the Bund meetings in Chicago from his friends. His own friends told me he used to go break them up, and that takes a little guts to walk into a meeting and break it up, in my opinion. How many guys would do that?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am going to digress here a bit.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Good, go ahead.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you, when you were traveling in Michigan on your job, did you have occasion to visit Earl, your brother Earl, at his home?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. At the plant?

Mr. GRIFFIN. At the plant.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Sure; several times.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you ever have occasion to use his telephone, make calls from his plant?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I possibly could have.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you--have you ever had any dealings with any people in Massachusetts in the course of your business?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes; the Necco Confectionery Co., 254 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge 39, Mass.

Mr. GRIFFIN. What were your dealings with them?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. If you give me an order for $100 or $150 for ribbons or for novelties whatever you use in your florist business, I like you. I like you. So I go to my car and I says, “Wait a minute, I have got something for the wife, not for you,” tease you. I go over and I get a can of imported English candy. “Take this home to the family.” “Thank you, Hy, come back again, you are a nice guy.” That is how I had business in Massachusetts.

Mr. GRIFFIN. When were you doing this now?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Always. I still do it. I got a half case home now.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Any other candy companies you deal with?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Flavor; same thing. I buy half pound bags of hard candy, if the order is only $50, I can’t afford to give them a box of candy, mints.

Mr. GRIFFIN. How about the Welch Candy Co.?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Never, don’t even know them. But I think this Necco bought out the Welch Co., but I am not sure. That Necco is a big outfit now but I never done any business with Welch.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Have you ever had any occasion to communicate with any people in Latin America?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes: I think I sent down one time a sample, somebody gave them my name, how I got it, I don’t know, some ribbons. He wanted me to quote them prices on ribbons. So I mailed them some sample ribbons. I never heard from them no more.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was it?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I don’t remember, this was years ago, 5, 6 years ago.

Mr. GRIFFIN. How about--have you any occasion to communicate with anybody in Havana?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I don’t know anybody in Havana. Jack had friends there. Jack had a lot of friends there when the gambling was going good and one of his friends from Dallas was a big shot down there and he invited Jack down. Jack told me this himself. He invited Jack down to stay with him for a week and Jack flew down, I think, I think.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me ask you this question directly.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you recall ever having sent a telegram to Havana, Cuba, from your brother Earl’s telephone?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. A telegram? No. I would have no reason for it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Can you think of anybody outside of Earl’s family or employees who might have used his business phone?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Earl has got 110 employees, God bless him. You know anybody can pick up a phone in an office with 110 employees and make a call or call Western Union and charge it to the phone.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am asking you outside of that.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No; I never did, no. Havana, Cuba, is as strange to me as what was that word I gave you before, as Rhodesia. I think Jack went down there one time and he had a connection for automobiles. This was when Castro first went down there, I think it was in 1950. At that time Castro was a friend of the United States. Jack was going to try to sell them a lot of trucks or cars or something. Anyhow, the deal fell through, whatever it was, with his friends from Dallas; may I add this?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. If you are trying to infer that Jack had any connections with Castro or communism, that is not our brother. First of all, Jack couldn’t even spell communism. I mean it in the sense of the word, the relationship, none.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me say I don’t want to infer anything. I am simply asking you questions to clarify matters.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. You can clarify it right now. I will bet my life that Jack wouldn’t have anything to do and never did with anybody. Jack didn’t go for that kind of stuff. He wasn’t that kind of a man. These Communists are supposed to be well read, beatniks, students of universities. Jack doesn’t qualify for that kind of a deal. His friends are showgirls, tavern owners, gamblers, other nightclub people, promoters, manufacturers, that was his life, that is all. He opened two nightclubs. What has he got to do with these other kinds of people? What has he got to gain by it? He was doing good. He wore good clothes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did he have any political interests?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I don’t think so; not in Dallas, I don’t think in Dallas.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did he have any political interest in Chicago?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I was the only politician but we were all Democrats for me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did Jack get involved in politics at all in Chicago?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you ever discuss politics with him?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I never even knew the incidents about the chair with Roosevelt until this manager of the Zebra, the manager of the Zebra Cafe on 63d Street, I have got to get you his name----

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Told me about it. I never heard of it because he doesn’t talk about those things.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Can you think of anything else that you want to bring to the attention of the Commission?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Jack was a loyal 1,000 percent American, served in the Army for 3 years with the best record of our family, of all the boys who were in the service, and by the way, when my father went down with Jack and Earl and Sammy to enlist in the service, my father says to the recruiting officer, “Take me” and he must have been at least 65 years old.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Jack didn’t go into the service until some time in 1943?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Right. After I came out he went in.

