Chapter XL: Front Matter (40)

Mr. KAUFMAN. Never--I just knew him by reputation. Actually, I don’t know him by reputation. If I saw the man--I mean--I would never know him. I wouldn’t know what he looked like.

Mr. HUBERT. So, you got the name “McWillie” from Ruby really, when he told you about him?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That’s right.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you’ve covered some of this and it may be repetitious, but I think you are in a good position to tell us, if you will, what do you know about Jack’s thoughts or attitudes towards the various “isms” that exist in the world today, “rightism,” “leftism,” and so forth?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. Hubert, to be very honest with you and to be very candid with you, I have never discussed it with Jack, so it would be presumptuous again on my part to express opinions as to any political philosophies, as far as any philosophies or doctrines he might have toward any “isms.” I certainly would classify him--I think this--I think I am certainly in a situation, having served in the Armed Forces and having served in China and having been active in my community supporting them financially as well as with works, I would certainly classify Jack as to what I knew about him as a loyal American.

Mr. HUBERT. From what you knew of him as a person, would he be the type of person that would be interested in international politics or international ideological philosophies and so forth?

Mr. KAUFMAN. If he was, I had never discussed it with him. Actually, as I explained to you, I’m sure that many of us even in the course of legal conversation will digress somewhat and talk about sports or talk about women or talk about a multitude of subjects. To the best of my recollection I never had talked politics with Jack. I had never talked anything that would give me any background where I can express an opinion on that subject.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you express your opinion as to what his desires and ambitions in life were?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, that covers a multitude of sins. I can say that in the field of his business venture, I really think that Jack would liked to have been a success in the field of entertainment. He had tried many, many ribbons, and when I say “ribbons,” I mean they’ve changed methods of operations.

I didn’t know Jack when he was in some other nightclub businesses. I think he was being represented by some other attorneys. In fact, before coming here this morning I tried to just recollect how I first met Jack, and the best I could recall, I had talked to him a few times in the lobby of the Mercantile Bank and who had introduced Jack to me, I was trying to find out that, and I recall that he at that time used to wear a short-sleeved sport shirt and a pair of trousers and a bunch of keys on the back of his hip, and reminiscing how he had improved his dress and all through that period of time, that Jack when he would come to my office I would say generally would be dressed and attired well. He would have on a tie and a suit, and I think he wanted to elevate himself where he would be a success financially. I think honestly he would have married Alice Nichols. For example, when we discussed this, he didn’t think he was worthy of her, being a nightclub operator and she a very fine legal secretary for a very fine attorney.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you detect any sensitivity toward his background?

Mr. KAUFMAN. We never talked about his background. Not that he would avoid it--naturally, there would be a time or occasion that certain events would come up and he might say, “Well, it was pretty rough in Chicago.” Jack had a finger off--I don’t know if you have seen Jack, but he did tell me once that someone bit it off in a fight he had with him. Now, whether that was in Dallas or Chicago, I don’t even know, and whether that was true or not, I don’t know.

I was at the Worth Food Market, they have a kosher delicatessen up there and I was checking out--I’d been up there buying some stuff and I was up at the counter checking out and a little boy had his little portable radio and all of a sudden I heard this kind of a report, as I recall, “They are bringing Oswald down,” and the next thing is this boom, and as I recall the news reporter said, “My goodness, one of these trigger-happy detectives has shot Oswald” and they wouldn’t identify who it was, and then they straightened it up and they said, “No, it wasn’t a detective” but they wouldn’t identify him, but then I get in the car and turn on the radio in the car and all of a sudden they say it was Jack Ruby who was the person who had shot Lee Oswald, and I liked to have died. I was going home, and my wife had heard it, and she couldn’t believe it. She just talked about “what went wrong with that crazy Jack?” She said, “He just must have been nuts,” but it just was the most shocking thing I ever heard in my life when I heard on the radio that Jack Ruby had gone to the police station and shot Lee Oswald.

Mr. HUBERT. Did anyone contact you to represent him? I think it was mentioned that he said that you would be one of his three lawyers?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I think he said he wanted any of these three--yes.

Mr. HUBERT. He never contacted you about it?

Mr. KAUFMAN. He personally?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes?

Mr. KAUFMAN. He didn’t call me, but I had a call right after that from some lady saying she was calling for his sister, and at that time Oswald was still living, and they called me and they said “We know you don’t handle these matters and maybe you could refer someone to us?”

Mr. HUBERT. Did she identify herself?

Mr. KAUFMAN. At the time she did, but I gave no significance to it.

Mr. HUBERT. You don’t know who it was?

Mr. KAUFMAN. No.

