INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,
Washington, D.C
The committee met at 9:35 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room .345,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richardson Preyer, presiding. Present: Representatives Preyer, Stokes, Dodd, Fithian, Ford, Edgar, Devine, and Sawyer.
Present also: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; G. Cornwell, deputy chief counsel; D. Purdy, staff counsel; Elizabeth Berning, chief clerk; I. Charles Mathews, special counsel; S. Jonathan Blackner, staff counsel; Mr. J. McDonald, staff counsel; and Howard Shapiro, attorney.
Mr. PREYER. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Blakey.
NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Congressman Preyer.
During yesterday's hearings, the committee heard a report on a computer survey of Jack Ruby's telephone calls in 1963. One conclusion that seemed to flow from it is that Jack Ruby must have had reason to call a number of individuals who are reportedly connected to the hierarchy of organized crime, the American mafia. Since there is no way of being certain of the topic of the conversation, what is known just from the fact of a phone call or calls is itself not certain.
In some cases, we have the testimony of the persons called. Generally they either don't remember being called by Ruby at all, or it was about the AGVA, American Guild of Variety Artists, dispute, or whatever.
In the committee's final report, the Ruby associates, that is, those who have been identified by the telephone survey or by other means as in some way connected to Jack Ruby will be examined in detail. But to illustrate the investigative process the committee has followed in this important area, one of Ruby's associates has been selected for public examination at this hearing this morning. That associate is Lewis J. McWillie who was in 1963, as he is today, a Las Vegas casino employee.
The committee's investigation has shown that Mr. McWillie's friendship with Jack Ruby goes back to the fourties, in Dallas. Since that time, Mr. McWillie has worked in gambling casinos in Havana, Cuba, as well as Las Vegas, Nev.
Mr. McWillie has entered under the rules of the committee a specific request that there be no photographic coverage of his appearance and no electronic coverage. That means no one is to photograph or keep lights on or use any tape recorder to record Mr. McWillie's voice or face. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate if an order be entered into that effect.
Mr. PREYER. Pursuant to rule 16 which reads in pertinent part, at the request of any witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, television or still photography coverage, all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for coverage turned off.
At this time, the Chair directs that all lenses be covered and that all microphones be turned off.
Mr. BLAKEY. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Lewis J. McWillie.
Mr. PREYER. The committee calls Lewis McWillie.
TESTIMONY OF LEWIS McWILLIE, LAS VEGAS, NEV.
NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously there is not much to be learned from Mr. McWillie's testimony, but we do know certain things. First, McWillie was an associate of Jack Ruby. Second, McWillie may have been associated with Santos Trafficante, that is, at least if Trafficante had an entrance in gambling casinos in Havana, though the extent and nature of that relationship is as yet unclear and, third, there may be a possibility, just a possibility of an association or at least one meeting between Jack Ruby and Santos Trafficante himself. So who is Santos Trafficante? What is his background? Who are or were his associates? This was obviously some thing that the committee could not avoid getting into and, of course, it did, as these hearings are designed to illustrate.
But before deciding whether or not to hear from Mr. Trafficante himself, it may be useful to hear the testimony of two other men who may have been associated with Santos Trafficante. The first must be summarized for the record, since he was an American intelligence agent assigned to operations in Florida in the early 1960's and he cannot publicly appear, otherwise his identity would be revealed. On September 25, 1978, a sworn statement was given to the committee by a retired official of the CIA.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that it be entered into the record at this point as JFK exhibit F-600.
Mr. PREYER. Without objection, it is ordered into the record at this point as JFK exhibit F-600.
[JFK exhibit F-600 was received into the record and follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-600
KENNEDY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS
Mr. BLAKEY. With your permission, I would like to summarize it.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Blakey is recognized.
Mr. BLAKEY. The former official stated that in September 1960, when he was Chief of Operational Support Division, Office of Security, he was approached by his superior, Colonel Sheffield Edwards and was told of an operation to assassinate Cuban Premier Fidel Castro. He was told by Edwards that Robert Maheu, then a private investigator, had been approached by the CIA to assist in the operation. Maheu, in turn, recruited one John Roselli. Subsequently, Roselli brought two other individuals into the operation. These individuals were known to the officials as Sam Gold and Joe.