Mr. GRIFFIN. And Jack applied for deferment initially, didn’t he?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes; because he was the only one home. We were all in. My mother was alone. Earl was in, Earl was in the Seabees, Sammy was in the Air Corps and I was in the Field Artillery.

Mr. GRIFFIN. There has been a rumor that Jack feigned a hearing disability in order to avoid military service?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Not Jack. No; not Jack. No; he was a good soldier and I told you before he had the best record of all of us on his discharge papers.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think maybe we can conclude here. I am asking you to identify some interview reports that we have, and I will give you a chance to read them over. I am going to mark for identification three different exhibits.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. O.K.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The first one is an interview report prepared by Special Agent George H. Parfet.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes; I know him.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to start with these chronologically. The first one is a copy of an interview report prepared by special agents of the FBI, Maurice J. White and Robert B. Lee, of an interview that they had with you on November 24, 1963, in Chicago.

I am going to mark this “Washington, D.C., deposition of Hyman Rubenstein, June 5th, 1964, Exhibit No. 3.” This consists of two pages numbered at the bottom 193 and 194, respectively.

I will hand you the exhibit and ask you to read it over and then I will ask you some questions about it.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. That is about correct. Because I didn’t know anything else.

(Hyman Rubenstein Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.)

Mr. GRIFFIN. You have had a chance to examine Exhibit No. 3.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Are there any corrections you feel ought to be made in that report?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. The only thing I am doubtful is this, “He then had Jack as a salesman for several companies believed to be the Stanley Oliver Company and the Spartan Company now defunct.” That I am sure about. That is the only paragraph. The rest of it is 100 percent true. And that is the way it was as I remember it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Are you not sure that he had jobs with both companies?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. The Spartan Co. there was such a company and Jack and Harry Epstein was his partner at that time and they sold novelties and premiums.

By the way, Harry Epstein was a business associate of Jack’s for a good many years and knows him well. If there is anything that you might want to find out about his impetuousness or his decisive manner, because Harry and Jack always fought verbally, so Harry can give you a pretty good reason or reasons of his personality in that respect.

I don’t know where you can find Harry. He could be in Chicago, he could be anywhere.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The family has lost track of him?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Well, look; when the partnership breaks up--normally the partner comes over to the house and you meet him and see him and you have lunch with him. But when it breaks up you lose all contact with those people because he wasn’t my contact, he was Jack’s contact. And Jack being in Dallas all these years we didn’t even see Harry.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Was Harry, would you say Harry, was one of the people who knew him best when he lived in Chicago?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. One of the best.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Who would you say, who else would you say, knew Jack best when Jack lived in Chicago?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Benny Kay.

Mr. GRIFFIN. What was his connection with Benny Kay.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Very dear friends.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Any business associates?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I don’t know as any business associates but Benny Kay is a well respected businessman in Chicago.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am not asking for important people who knew him.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Let’s say they bummed around together quite a bit.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But if we were to go out and look for people who knew Jack better than anybody else, outside of the family, who were the people that you would name?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Put his name down, Benny Kay.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Who else would you name?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Harry Epstein.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Who else?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Hershey Colvin, and this Marty Gimpel that died, Marty could have given you a better report than anybody. Because Marty lived with him down in Dallas.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am talking about Chicago.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Marty knew him from Chicago. Marty worked at the post office in Chicago.

Mr. GRIFFIN. How about Alex Gruber?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Don’t know him. Never heard his name. Isn’t that odd? Of all the names that are in Chicago I never heard of him.