Mr. HUBERT. But she represented to you that she was calling on behalf of Eva Grant?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That’s correct, and at that time I recommended Fred Brunner, not that I recommended him on just this case, but we have had other clients who have had problems. In fact, I have recommended one to Fred within the last 2 or 3 weeks. I didn’t call him. I said, “To me, I think Fred Brunner is a very able lawyer who could probably help them,” and the next thing I get a call from Sam Daugherty who is in Fred Brunner’s office and Sam says that the lady had called and that Fred was out on his farm and said for me to call back and tell them that Sam Daugherty was going to help them. Well, I tried to call back but their phone was so busy I never was able to get back in touch with them, but I was informed that Sam Daugherty and Fred Brunner went down, but there was so much confusion down at the police station that they left and that they went over to that office across the street where Colley Sullivan has his office and watched it on TV. They figured--“we can’t find out anything going on over here, but we can through this news.” Now, we’ve talked about it since that time, in fact, I talked to Mr. Brunner when I got my subpena. I asked him if he wanted to come over and relate any of this to me, and I’m sure if anybody wanted to talk to him, Brunner would be happy to relate what the situation was, but all the lawyers were trying to get in on the act, that he just felt, “Boy, this thing is so confusing, I’m taking off” and he apologized to me about it, Mr. Hubert. He, as I say, is a very fine attorney, and to him, he just didn’t know what was going on and neither did I nor did anyone else, and so I just dropped the thing.

Mr. HUBERT. You never were contacted by anybody further as a matter of fact?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, Tom Howard, I think, talked to me several times about this Rubenstein deal. I would call Tom Howard and say, “The Jewish community is in an uproar about this, I had a call from so-and-so,” and this was true--this is true. In fact, I had a call from Julius Schepps and some of the most responsible and influential people we do have in Dallas too, and they said to me, “I hope you are not going to get involved in this case,” and to Julius I remember I said, “Well, Julius, you know--” he heard my name mentioned, and I said, “Julius, if I were able to represent the man I would” and I told him how I felt, and in my conversation about it he indicated that the whole country was concerned about it. So, I would keep on to Tom Howard about this--I said, “Man, this is just wrong that these people here in Dallas feel that someone is trying to just incite a bunch of prejudice into this and that’s not right.” I told him that Jack Ruby should be tried as Jack Ruby and not anything else. So, I would get in touch with Tom and did on many occasions, and I’ll say to you this quite frankly, that I talked with Tom and when they cited him to go before the Grievance Committee, that I would personally appear voluntarily to tell them that there had been a great deal of pressure put on about this Rubenstein deal and I so advised the FBI at the time and told them that I had been bothered, molested, called and so on about the Rubenstein part, and that people didn’t like it and they didn’t know why it was injected into it, and that Chief Curry apparently had started it when they made this announcement on TV when he told them that his name was Rubenstein, alias Jack Ruby, and that this was not a reflection on Henry Wade and it was not a reflection on anybody that I knew, except somewhere along the line someone had either in error or either intentionally started this business about Jack Rubenstein.

Now, the reason I say this--later, if you recall, there were a number of TV stories on a Jack Rubenstein who is supposed to have been, and these are things that I didn’t even know about but I read about it in the paper, and heard it on TV that he was supposed to have been a questionable character that had been cited by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and Tom Howard even indicated to me that he had gone to the trouble of going to the public library and looking it up or had someone do it, of checking all the Jack Rubensteins in all the major cities, that there were many, many Jack Rubensteins, and where they got this business he didn’t know and why they were trying to do this, he didn’t know.

Yes, sir; I was contacted and contacted by others and I will say this: Mr. Ted Freedman from the southwestern regional office of ADL came up to Dallas and he was in my home and he wanted to know whether or not I felt that the antisemitism had been injected into this case and I told Ted that as far as I knew it had not been, that this was not intentional, that it was an accident perhaps, and in talking with Tom Howard, he had talked to some of the major newspaper writers who were in Dallas at the time and some of the major magazines that had been here at the time, and they felt likewise that there was no antisemitism that had been purposely injected into the matter, but the damage was already done, Mr. Hubert.

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. KAUFMAN. If there was any damage, it was already done, and there was no way of erasing it, and believe me, this was a great concern of many, and I could go on and on and on and tell you the concern that many had for it.