According to this official, he subsequently learned the true identities of these men. Sam Gold was alleged Mafia leader Sam Giancana and Joe was another alleged Mafia chief man, Santos Trafficante. The official stated that he was the CIA liaison with these two men. It was to be Trafficante's role to serve as a courier. Trafficante was to arrange to get poisoned pills into Cuba which were to be put in Castro's food. Trafficante's participation also included the procuring of a Cuban Government official and aCuban exiled leader as two persons who could serve as the actual assassins. The official stated that Trafficante did, in fact, pass the poison pills on to his Cuban contacts in an effort to carry out the plot.
This official also stated that when he learned the true identities of Giancana and Trafficante, he reported this fact to Colonel Edwards who, nevertheless, allowed the project to proceed.
Mr. Chairman, the evidence you have just heard, in particular that part that identifies Santos Trafficante, is corroborated in a 1967 report of the Inspector General of the CIA. Part of that report, which the committee has secured for public distribution, indicates A man Maheu [deletion] knew as Sam Gold appeared as Salvatore (Sam) Giancana. a Chicago-based gangster. Joe Pecora, who was never identified either to Maheu or [deletion] in any other way, turned out to be Trafficante, the Cosa Nova chid man in Cuba.
As to Santos Trafficante's role, as well as that of the late Giancana, it is described in a section designated as "Comment." It reads:
Giancana was flatly opposed to the use of firearms. He said that no one could be recruited to do the job because the chance of survival and escape would be negligible. Giancana stated a preference for a lethal pill that could be put in Castro's food or drink. Trafficante, Joe Pecora, was in touch with a disaffected Cuban official with access to Castro and presumably of a sort that would enable him to surreptitiously poison Castro.
Mr. Chairman, the evidence we have just heard indicates that Santos Trafficante apparently participated in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. He was, in short, willing to kill the head of state.
In this connection, it may be well to note one possible reason for Santos Trafficante's participation in these plots. The reason was offered to the committee by the Cuban Government. In its trip to Havana, the Cuban Government made available to the committee a report dealing on Mafia activities in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that report be entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-653 and the translation as JFK exhibit F-654.
Mr. PREYER. Without objection, they will be entered into the record at this point.
[JFK exhibit F-653 was entered in the record and with a notation follows:
[Pages 11-18 of JFK exhibit F-653 were photostatic copies of documents originally generated in response to requests to the Cuban Government from the Warren Commission in 1964. Due to their extremely poor reproductive quality, legible copies could not be reproduced here. Page 19, a copy of Jack Ruby's tourist card, is reproduced elsewhere in these hearings as JFK exhibit F-583 and F-584.
[Page 11 is a copy of Oswald s Cuban visa application, and is reproduced elsewhere in these hearings as JFK exhibit F-408.
[Page 12 is a copy of a letter from Juan Nilo Otero and can be found in the Warren Commission Report as C.E. 2564.
[Page 13 is a copy of a certificate signed by the then Secretary of State, Dean Rusk.
[Page 14 is a letter to the Secretary of state from the Warren Commission requesting information regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico in September and early October 1963. It also requests cooperation by the Cuban Government in furnishing copies of documents relating to Lee Harvey Oswald's visit.
[Pages 15-18 are letters from the Swiss Embassy in response to State Department correspondence regarding Oswald.]
JFK EXHIBIT F-653
JFK EXHIBIT F-654
Mr. BLAKEY. With your permission, I would like to read part of pages 2 and 3.
The Mafia began its activities in Cuba in the 1920s taking advantage of the existing corruption among successive leaders of Cuba. During the 1940's, they extended their mechanisms of control, though covert, to the workers unions in different sections of Cuba which would allow them in future to control everything related to their entrants. These were strengthened with the blow of March 10.
Mr. Chairman, the reference to March 10 is a reference to the date that then Senator Batista overthrew the lawful government of Cuba at that time.