Mr. GRIFFIN. How about Sam Gordon?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Sam Gordon was a business associate of Jack, but not as good as these others. Sam was in the highlight of the depression and then moved to L.A.

Mr. GRIFFIN. So your idea was Benny Kay, Hershey Colvin and Harry Epstein outside of Marty Gimpel who is now deceased?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Those would be three as far as I know. You see we all had our own friends, so I didn’t know too many of Jack’s except when he would bring them to the house or we would meet somewhere by accident, downtown, somewhere, you know, run into each other in the street.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am going to hand you what I have marked--incidentally, if you are satisfied with that----

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Except for what I told you here the only incident was this Stanley Oliver Corp., I don’t know whether Jack sold any stuff, maybe he did. I don’t know about those things.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you then sign on the first page, Exhibit No. 3?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Right here?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Sign it in some conspicuous place.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. How about down here?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Fine. I will hand you now what I have marked for identification as “Exhibit No. 4, Washington, D.C., June 5th, 1964, deposition of Hyman Rubenstein.” This is a copy of the interview report prepared by Special Agent George Parfet in connection with an interview he had with you on November 27, 1963, in Chicago.

Take the time to read that, and tell us whether there are any corrections that you would make in that.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. This is the part I forgot to tell you about, when Jack called and told me about the newspaper, I forgot, I couldn’t exactly remember. That is exactly what he said.

Mr. GRIFFIN. What was that?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. When he called about the newspaper with the ad with the black border about it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. He called you?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I believe he did.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You said before that he called Eva and that you learned about this from Eva.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. It could have been. But according to this, according to this, “The exact time of the shooting of the President of the United States his brother Jack had been in the office of a newspaper.”

It could have been that Eva told me this. You are right. That is right. Because he came over and had breakfast with Eva and he had tried to explain to her about the ad, whether she had noticed it, Eva said, “What do I notice about an ad?”

He said, “With the black border around it, and the, what was that word I used before, the twenty, what is that word where you have----

Mr. GRIFFIN. Grievances?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Grievances. The grievances. It was Eva. Should I sign this?

Mr. GRIFFIN. If you would.

(Hyman Rubenstein Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. You are bringing back a lot of--what a deal.

Mr. GRIFFIN. If you remember anything in the course of reading that we haven’t covered, why let’s have it. Now is the time.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Well, I don’t know. It is hard, gentlemen, it isn’t easy. It wasn’t a pleasant experience. It was a sad experience, and your mind wants to block out those things that you don’t want to remember. So, it is hard to remember every incident or every detail.

Mr. GRIFFIN. If things come to your mind.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I know.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Because the reason we have asked you to come here is so that we can get----

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. I know. Look, we had nothing to hide. Any member of the family will cooperate 100 percent. Any of our friends and lawyers will cooperate 100 percent or we want to know why. We don’t believe in shooting Presidents. Let’s put it that way. We love this country, and we make our living here, we all served in the army here. We were brought up in this country, and it is our duty to cooperate with a law enforcement agency or any agency that wants to investigate a thing of this type.

It is unfortunate that our brother Jack had to be involved but many of our friends feel that he is a hero because they felt they would have done the same thing under similar circumstances.

How can a man premeditate, his dog Sheba was in the car, $2,000 in cash, all that photographic equipment in the back trunk with the adding machine and the tire, the dog is waiting for him, and Jack happened to carry the gun because that was the night’s receipts in the car and he happened to have it with him and if that girl in Fort Worth hadn’t called him that morning at 10 o’clock, Jack would still have been sleeping and forgotten all about it.

So, the man must have blacked out, nothing else could convince me, and nothing else convinces any of my friends that I talked to. People who don’t even know him they said that is what must have happened. He blacked out. I understand that Jack cried like a baby when the President was shot. He cried more than when his own father died. His own father was 88 years old when he passed away in the year of 1958, I believe.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Rubenstein, who did you hear about the crying from? Who told you about the crying?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Eva; he made her sick. He came over there crying.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Go ahead.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Also from the rabbi in Dallas. He went to synagogue Saturday night, and he cried, and there is witnesses to prove it in the synagogue.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Are there people in the synagogue who saw him?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. People in the synagogue that saw him crying when they had a special, some services for the President and they saw him crying and the rabbi saw him crying. They didn’t believe a guy like Jack would ever cry. I don’t know the rabbi’s name but----

Mr. GRIFFIN. Silverman.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Silverman. He will testify to that and he will bring witnesses who saw him cry. Jack never cried in his life. He is not that kind of a guy to cry. Never complained about nothing. Never talked about any heroic deeds that he ever did. He didn’t go for that stuff.