Mr. HUBERT. I have one final matter I would like to ask you about. I have been advised that you represented an individual who happened to be in jail on the day the President was shot and had a view through the window?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes; this was an interesting development, Mr. Hubert. As I told you before we took the deposition, I represent a number of insurance companies and when I say a number, I maybe have three or four that we do defense work for, and when I talked to Mrs. Stroud of the U.S. attorney’s office, I told her that----

Mr. HUBERT. That was just a couple of days ago?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes, sir; when I received the notice from the Committee. I had a case styled Lowe versus Mitchell that was in the 44th Judicial District Court and I was representing this, as I say, on behalf of an insurance company, and this boy, Willie Mitchell, a colored boy who we incidentally had a great deal of trouble getting into a defendant’s case. He felt that he had already served his term in jail and that he didn’t owe any debt to society moneywise or otherwise, and there was a serious question of whether we were going to continue to defend him or whether or not he had any coverage, but notwithstanding that, we did settle his case, and I did get him to come by the office one day for an interview, and in the course of my conversation he let me know that he was in the jail serving a DWI offense at the time the President was killed, and I sat back and forgot about the automobile accident and just let him talk, and he related how all of these prisoners up in jail had been advised by the jailers and that they had read in the newspapers that the President was coming to town, and they looked in the papers and they saw the route, how the President was coming to town, and the jailers told them where and that they were coming and they congregated at this window--I mean--this side of the jail. Apparently they had a good view of what took place, and he described to me exactly, and when I say “exactly,” he didn’t see anyone in that window, but I did tell Mrs. Stroud that I thought it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people in jail who saw the actual killing.

He described the President as having been hit from the rear and he said there was no question in his mind that the bullet came from the window. He said when the President’s head was hit, it was just like throwing a bucket of water at him--that’s the way it burst. He said it made him sick and everybody else sick up there.

I felt that Mrs. Stroud should know this and would want the Commission to know it for the reason that there seems to have been some question as to what I’ve read in the newspaper as to whether or not there was more than one bullet and whether or not the bullet came from the back or came from the front.

I was a small-arms instructor myself over in China, having been trained in the infantry school in Fort Benning, and I certainly feel I would love to, if I could, volunteer anything that would be helpful to the Commission, and if that information were helpful, I will be glad to get Willie Mitchell’s address and furnish it to you.

Actually, I don’t know who else was in jail. I do know that Willie Mitchell was, and I had even suggested that he get in touch with the Warren Commission, but he just has as many people have this “I don’t want to get involved” attitude. I mean, he felt that he had already been too much involved with that DWI and didn’t want to get involved with anything else.

Mr. HUBERT. Does Mitchell live in Dallas?

Mr. KAUFMAN. He’s a construction worker and lives in Dallas.

Mr. HUBERT. I would ask you to do this, would you address a note to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the Commission?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I have his address on the letter of transmittal.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you advise him that in the course of this deposition the question of Willie Mitchell came up and that I asked you to furnish the address that you have for him?

Mr. KAUFMAN. All right.

Mr. HUBERT. And that you are doing it at my request?

Mr. KAUFMAN. I will be happy to, and incidentally, I did mention this to Sheriff Decker. This is no surprise, and I did tell Sheriff Decker--because I had asked Willie Mitchell how many people had talked to him about this, whether or not anyone had come up to the jail to discuss this with any of the prisoners, and he did indicate that there were some people but he thought they were probably just people from the jail office rather than anyone else.

Mr. HUBERT. When did you tell Sheriff Decker about it?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Right after I found out about it.

Mr. HUBERT. And when was that?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, the case was settled, I guess, about 5 or 6 or 7 weeks ago. It’s been within the last 2 or 2½ months, maybe. I believe I was down there one Saturday afternoon and was talking to him about it.

Mr. HUBERT. Is there anything else you wish to say, Mr. Kaufman?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, that’s very kind of you to turn the record loose to me here where I could go ahead and make any statements. I would like to say this, Mr. Hubert, that frankly I certainly would give any additional information that you would want to know now or at any time, whether by interrogatories by letter, and I assure you that you have my utmost full cooperation. I know what the function of the Commission is--I have read it. I know that it’s a difficult task that you have and whether you can ever come up with the conclusions that the American people want, I don’t know. I certainly feel that many people won’t believe the findings of the Commission, that they’ve already prejudged this thing. I think what you are attempting to do is a worthy project of the President, the Chief Justice, and all I’m sure they are doing is trying to get to the root of it.

I won’t go into my feelings about the trial of Jack because I know you know I am rather prejudiced about it. I do feel that a great injustice has been done. I wouldn’t tell a story for him, though, or tell a lie. I am here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I think that Jack, notwithstanding what I read in the Dallas Morning News today, was acting on impulse. I think that he did something that many, many Americans--good red-blooded Americans would have done. I don’t justify it. I don’t condone it. I don’t say it is the right thing to do. I have had a number of calls where people thought he should have gotten a medal.