Continuing the quote:
A time when the Mafia began to build its capital through legitimate businesses in structuring luxury hotels, casinos, and tourist attractions to exploit tourism. With reference to the administration and operation of the Mafia in 1958, the same possessed the control of gambling casinos which existed in the luxury hotels and cabarets.The don of the Mafia was Santos Trafficante who was in charge of all gambling while the administrators of these casinos were primarily Cubans or foreigners linked to the Mafia. The gambling halls were under the direction of chiefs assigned by the Mafia who made sure all of it functioned properly at the gaming tables. The Mafia obtained great profits through these gambling casinos. We can cite as an example the casino of the Hotel Riviera which in 1 year obtained a net profit of $1,400,000. The business of the Mafia not only consisted of gambling but also extended to control of the drug traffic, jewelry, foreign currency, matters of prostitution and pornographic movies.
Upon the triumph of the revolution in 1959, all gambling halls were closed.
We see, Mr. Chairman, that through McWillie, if not others, Trafficante may have had an association, at this point an association only with Jack Ruby. How close or to what effect is as yet undetermined. Now it can be fairly asked, could Santos Trafficante also have been involved in plots against President Kennedy? The committee's next witness is Jose Aleman. Mr. Aleman is the son of a former minister of education in the Cuban Government in the late 1950's. He was actively opposed to the Batista regime. In the early 1960's, he was supporting efforts to overthrow Castro. In a context of mutual business entrants, Mr. Aleman and Mr. Trafficante met at least once, perhaps on several occasions, prior to November 1963. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. Aleman.
Mr. Aleman, I would like to say to you, from the committee's knowledge of your background and despite anything you may have said here today, the committee has respect for your background and the bravery, the bravery you have shown in the past. We appreciate you being here with us today.
Mr. ALEMAN. Thank you.
Mr. PREYER. If there is no--the Chair recognizes Mr. Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate at this time to indicate for the record that the Cuban Government made available to the committee a list of American gambling figures that were held for possible deportation by the Cuban Government at about the time that Mr. McWillie indicated that they were. And I would ask that that be incorporated in the record as JFK F-410.
Mr. PREYER. Without objection, it is entered into the record at this point.
[JFK exhibit F-410 was received in the record and follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. I would also note, Mr. Chairman, as you are fully aware of, when the committee was in Havana on August 26, 1978, the Cuban Government made available to the committee, ironically in the Hotel Rivera, an individual who was involved in setting up and operating the Trescornia camp. His testimony was taken at that time by the committee staff and yourself. It would be appropriate to enter that in the record at this time as well.
Mr. PREYER. Without objection, his statement will be admitted into the record.
Mr. BLAKEY. JFK F-311.
Mr. PREYER. JFK F-311. It is ordered admitted into the record.
[JFK exhibit F-311 was admitted into the record and follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-311
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the Select Committee on Assassinations recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. PREYER [now presiding]. The committee will come to order.
I regret that the chairman of the committee has been called before the House/Senate Foreign Operations Conference Committee at 2 o'clock today. The chairman was to do the questioning of the next witness. He anticipates that this conference, his appearance there will not take longer than an hour, so that at this time, the committee will stand in recess until 3:30 this afternoon when I hope he will be here and we will be able to resume.
The committee stands in recess until 3:30 this afternoon.
[A recess was taken until 3:30 p.m.]
Mr. PREYER [3:44 p.m.]. We are getting word, which we think we will get momentarily, as to Mr. Stokes availability and we will let you know as soon as we learn something.
Mr. PREYER [4:30 p.m.]. The chairman has finished his activities with the conference committee so that as soon as this pending vote on the floor is dealt with, we will resume. I think that will be in about 10 or 15 minutes. We will go into session then.