Mr. GRIFFIN. He wasn’t; you wouldn’t characterize him as somebody who bragged?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Far from it. He was reticent in that respect. But to help somebody in an emergency, the first one on the street to raise money for any occasion. Any policeman or fireman got hurt or the family needed something he is out there right away selling tickets, and chances are there wasn’t enough, he paid the difference himself whatever was needed.

Eva told me that, too. He didn’t tell me that. I heard it from people down in Dallas.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me hand you what I have marked as “Washington, D.C. deposition of Hyman Rubenstein, June 5th, 1964, Exhibit No. 5.” This is a copy of an interview report prepared by FBI Agent John Golden as a result of an interview that he had with you in Chicago on December 9, 1963.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Do you remember that interview?

(Hyman Rubenstein Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.)

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes; that is the truth like I told you. I don’t remember the dates. I know how I met John Paul Jones.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Paul Roland Jones.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No, John Paul.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The fellow in the trial at Laredo, is that it?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes; how come it is John Paul Jones here?

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is apparently the name you gave. You understood the man’s name to be John Paul Jones.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Well, you see I didn’t even know his right name then.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The Jones you met you recall as being named John Paul Jones?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Yes; that is the name he gave me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Are there any corrections or additions you would make to that statement?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No; this is the truth. Jack did not know Jones--Jack wasn’t down there at the time when I went down there. Eva was alone down there.

Mr. GRIFFIN. When you say go down there do you mean----

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Dallas. When I had to go down to Laredo I stopped off in Dallas to see Eva.

Mr. GRIFFIN. But the time you are referring to going to Texas is when you went to the trial or was it another time?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. No; regarding this, Laredo.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; and you say when you went to the trial in Laredo it is your understanding Jack was not living in Dallas?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Definitely. Do you want me to sign this?

Mr. GRIFFIN. If you would, please. Very good. I say that because I appreciate your coming here and talking with us and taking this time, and I will ask you once again if there is anything else----

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. These two things I will get for you.

Mr. GRIFFIN. If you would we would appreciate that.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. That is all right. It is the least I can do.

Mr. GRIFFIN. If there is anything else?

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. Anything also you might want to know drop me a note and I will be glad to answer it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. We appreciate your cooperation.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. We would like to get a new trial for Jack. Some of my friends say Jack should have gotten the Congressional Medal of Honor. They feel the same way I do about it. People say to me, why didn’t he wait for the investigation? How stupid can people be? Then it is premeditated. You don’t do things like that. Why wait for an investigation? Sure, it would have been a wonderful thing to have done but you can’t, you don’t know what is in the other man’s mind. I blame everything on the stupid Dallas police from every angle, even from that angle up there. They knew Oswald was in town, why didn’t they grab him. That is my opinion. They blame everything on Jack, the scapegoat, the poor guy has got to take it for the whole police department down there. You know that is the truth and I mean it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, we certainly appreciate your frankness in this matter and your willingness to express your opinion.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN. You can call me anytime, if you want me to come back again I will be glad to come back, anytime. If I am out of town I will have to wait to pick up my letter.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I hope we won’t have to trouble you again and thank you very much for coming.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM S. BIGGIO

The testimony of William S. Biggio was taken at 5 p.m., on April 2, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel of the President’s Commission. Robert T. Davis, assistant attorney general of Texas, was present.

Mr. JENNER. Would you stand, please, and take the oath?

Do you solemnly swear in your testimony before this Commission that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BIGGIO. I will.

Mr. JENNER. Would you state your full name, and spell it, please?

Mr. BIGGIO. William S. Biggio, [spelling] B-i-g-g-i-o.