I think there is certain testimony that should have been brought out that wasn’t. I have questions about the defense of Jack Ruby as a lawyer. I have some feelings about statements that have been made about the oligarchy of Dallas. That’s why I say to you, when you asked me if there is anything else I could say, I could certainly lend a lot of thought that I’m sure would have no bearing on it, but the only reason I’m making this statement is that I do feel that it’s very difficult in reviewing depositions to get the same feeling you do when you look a person in the eyes; when you get to sit across from them you get to feel the warmth of a person, that notwithstanding the good work of a reporter, these things cannot be reflected in a written deposition, and in the Commission’s later reading this--I’m just trying to reflect a little of my personality so that they would know that I am not a vicious person and I am not a person who has any malice towards anyone. I mean, I personally as a lawyer and trained as a lawyer, think that the facts should be brought out, and I think that the things that have motivated people in their testimony, whether it’s before the Commission or otherwise, certainly is worthwhile. I think there have been tremendous pressures put on people involved in this case, whether it’s me or anyone else. As I pointed out, the tremendous pressures that were put on me those first few days because my name was mentioned, is what I refer to. I think that there was tremendous pressure put on the lawyers who tried this case.

I think the Ruby family were not treated fairly in the opportunity of getting fair counsel. I think they had a very difficult time employing counsel locally. I think the fact that they had to go out of the State to get counsel is not because they wanted to go out of State. I think that they had many, many problems that I can’t discuss with you because perhaps the relationship of client-attorney is involved. I believe there are many people who have been involved as lawyers who have had tremendous pressure put on them. I think that even the district attorney’s office has been put under tremendous pressures, and this is an unfortunate situation, because if you believe in justice, if you believe in truth, if you believe in righteousness, you would say certainly that these things--you have to get these pressures taken off of you.

I have had many, many people tell me about the future of this appeal, that they feel that the pressures will have more to do with it than the law. I think this is wrong. I think that this case should be decided as a matter of law, not as a matter of prejudices or pressures, and I certainly think that the Commission should let the chips fall as they will, that they shouldn’t be subjected to pressures. I don’t think that those who are on it probably would be, but they are human beings and we all have human frailties. I think we can only take so much and I think this is what happened to Jack Ruby.

In closing, I would like to say this--that one of the things I have alluded to is this point about Jack not walking into a police station to make a sacrifice of himself with the money in his pocket. I think that the physical facts--you can see premeditation on a man like Lee Oswald, but the fact that he had a planned method in this whole thing. In my opinion he had a plan not only of accomplishing his mission but of a getaway.

You take a man such as Jack, as I see this situation and as I have found from information that has been told to me, not by Jack but from outsiders, Jack could never have known the plan of removing Lee Oswald from the jail, that it had to be something that just happened. These physical facts are there and I’m sure the Commission has them.

Mr. HUBERT. I think you’ve mentioned to me that it is your opinion that as you knew Jack Ruby, he would not walk into jail----

Mr. KAUFMAN. With several hundred dollars in his pocket.

Mr. HUBERT. Intending to shoot somebody with the certainty of being caught?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That’s right. Knowing Jack Ruby as I did, knowing his financial situation, I feel that if the story that I read in the paper this morning was correct, that he considered himself a sacrifice, I just can’t believe this, because I would say that if he did do this, Mr. Hubert, I feel, knowing him, that Jack would have taken his money and left it with his sister or left it with his bartender or left it with someone, but I don’t believe Jack Ruby would have walked into the jail with his money, and leaving his dogs elsewhere, with the understanding he was going to make a sacrifice out of himself and be caught, because this does not demonstrate to me the actions of a sane person--to walk into a place with your money, with your dogs here, and without any plan of getting away or a plan of getting out of it.

Mr. HUBERT. And you say that’s inconsistent of what your estimate of Jack Ruby as a human being was?

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. You made reference to what you read in the paper this morning, and I take it you are referring to the front page story of the Dallas Morning News by Carl Fruend?

Mr. KAUFMAN. By Mr. Fruend.

Mr. HUBERT. Who writes a story concerning the interview of Jack Ruby with the Chief Justice, is that correct, that’s the story?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That’s correct.

Mr. HUBERT. I wanted to identify it.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes, sir; in other words, the story you refer to is a story that purports to be a copyrighted story regarding the testimony of Jack Ruby before the Chief Justice and other members of the Commission or whoever was present, and in which the story relates that Jack said he went down there for a twofold purpose. One was to send a telegram and the “other”--referring to the elimination or assassination or the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I say that I believe that’s inconsistent with the man’s personality and with his actions--with the man that I know.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, prior to the commencement of this deposition, we did have some conversation, and in order that the record can be clear on the point, as I now look back, we have covered in the deposition everything that we spoke about prior to the deposition, isn’t that correct?

Mr. KAUFMAN. That is correct, Mr. Hubert.

Mr. HUBERT. So that there is nothing that has passed between us that has not been recorded.