Mr. PREYER [5:10 p.m.]. The committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes Chairman Stokes.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think it appropriate in light of the fact that at the time we adjourned this morning, the chair announced that the committee would again meet at 2 p.m. this afternoon. In addition to duties and responsibilities I have on this committee, I happen to be a member of the Appropriations Committee of the House, and a House/Senate conference started at 2 p.m. this afternoon and at the request of the president, relating to an item he was particularly concerned about in that appropriations bill, I was asked to be there to be present in order to contribute to that House/Senate conference.
I was in that House/Senate conference from 2 this afternoon until 5 p.m. this afternoon at which time I immediately came back to this hearing room. We were then ready to recommence the hearings and we have just been advised that the witness, who has a physical condition, has advised the committee that he would prefer not to be called this evening, because he has waited all day to be called as a witness, and because of the physical condition, does not feel that he can at this time come before the committee and has requested that we have the hearing first thing tomorrow morning, and he be called at that time.
Accordingly, the committee feels this request should be granted and, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate for you to adjourn this meeting then until the time set for tomorrow morning.
Mr. PREYER. The committee will stand adjourned until 8:30 to.PM[Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 28, 1978.]
INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 8:45 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richardson Preyer presiding.
Edgar, Devine, McKinney, and Sawyer.
Also present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; G. Cornwell, deputy chief counsel; Elizabeth Berning, chief clerk; and I. Charles Matthews, special counsel.
Mr. Preyer. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes Mr. Blakey.
Mr. Blakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What the committee witnessed here yesterday is more typical of organized crime investigations than we had thought perhaps the testimony would be. Skillful interrogation has, in fact, elicited only meager amounts of information, and we have seen manifested in a witness that fear that is all too often characteristic of people called to testify in matters touching on organized crime. A fear that, frankly must be recognized as justified. Indeed, I would note that in the organized crime and racketeering section in the U.S. Department of Justice between 1961 and 1965, in which I served, more than 25 informants were lost in organized crime cases, killed by those who would prevent their testimony from being made public.
But it is necessary, nevertheless, to continue the exploration and illustration of the committee's work. In that context, it would be appropriate at this time to call Santos Trafficante.
Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Trafficante has requested that there be no radio, TV, photographs, or recordings made of him at any time during his testimony. consequently, it would be appropriate consistent with the rules of this committee and the House to enter an order to that effect.
Mr. PREYER. The witness, having requested that he not be subjected to radio, television, or photographic coverage, the committee directs that all lenses be covered and that all microphones used for coverage be turned off at this time.
The committee calls Santos Trafficante.
Mr. Trafficante, will you stand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Mr. TRAFFICANTE. I do.
TESTIMONY OF SANTOS TRAFFICANTE
Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the exhibit.
[Document handed to the clerk by Mr. Gonzalez.]
Mr. GONZALEZ. This is the certified copy of the order.
Mr. PREYER. We will have that immunity order which has previously been inserted in the record.
The committee will take a brief 3-minute in-place recess at this time. We will resume very quickly. The committee stands in recess. [A short recess was taken.]
Chairman STOKES. [now presiding]. The committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, the testimony of Santos Trafficante concludes that part of the presentation by the staff to the committee of the basic outlines of the committee's investigation into the possibility of organized. crime connection to the assassination of President Kennedy. As all can see from the testimony introduced, the question remains, was organized crime involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy? Did it have the motive, opportunity, and means to do so?
Obviously, the possibility cannot be dismissed, although it can hardly be said to have been established. At this point, it is, in your words, Mr. Chairman, perhaps only a little more than a "suspicion suspected," not a "fact found."
The committee decided early in its investigation, as soon as it realized that a Mafia plot to assassinate the President warranted serious consideration, to assemble the most reliable information available on organized crime in the United States. The details of this phase of the committee's investigation will, of course, appear, hopefully in full, in its final report, a report that will consider the background of organized crime in America, the structure of the Mafia in the early 1960's, the effort by the Kennedy administration to suppress the mob, and the evidence that the assassination might have been undertaken in retaliation for those efforts.
To scrutinize the possible role of organized crime in the assassination, the committee early brought on one of the country's leading experts on the subject. He is Ralph Salerno, whose career as an organized crime investigator with the New York City Police Department goes back to 1946. Mr. Salerno has since retired from the New York City Police Department and I would note that on the day of his retirement, the New York Times was moved to comment that he perhaps knew more about the Mafia than any nonmember in the United States.