Mr. JENNER. And you are a member of the Dallas City Police Force?

Mr. BIGGIO. That’s right.

Mr. JENNER. Are you in any particular division, do you have a particular assignment?

Mr. BIGGIO. I am with the special service bureau, criminal intelligence section.

Mr. JENNER. Now, I am Albert E. Jenner, Jr., one of the members of the legal staff of the Warren Commission, with which you are familiar, and this item has come to my attention recently through Mr. Davis of the attorney general’s office of the Texas staff and while I appreciate the fact that at the moment it is third hand or hearsay, as we lawyers call it, I would just like to have your report on it--which we will seek to run down--as I understand Mr. Davis and the FBI are undertaking the investigation; is that right?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BIGGIO. I have since talked to them also.

Mr. DAVIS. Since we talked?

Mr. BIGGIO. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You appreciate the existence of the President’s Commission and what the President’s Commission is engaged in, in the investigating of the assassination of President Kennedy and many members of your force have been very helpful to us and have been appearing these last 2 weeks by considerable number. Tell us about this whole incident from the beginning--when it first came to your attention, who brought it to your attention and what developed thereafter?

Mr. BIGGIO. There was a friend of mine--she is a woman who I know through my wife. She formerly was employed at the same location that my wife is, and she called me at work following Ruby’s killing of Oswald. She said that a friend of hers had been into a restaurant in the downtown area and a mechanic had come in and had made mention of the fact that Oswald drove Ruby’s car for approximately a 2-week period that he knew of, that Oswald had brought the car there for repairs to his garage.

The friend did not know where the garage was, did not know the mechanic’s name. The woman who called me didn’t want to give her friend’s name and get his name involved if she could possibly help it.

Mr. JENNER. Who was it that called you?

Mr. BIGGIO. Is it necessary for me to give that name? I believe with the information that was given me, it will not be necessary.

Mr. JENNER. Has the information been furnished the FBI?

Mr. BIGGIO. No; it has not. I believe with the information we get to further on it will show that her name isn’t needed.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. BIGGIO. I don’t object to giving her name except that she asked me not to give it.

Mr. JENNER. All right; she didn’t want any publicity, is that it?

Mr. BIGGIO. No; she doesn’t want any publicity on it. I don’t know why people are so scared of things like this, but if they get into court or before a panel or anything like that--at any rate, her friend doesn’t want his name used either, but I talked to my lieutenant about it, Lieutenant Revill, and he suggested that we go ahead and write it up on the grounds that by searching through the material in Ruby’s apartment and also through the material that had been taken from his automobile, we could possibly find a garage where a mechanic had done some work on his car. We would be able to contact the mechanic in that way without involving the two people who had called the information in.

When we did get photostatic copies of the material that had been taken out of Ruby’s car and his apartment, we found no evidence of any garage work that had been done or any actual mechanical work that had been done on his car recently. So, I called my friend back and asked her again if she could contact the man who had given her the information and see if he would be willing to talk to us about it. She called him back and then she called me and she said she had made an error in saying it was in the downtown area, that the place was out on Lovers Lane, directly across from--I have the address in here----

Mr. JENNER. Is it 5060 W. Lovers Lane?

Mr. BIGGIO. Well; she didn’t have the address itself--it was directly across from the Jungle Hut which is in the 5000 block of Lovers Lane.

Mr. JENNER. Lovers Lane is a street name?

Mr. BIGGIO. Yes; Lovers Lane is a street. We sent an officer out there, Detective Hellinghousen, F. A.

Mr. JENNER. Francis A. Hellinghousen [spelling] H-e-l-l-i-n-g-h-o-u-s-e-n?

Mr. BIGGIO. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Of the Dallas City Police?

Mr. BIGGIO. Yes, sir. He went to that particular area--there are two cafes across the street there in the 5000 block from the particular location that the lady friend of mine said. One of them was the Cafe Coffee Shop, was the name of it--the Cafe Coffee Shop. It was closed up at that time. Now, this took place approximately 3 weeks after the shooting. It was closed--ordinarily through our bureau we can find out who the owner was of such a place, because we keep the records of everyone through the beer licenses which we have to keep in our particular bureau, but this particular place did not have a beer license. It did not deal in beer.