Mr. KAUFMAN. There is nothing that has passed between us that has not been recorded, and I believe further that we had a further conversation prior to that in which you had indicated, just as you did in the deposition, that we could invoke our privilege, and I had indicated to you that if necessary I would go off the record and give you the information, and you further requested that I do not go off the record because there would have to be other explanations, and we have not gone off the record, that all of our conversations before and after have now been, I believe, correctly reported.

Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful indeed.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, I hope so.

Mr. HUBERT. We are trying to get the picture of the man.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, that’s what I tried to give you and that is all I can do.

Mr. HUBERT. I might state to you, too, you know that we are far more interested in this man just from the newspaper standpoint. We are building this record so that in a hundred years from now, a person reading it can make sense of it.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Well, I wish that I were an artist, but I’m not that articulate, but you see, this is what’s wrong, and our good reporter knows that many times when we see these depositions, we say, “Do we sound that bad?” Sometimes a reporter will edit them, but they are not supposed to. I mean, they may make us sound a little better.

I will further say frankly, that the worst part of this is that it is impossible for the Commission when they read all this and try to digest it, to see the people and how they feel, and if they could see the people I think it would be so much more helpful to the Commission.

Mr. HUBERT. Yes; I can understand that. And again, let me say how much we thank you for coming today.

Mr. KAUFMAN. All right, thank you.

TESTIMONY OF DANNY PATRICK McCURDY

The testimony of Danny Patrick McCurdy was taken at 4:15 p.m., on June 26, 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 Danny Patrick McCurdy.

Mr. McCurdy, my name is Leon Hubert. I’m 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 now 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. McCurdy, the nature of the inquiry today 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 movements and associates and so forth on a certain date.

Now, I believe 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 be present.

Mr. MCCURDY. Right.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember the date of the letter?

Mr. MCCURDY. I am not sure. I think it was the 22d, if I’m not mistaken, is when I got it. It was dated the 22d at the top of the letter.

Mr. HUBERT. When did you get it?

Mr. MCCURDY. About the 23d or 24th.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, under the rules adopted by the Commission every witness is entitled to a 3-day written notice prior to the taking of his deposition, dating from the date of the request, and it is probable therefore that the rules have been complied with, but in any case the rules do provide that a witness may waive that 3-day notice, and I ask you whether you are willing to go ahead and testify now?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; I will go ahead and testify right now.

Mr. HUBERT. Would you stand up and take the oath, please, sir?

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?

Mr. MCCURDY. I do.

Mr. HUBERT. Mr. McCurdy, I have heretofore, a little while ago, handed you a document consisting of two pages which I have marked for identification as follows: On the first page in the right-hand margin I have marked the words “Dallas, Texas, June 26, 1964, Exhibit No. 1, Deposition of Danny Patrick McCurdy” and on the second page I have placed my initials in the lower right-hand corner. This document purports to be the report of an interview of you by FBI Agent Coleman Mabray on November 29, 1963. Have you read this, sir?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; sure have.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us whether this is a correct report of the interview?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, basically it is. There are two or three discrepancies at the end. I suppose they misunderstood me, but they’re not earth shattering or anything about the conversation that I had with Jack.

Mr. HUBERT. You are referring to page 2?

Mr. MCCURDY. Right--it says, “McCurdy advised that he ended his conversation with Ruby and he entered the diskjockey room”. Now, our conversation took place in the diskjockey room, that is, our console room, and not the newsroom.

Now, Jack spent the majority of the time in the newsroom with our newsman, Glenn Duncan, the man that just left, and a man by the name of Russ “Knight” Moore, who is now at WXYZ at Detroit, Mich., and also a gentleman named Pappas that I mentioned--I can’t remember what his first name was, but anyway he’s a newsman with WNEW in New York City, but Jack’s conversation and my conversation took place by ourselves in the control room. Now, he was in the control room at the time. There is another discrepancy down here, and it says I had met Ruby one time before.

Mr. HUBERT. That’s in the fourth paragraph.

Mr. MCCURDY. Actually, I had been with him twice. I had been to his club twice, rather than just once--it’s once--right here, and in the same paragraph it says, “So far as I know Ruby is not a personal friend of anyone at the station.” This is not true. He was a friend of Russ Moore. Now, Russ didn’t really appreciate his friendship, but he was a friend of Russ and this clarifies the last paragraph where it says, “I have no idea how Ruby obtained the telephone number at the station.” He knew several of the diskjockeys, one who had left the radio station earlier named Chuck Dunnaway--Charles Dunnaway who is now in Beaumont. He knew him, so I could easily see how he got the telephone number of the unlisted phone number--either through Chuck or Russ, or possibly one of our newsmen, that he possibly knew.

Mr. HUBERT. Is this an incorrect report or is it that you did tell this to the FBI people and now your memory is clearer on it?