It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Ralph Salerno.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Mr. Salerno.
Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Chairman STOKES. The Chair would like to take a 3 minute inplace recess before we proceed further.
Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It could be said that the committee has now come full circle It began with the question "could organized crime have been involved in the plot to murder President Kennedy? It has run an exhaustive check of the possible conspiratorial associations of one figure involved in the assassination, Jack Ruby. The committee obviously has more work to do on Ruby's associates as well as Lee Harvey Oswald's, and it will have the opportunity to say more about them in its final report in December.
Nevertheless, it is fair to say the committee's investigation into the possible involvement into organized crime has been more complete than that of the FBI or the Warren Commission in 1963 and 1964. It is also fair to comment that had this sort of investigation taken place at that time when the evidence was fresh, it is possible, though hardly a sure thing, that a lot more information might have been forthcoming. But the committee must face this fact. The question of organized crime involvement is still and open one. Nothing that has been uncovered excludes it and much that is new points toward it. Yet frustration ma be the result of this committee's efforts too.
To address the issues raised by this frank recognition of the possibility of ultimate frustration and comment on the investigation of the Warren Commission and this committee, as well as the future, the committee has invited the Hon. Burt W. Griffin to appear here today. Judge Griffin was an assistant counsel for the Warren Commission. As such, he shared responsibility for the investigation of Jack Ruby and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Judge Griffin received a B.A. cum laude from Amherst College in 1954 and an L.L.B. degree from Yale in 1959. Judge Griffin has served as the Director of the Cleveland Office of Economic Opportunity, Legal Service Program, as well as the Director of the Legal Aid Society.
In January 3, 1975, he was appointed judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Judge Griffin.
Chairman STOKES. Judge, I ask you to stand, please, and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Judge GRIFFIN. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, you may be seated.
Judge Griffin, it is a real pleasure to welcome you here. Mr. Blakey, Judge Griffin happens to be not only a long-time close friend, but one of Cleveland's most distinguished jurists. We welcome you here this afternoon, Judge.
The chairman has thanked many people for their contribution in this public hearing. I would like to just very briefly name a few people who have worked so hard, and I am referring to the staff.
You mentioned, Judge, the incredible expenditure of effort, I think is the way you put it, on behalf of the staff, and I certainly agree with you on that.
We have recognized Mr. Blakey, but let me just briefly name a few other people who have done an outstanding job. Some have become media personalities now, such as the umbrella girl, Cynthia Cooper, but many have labored in obscurity, and I think at least we should name them. I think the morale in the whole team has been remarkable in view of the kind of hours they have worked. Probably one definition of what morale is is when you are united in a common effort, then each person is perhaps better than they thought they could be, do more that they thought they were capable of. I think the staff has done that.
Mr. Blakey, of course, has been our chief counsel. Gary Cornwell, has been our deputy chief counsel. Charlie Mathews our special counsel, who has been sitting here whispering in Mr. Stokes' and my ear for this month.
Kenney Klein, who sits just below me here, has been our assistant chief counsel and team I leader. Cliff Fenton has been our chief investigator. Jackie Hess, deputy chief researcher, who has done some work Jim McDonald, team II and III leader, senior staff counsel on the exhibition board. Lee Matthews, senior staff counsel and team IV leader.
The Kennedy investigation is divided into five teams. Michael Goldsmith, who is a senior staff counsel and the team V leader.
And Staff Counsel Surell Brady and Andy Purdy, Jonathan Blackmer, Belford Lawson, Bob Genzman, secretaries, who hadn't had the chance to appear here much, Ida Jane Ross, Jane Godfrey, Ann Misita, Rebecca Rife, Connie Smith, and the press officer, Dawne Miller, whose name we have all seen on many releases, and Lance Svendsen, and Paul Golden, who Xeroxed the press release material which-you have been receiving regularly, and all the researchers and investigators whom I wish I had time to name one person who I think has become a media person, along withCynthia, has been Elizabeth Berning, our clerk here, who has been very faithful and very efficient in keeping some 500-odd exhibits straight. We appreciate that very much.