It had been closed--we couldn’t find out who the owner was, so I sent Officer Hellinghousen and requested him to go by and talk to the woman who had originally given me that information and see if she would be willing to give him the same thing--the man’s name. Officer Hellinghousen went by and talked to her and she gave him the man’s name and at that particular time the man was attending a real estate convention which was here and being held here in Dallas and the word was sent to him from the company that he works for, the Bill Hardy Real Estate Co.--word was sent to the man, his name was Chesher [spelling] C-h-e-s-h-e-r--Bill was his first name. I believe it is correct--William R. He lives on Lupton Street.

Mr. JENNER. Is he still alive?

Mr. BIGGIO. No, sir. I tried to contact Hellinghousen today. Mr. Davis had gone up to talk to Captain Gannaway in regard to that report. I had understood that Hellinghousen had written a report from what he had learned from Mr. Chesher and I tried to contact him and could not, after Captain Gannaway had called me, so I went out to the Bill Hardy Real Estate Co. where Chesher works, and I talked to the manager of that company who is Wey, Jr. The location of the real estate company is 6340 E. Mockingbird Lane. Mr. Wey informed us that Bill Chesher died night before last of a heart attack in the hospital here. We then asked him if he had talked to Chesher any about hearing this mechanic talking in the cafe and he said, “No, he had heard some talk of it, though and he knew one man who had talked to him” and he called in another employee of the company, Mr. John P. [spelling] S-c-h-n-i-t-z-i-u-s, who is also an employee of the Bill Hardy Real Estate Co. and he told us that Chesher told him the same thing, that the mechanic had came in and sat by him and it was--that it took place at approximately 10 o’clock at night. He was leaving town--he was going out of town. He stopped there to get coffee and a sandwich and the man came in while he was there and he had given no description of the mechanic other than that he was short and was dressed in work clothes and that the clothes were greasy and that’s the information that he had, and I believe the man was telling the truth when he said he was a mechanic and that’s as far as we have been able to go.

Mr. JENNER. What is it that the mechanic is alleged to have said?

Mr. BIGGIO. He said that Oswald had been driving Ruby’s car for approximately 2 weeks and that he had brought the car into his garage for repairs, but he did not mention the name of the garage or the type of repairs, the type of automobile or anything else.

Now, we, of course--just as soon as that came through, there were checks made on the repairs on Ruby’s automobile. His automobile was parked regularly, just a short distance up from the Carousel Club at the old Adolphus Hotel parking garage and also mechanical work had been done at that location, and the only other place we can find out where it had been to any type of garage at all was from receipts in his car and they were apparently for gas and oil and such things as that--no mechanical work whatsoever, so we didn’t put much stock in the report, since it was third hand to start off with.

Also, we made an error ourselves--Hellinghousen thought when we brought that information back about Chesher that I would write up the report and I thought he was preparing the report, since he was the one who actually contacted the man and no report was made, but I’m sure the report went to the FBI, but there is no name in the original report connecting anybody with it and there was nothing in that that we could check on except the way we thought was through the mechanical repair bills and they would possibly be in the car.

Mr. JENNER. You have told me all the incidents from the beginning to the present time?

Mr. BIGGIO. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And what you and your fellow officers have done with respect to running this down?

Mr. BIGGIO. Yes, sir. I might add that the gentlemen out at Bill Hardy’s Real Estate Co. were very cooperative and they said they would be willing to talk to any one of you. This lady who called me was very worried about being called herself or about Mr. Chesher possibly being called and him not liking it.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the lady who reported it to you, she was not present--it had been a report to her?

Mr. BIGGIO. She was not present. That’s the reason I say it was third-hand information. It was written up in the report that way, although I considered her reliable. The information was third-hand and there is no way of actually telling. We have to evaluate all the information that comes through and that generally is the reason we make followup investigation prior to turning in a report. In this particular case we were to turn in our information right on through and let the FBI do it; but as you can see, the FBI would have nothing to go on.