Mr. MCCURDY. I don’t exactly know. I can’t remember telling Mr. Mabray anything. Of course, it was such an informal conversation we had anyway, that these are actually I’m sure not earth shattering discrepancies, but Mr. Mabray was handwriting most of the stuff and some of the questions--I’m sure he wrote down answers that were understood rather than--since he wasn’t there, he couldn’t understand the setup of the control room. Now, we are in a new control room now over across the street, but at this particular time I suppose maybe my description of the control room--the difference between the control room and the newsroom possibly didn’t make it clear in Mr. Mabray’s mind as to the difference.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, in any case, with the exceptions that you have noted, the document which has been identified Exhibit No. 1 is substantially correct?

Mr. MCCURDY. Correct; entirely correct.

Mr. HUBERT. Apparently you talked to Ruby about 5 minutes after he arrived with the sandwiches; is that correct?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You were alone with him, I believe, at that time, were you not?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the nature of the conversation?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, now first of all--Jack and I met in the newsroom. I went back with him to the newsroom and we had the sandwiches and everything and I grabbed a sandwich and started back to the control room and Jack walked part of the way back with me and he stopped in the hall.

Now, as far as our conversation was concerned--it was just--Jack mentioned how terrible it was about President Kennedy being assassinated and he said he felt like it was a good thing that we had changed our station format, which we had done. We had changed our news format and weren’t playing any rock and roll at the station, but were playing album music, soft listening music, and I don’t know whether I mentioned it or not--I can’t remember whether I mentioned it or not but he looked rather pale to me as he was talking to me and he kept looking at the floor. Well, I went on back to the control room and Jack went back to the newsroom and talked to the newsman, and then I would say 5 or 6 minutes later came back to the control room where I was by myself and he stood there and talked to me and basically told me what was on your paper right there. He told me once again--he rementioned how sorry he was that all this had happened and he gave me a little card that I think I still have, an advertisement for his club.

Mr. HUBERT. The Carousel Club?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; the Carousel Club, and we just sat around and talked in general and he mentioned that he was going to close his club down for the weekend--I can’t remember his exact words--I think it was more correct on this because it was closer to the time he said it and I gave it to the FBI man. He said, “I’m going to close my club down this weekend. I’d rather lose 12 or 15,000--” Oh, that’s a discrepancy--I think he said 12 or 1500 right there.

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. MCCURDY. It should be 12 or 1500, and he said that.

Mr. HUBERT. It’s a discrepancy then in the second paragraph of page 2 of Exhibit No. 1 where it says “12 to 15,000” it should be “12 to 1500”?

Mr. MCCURDY. Right. He said, “I’d rather lose 12 or 1500 this weekend by closing down than I had not to be able to live with myself.” You can certainly imagine what a shock this was to me when he went out on Sunday and shot Oswald.

Mr. HUBERT. I show you a photostat of a card. Is that the Carousel Club’s card?

Mr. MCCURDY. As a matter of fact, I have one right here.

Mr. HUBERT. Is that the one?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUBERT. You are showing me one that you’re taking out of your wallet?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; and here’s another one Jack had given me earlier, a picture of one of the strippers on it.

Mr. HUBERT. These two cards are different from the one I’m showing you?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes.

Mr. HUBERT. The one I’m showing you is a part of the exhibit one page 3, Exhibit No. 1 of the deposition of David L. Johnston. Was that the type of card he gave you?

Mr. MCCURDY. No; this is the one he gave me--right here. This one also, of course, is his. Now, this doesn’t have any advertising for Jack, but this is the background on one of his girls down there that he had. Also, I have no idea why he did it, but I have one of the bottles that Jack left up there and it was a very unusual brand of soda pop that I had taken to my apartment. I took it over to the apartment and just threw it in the ice box because it was one of them that was left over, and I had heard earlier that they found some cold drink bottles up in the window where Oswald was and I was going to say if there was any kind of connection as far as this type of cold drink was concerned, I would certainly be able to identify the other bottle, if it was like this one.

Mr. HUBERT. Can you fix the time when Ruby first called by telephone, I think you received the call, didn’t you?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes. Oh, my gosh, it would have to be after midnight and I’m sure it was before 1 o’clock.

Mr. HUBERT. Why do you pick those two times?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, it was my recollection that I had just come on the air. I went on at midnight at that time and Russ Knight, the Weird Beard, was still there, and he gets off at midnight, and he was sticking around the station and I placed the time that I got the call the first time, I would say, about 12:20.

Mr. HUBERT. Were there two calls or one?

Mr. MCCURDY. There was only one to my recollection that Jack made.

Mr. HUBERT. Was that on the hot line?

Mr. MCCURDY. No; it was on what we term the jock line. It’s in my paper there. The number has since been changed. It’s changed periodically.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you transfer him over to Glenn Duncan?