Mr. JENNER. Well, they have got what you reported and we’ll see what they turn up.

Mr. BIGGIO. Well, after Mr. Davis, I believe you called the FBI this evening, after you called them, they called me then and I gave them the exact date of the report and what other information we found out and they are going to run it on that.

Mr. JENNER. But you have given me now all the information you gave them?

Mr. BIGGIO. Yes, sir; and from my own viewpoint--this is just my personal viewpoint--I don’t think there’s much to it. I think it’s just some man in a place talking. I think Mr. Chesher was telling the truth, but I don’t think the man who said he was a mechanic was. There is no way we have been able to verify that.

Mr. JENNER. Well, Officer Biggio, we very much appreciate your coming in and part of our work is running down these rumors.

Mr. BIGGIO. I know--I don’t like to turn in a report like that to start off with.

Mr. JENNER. I appreciate it very much and thanks for coming.

Mr. BIGGIO. Does that take care of me not giving out the lady’s name again?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; that’s perfectly all right. We don’t want to probe into that. You have a right to read your deposition here and sign it if you want or you can waive that.

Mr. BIGGIO. I know exactly what I’ve said and I’m sure she has taken down the right thing. I have said nothing except the events that happened. I’m afraid there is nothing that will be of any help anyway.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. GLEN D. KING

The testimony of Capt. Glen D. King was taken at 11:20 a.m., on May 28, 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 Capt. Glen D. King.

Captain King, my name is Leon D. Hubert. I am a member of the advisory staff of the General Counsel of the President’s Commission. Under the provisions of 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 now that the general nature of the Commission’s inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relevant to the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular, as to you, Mr. King, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine what facts you know about the death of Oswald and the surrounding circumstances, and any other pertinent facts you may know about the general inquiry.

Now, Captain King, I believe that you appear here today by virtue of a general request made to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff of the President’s Commission, addressed to your chief, Mr. Curry, asking that you appear before it. Under the rules adopted by the Commission, you are entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of this deposition, but such rules also provide that a witness may waive this 3-day notice if he so wishes. Now, I will ask you to state whether or not you are willing to waive the 3-day notice.

Captain KING. Yes, sir.

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

Captain KING. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Will you please state your name?

Captain KING. Glen D. King.

Mr. HUBERT. And your age?

Captain KING. I am 39.

Mr. HUBERT. Your address?

Captain KING. I live at 519 Goldwood, Dallas 32, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation, sir?

Captain KING. Police officer with the city of Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. And how long have you been so employed?

Captain KING. I was first employed on August 2, 1948.

Mr. HUBERT. And have you been with the police department continuously since then?

Captain KING. No; I have not. I left the department in, I think it was 1950, and was gone approximately 11 months, and returned in 1951; and I have been with the department continuously since that date.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that a resignation from the department?

Captain KING. It was a resignation from the department and I entered into private business.

Mr. HUBERT. It was voluntary?

Captain KING. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And did you start at the bottom, as it were?

Captain KING. Yes; as a patrolman.

Mr. HUBERT. I notice that in the report of the proceedings at which you made a speech, I think, in Washington, there was a description of you and your career given and I am going to read it into the record here and ask you if it is correct.

You were introduced as follows: That you are an administrative assistant to Chief Curry and that you are a former newspaperman, that you were a police reporter on the Dallas Morning News when you joined the police department in 1948; that you have served in every division of the department until you have risen to the position you now hold; that you had studied journalism in college at the University of Texas and SMU; that you have attended a number of police institutes and lectured at some of them; that you have written in the field of political science and that you are the author of two books and numerous magazine articles; is that all correct, sir?

Captain KING. Sir, this is correct.

Mr. HUBERT. What was your specific assignment on November 22 and for some months or weeks or whatever it was prior to that date, the year being 1963?

Captain KING. As the administrative assistant to the chief, one of my primary responsibilities is press relations and public relations also. On the date of November 22 I was asked to remain in the administrative offices while other members of the administrative staff were going to be absent on their assignments, and I was asked to stay in the administrative offices.

Mr. HUBERT. I would like for you to describe for the record just under normal circumstances just what the functions and duties and responsibilities of your position are.

Captain KING. There are, of course, a lot of rather dissimilar or separated functions of the office.

Mr. HUBERT. I am particularly interested in the ones dealing with press relations and public relations.

Captain KING. As I say, the office--our office is the unit of the department that is charged with the efforts of the department for public relations and it is the office to which the local newsmen know they can come to receive any assistance that they need in their work. It is one in which they can register complaints against the department and procedures of the department and the treatment that they receive, or it is one to which they can come to secure information on things they are investigating.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, there is a setup--a central spot--where every newsman can get the information and information will be gotten for him?

Captain KING. This is true.

Mr. HUBERT. That’s your office and you are the head of that?

Captain KING. That’s true; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Prior to November 22, were any standard operating procedures set up for relationships with the press?

Captain KING. Yes; we had a general order in the department which in very brief and very general terms set forth a policy of the department so far as their relations with the press was concerned. We had published prior to that time a memorandum from the chief setting forth what the policy of the department would be. Briefly stated, it was the policy that we would render any possible assistance to the press except that assistance which would seriously interfere with any investigation that we had underway. This policy made it the responsibility of each officer of the department to do this.

My office is the press relations office, but my office is not the only place in the department where a newsman could get information. It was the responsibility of each member of the department to furnish to the press information on incidents in which they, themselves, were involved, except on matters which involved departmental personnel policies of the department, or, as I said, unless it would obviously interfere with an investigation underway.

Mr. HUBERT. In the latter case, if it would interfere with an investigation underway, what was the policy then?

Captain KING. If it would interfere, then it was the policy that the information would be withheld.

Mr. HUBERT. And the press then would simply not be told or be sent away, as it were?

Captain KING. It would be withheld from the press; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. And you say that that was the general policy, not merely with respect to your relations with the press, but with every police officer’s relations with the press?

Captain KING. That’s correct; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. Was it your duty to enforce that policy in the event you saw it was being disrupted; that is to say, in the event you observed that press relationship was interfering with an investigation?

Captain KING. It would be--probably; yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, did you have any general system of registration of the press--I’m not speaking now of November 22--but of normal conditions whereby identification cards and so forth would be issued?

Captain KING. Yes, sir; we have.

Mr. HUBERT. What was that?

Captain KING. We have an identification card that we have prepared, the department prepared, and newsmen who are employees of regular news gathering agencies in town, upon identification as such or request of their employer actually, are furnished with the press identification.

Mr. HUBERT. I suppose that would be given mostly to local press people, would it not?

Captain KING. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, on the occasion of the President’s visit, is it fair to state that more outside newsmen sought this accreditation or identification card?

Captain KING. Some did seek it--yes. Very little of it actually was done. We received a call from--at least these are the only ones that I can recall, Mr. Hubert, that we gave the identification to--out-of-State or newsmen who did not normally work here--we received a call from channel 4, KRLD-TV and they said they had some people in here from out of the city, of which I recall there were eight of these. They were identified to us by Eddie Barker who is the news director of KRLD, and they were furnished press cards. These are the only ones I recall.

Mr. HUBERT. That was prior to the assassination?

Captain KING. No, this was subsequent to the assassination. These are the only ones that I can recall that were given for newsmen who came into town to cover this.

Mr. HUBERT. Is it your thought now that the newsmen who were not local, who were not known to you and who did not have individual identification cards should have not been admitted or spoken to unless they had obtained clearance?

Captain KING. I don’t think it would have been possible from a practical point of view--I don’t think it could have been done.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you tell us why?

Captain KING. “Why” has to include the atmosphere that existed over there, the tremendous pressures that existed, the fact that telephones were ringing constantly, that there were droves of people in there; it would also have to include the fact that the method by which you positively identify someone--it doesn’t mean--it’s not easy. If someone comes into us with a letter from the New York Times on their letterhead stating that this man is an employee of the New York Times, “Will you please furnish him with identification?”, we haven’t any way of knowing that actually this letter did come from the New York Times and that it was not on a forged or stolen letterhead.