Mr. MCCURDY. No; I didn’t. As far as I know; I didn’t.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, did you give him the number, the hot line number?

Mr. MCCURDY. To my knowledge; I didn’t.

Mr. HUBERT. You were aware that he did subsequently call Glenn? And I think you introduced him to Glenn; didn’t you?

Mr. MCCURDY. As far as I know; I didn’t.

Mr. HUBERT. Maybe it was Mr. Moore?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, now, Russ was a closer friend to Jack than I was.

Mr. HUBERT. We have fixed then the time that he called and spoke to you--what was that conversation about?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, Jack said he had some sandwiches and some cold drinks that he would like to bring up to the station, that he knew we were working hard, and under a lot of strain, and he wanted to bring us some refreshment up, and so he brought some up. Oh, my gosh, corn beef on rye and we had some cold drinks--Dr. Black’s cold drink. The reason I remember this--they are surrounded with or had gold foil on them and he said you could only get them in New York and that they were the best cold drinks in the world, and they were in my estimation--the best cold drinks I’ve ever had, but as I said, I felt later I should have turned one of these bottles over to the FBI. I didn’t think about it until just here recently, about turning it over to the FBI.

Mr. HUBERT. Why was that?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, because it had been said they found some cold drink bottles where Oswald supposedly shot President Kennedy, and I was going to say--for Heaven’s sake, if they found the same kind as these cold drink bottles, I see no reason why they should, but if they did, it would certainly establish some kind of a link.

Mr. HUBERT. In other words, they were unique kinds of bottles?

Mr. MCCURDY. They were--they certainly were.

Mr. HUBERT. Unique in shape or what?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, they were unique in shape.

Mr. HUBERT. What was the shape?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, it was more on the order of a small Pepsi Cola bottle but the label was what was different. It had gold foil wrapped around it up at the top. It was apparently a very expensive cold drink--I would say.

Mr. HUBERT. It was called Dr. Black?

Mr. MCCURDY. Dr. Black’s cold drinks.

Mr. HUBERT. And your thought is that if the bottles found near the position where Oswald was supposed to be, were the same type of bottle, that would be significant, is that it?

Mr. MCCURDY. It certainly would; yes.

Mr. HUBERT. That, of course, is noted and will be followed up. About how long afterward did Ruby actually appear at the station?

Mr. MCCURDY. Oh, I hate to say anything contradictory to what’s in the statement there, but I really can’t remember what I said. I just read over it a little bit ago, though.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, do you want to look it over again?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; let’s see. “I advised that some 15 or 20 minutes later I ran downstairs between a record”--I started to putting on a record apparently or some album record, one of our albums there and I ran downstairs and opened the front door and Jack was waiting there with sandwiches and drinks and he was waiting there and apparently had been waiting a few minutes.

Mr. HUBERT. Was Russ Moore with him then at that time?

Mr. MCCURDY. I can’t remember. Now, I get the feeling that Russ went down with me to open the door, and the more I think about it, I’m not exactly sure that he did.

Mr. HUBERT. You said that was about 20 minutes after the phone call?

Mr. MCCURDY. Right. I would say sometime before 1 o’clock, around a quarter to 1.

Mr. HUBERT. You testified a minute ago, I think, that you thought the phone call was about 12:20, so this would have been 12:40 or 12:45?

Mr. MCCURDY. Right; correct.

Mr. HUBERT. How long did he stay?

Mr. MCCURDY. To my knowledge Jack stayed, maybe an hour or maybe longer. After our conversation ended, I didn’t really take note of whether Jack was still in there or not--he was kind of a hanger-on.

Mr. HUBERT. You didn’t talk to him but just these few minutes?

Mr. MCCURDY. The two times I talked to him--once in the hall and in the control room.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember whether he was there when Glenn Duncan went on his 2 o’clock news broadcast?

Mr. MCCURDY. I can’t remember--I really can’t remember. I’ll tell you--there was a diversionary action going on and I was paying attention to this Pappas, what’s his name, that was from WNEW. Of course, all of us in markets the size of Dallas are always interested in larger markets like New York and Chicago, and I was kind of watching him, and so it threw part of my attention off of Jack on to him.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know what a thing called an Alpawna [spelling] A-l-p-a-w-n-a box is?

Mr. MCCURDY. A what?

Mr. HUBERT. An Alpawna box?

Mr. MCCURDY. Alpawna box--no; I don’t. I have no idea.

Mr. HUBERT. I don’t either.

Mr. MCCURDY. Apparently, if it was of any size, he didn’t have it on him, because as I testified to the FBI agent, he didn’t look like he had a gun on him of any kind. Of course, he may have.

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know how he was dressed?

Mr. MCCURDY. Yes; he had on to my recollection a dark charcoal business suit with a matching dark tie and with dark shoes and a dark hat with a little funny band on it.

Mr. HUBERT. What about an overcoat?

Mr. MCCURDY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. He had no topcoat on?

Mr. MCCURDY. No topcoat on.

Mr. HUBERT. Are you familiar with the famous Weissman ad?

Mr. MCCURDY. Weissman ad?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes; which appeared in the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. MCCURDY. Oh, yes; wait a minute, what did it say?

Mr. HUBERT. It asked some questions of Mr. Kennedy and so forth.

Mr. MCCURDY. It was an advertisement for a local establishment?

Mr. HUBERT. No; it was an advertisement generally critical of the President. It was a full-page ad which appeared on the day of the President’s visit and at the very bottom of it it was signed by Mr. Bernard Weissman.

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, I don’t remember that. I do remember a local grocery store chain--I remember what it was--it was a grocery store chain or something--it was in, I think, the Morning News the next morning--they failed to pull out, after President Kennedy was killed; Saturday morning this came out and it was a picture of a rocking chair and the back of a man and it was, of course, President Kennedy and the little girl was standing there saying something cute and something funny and it would have been very funny had it not been that day, but it was just an oversight and a tragedy.

Mr. HUBERT. But in any case, coming back to the Weissman ad, you had no conversation with Ruby about any such thing?

Mr. MCCURDY. Oh, no; no.

Mr. HUBERT. Did Ruby in the course of his conversation with you or with anyone else you heard advert to the Jewish question or Judaism in any way at all?

Mr. MCCURDY. None whatsoever.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you hear him make any comments with respect to a pamphlet called “Heroism”?

Mr. MCCURDY. No; now, I heard this--the reason this sticks in my mind is because it was by H. L. Hunt, isn’t it, or a Life Line reprint from H. L. Hunt?

Mr. HUBERT. Yes.

Mr. MCCURDY. Russ Knight, the Weird Beard, mentioned it to me later on that Jack had given him this. He didn’t give me a copy of it, but he apparently passed it to Russ in a very militant manner, apparently, from what Russ had to say.

Mr. HUBERT. But he did not converse with you about it at all?

Mr. MCCURDY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. What was Ruby’s general attitude and state of mind or state of emotions that night?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, I hesitate to use any adjectives for fear of it causing it to be misleading.

Mr. HUBERT. Well, of course, it’s a matter of semantics, but once we get an adjective perhaps we can then use it as a point of departure by describing physical action.

Mr. MCCURDY. Right; I would say, just glancing back, that Jack’s overall mood and appearance that night was--looking at it now strictly in the light of his actions on Sunday, it would appear to me that he was in a, well--to draw a bad analogy--a state of a dormant volcano. He was very dormant, quiet--he looked like he was mulling over many things, which I’m sure he was and all of us were at that time.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he seem abnormally sad?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, more so than myself. Of course, I was very shook up about this. He did seem more so than I felt like I would have expressed it.

Mr. HUBERT. How did he manifest it?

Mr. MCCURDY. By being sullen, quiet, looking at the floor, glancing far away into space for no apparent reason. This is what I remember.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he make any statements that now in retrospect you can classify as being related to his subsequent actions?

Mr. MCCURDY. None.

Mr. HUBERT. No threats?

Mr. MCCURDY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. Or comments such as “Somebody ought to do something about this”?

Mr. MCCURDY. Well, he said he was doing something about it by closing down his club and missing his money. Now, this is something I just thought of looking back in retrospect, as you said. By him mentioning to me that he was closing down his club, apparently he was trying to give me a feeling that he was making a tremendous sacrifice, monetary sacrifice in order to hold up or support national pride of some kind of his own. Looking at it in the light of what he did on Sunday, I can see that apparently he wanted to draw some of my attention to him and that he was making a tremendous sacrifice.

Mr. HUBERT. Did you have that impression then?

Mr. MCCURDY. No; I didn’t--I didn’t. I must say that truthfully--it’s only in retrospect. It wasn’t that outstanding at that particular time.

Mr. HUBERT. I believe that’s all, sir. Have you anything else that you wish to add?

Mr. MCCURDY. Nothing else.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, I don’t believe there has been any conversation between us that has not become a part of the record; is that correct? We have not discussed anything off the record?

Mr. MCCURDY. No.

Mr. HUBERT. And everything that has passed between us has become a part of this record?

Mr. MCCURDY. Other than our meeting at the door. We said nothing other than, “Hello, and glad to meet you.”

Mr. HUBERT. All right; very good, and thank you very much.

Mr. MCCURDY. All right; thank you.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN WILKINS NEWNAM

The testimony of John Wilkins Newnam was taken at 10:51 a.m., on June 26, 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 Mr. John Newnam.