So at this time, is there anything further from any member the committee? If not, the committee will adjourn sine die.
[Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned, sine die.]
INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OFPRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, at 9:10 a.m., in the Caucus Room, room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, Fauntroy, Dodd, Fithian, and Edgar. .
Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order.
The Chair at this time wishes to make some opening remarks. Today, the Select Committee on Assassinations will hold 1 day of public hearings into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As those of you who followed our Kennedy hearings may recall, I observed at their conclusion that there might be a need for 1 or more additional day of public presentation of evidence. What I had in mind was the prospect of more hearings for our acoustics project, which is an analysis of an audio tape recorded at the scene of the assassination. The results of the project were first presented in a public hearing on September 11. Today we will hear an independent review of those results.
Since September, the committee has had the opportunity to contract for a refinement of the acoustical data. The results of this work have been fully presented to committee members by the staff and expert consultants in executive session or in formal briefings over the past 2 weeks. The committee has also given careful consideration to the implications of the acoustics evidence in terms of all aspects of the investigation of the Kennedy assassination. The committee is also now prepared to reach its final conclusions and to make its final recommendations on all of the questions before it in both the assassination of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which, indeed, it will do tonight after this public session has adjourned. Nevertheless, because of the significance of the new acoustics analysis, the committee thought it would be appropriate to examine it and explore its implications in public hearing before the formal vote by the committee.
I would now like to recognize Prof. G. Robert Blakey, the committee's chief counsel and staff director.
NARRATION BY PROF. G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Testimony in 1964 before the. President's Commission to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, called the Warren Commission after its chairman, the former Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren, and before this committee over the last 2 years, has established that crucial issues in the assassination of President Kennedy turn on questions about the shots. How many were fired? Over what time span? From what direction?
Answers to these questions formed the basis for the Warren Commission's lone assassination finding. If three shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository in a time period long enough for them to have been fired from one rifle, then the verdict of the Warren Commission may well stand. But the work of the Commission must be fundamentally reappraised, if the time span between the shots was too short for them to have come from one rifle, or if one or more of the shots came from different directions.
If either of these occurred, it must be frankly recognized that a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy may have been afoot in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
The Warren Commission was persuaded that there were at least two and most probably three shots fired in Dealey Plaza, each fired from the Book Depository building. In arriving at this finding, the Commission considered a variety of evidence, including medical and ballistics data as well as testimony by witnesses as to what they heard or saw. The Commission maintained that the time span between the shots was either 4.8 to 5.6 seconds or 7.1 to 7.9 seconds.
The difference between the two sets of figures depended which of the three shots the Warren Commission felt was-a miss. The discovery of three spent cartridge cases on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was considered "convincing" proof of only three shots. The Commission also concluded that its extensive investigation "disclosed no credible evidence that any shots were fired from anywhere else."
The work of this committee on the number, timing and direction of the shots has been based almost entirely on scientific evidence.The committee has had available to it a motion picture record of the assassination made by Abraham Zapruder, forensic medical evidence and testimony, ballistics and neutron activation analysis a trajectory reconstruction and, most significantly, an analysis of a recording of sound transmissions from a police motorcycle radio:
The hearing today, Mr. Chairman, will be concerned, for the most part, with that scientific evidence and its implications. Particular attention will be paid to results of a new analysis of data previously developed in the committee's acoustics project. It was conducted by independent consultants whose findings were recently submitted to the committee.
But before turning to the acoustics analysis, it may be useful, by way of introduction, to review some of the testimony of witnesses that was available to the Warren Commission in 1964. For that purpose, I request that JFK exhibit F-361 be entered into the record and appropriately displayed.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record again and displayed appropriately at this time.
[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an aerial view of Dealey Plaza, the scene of the assassination. I would direct the committee's attention to the route of the presidential motorcade along Elm Street, the Texas School Book Depository to the rear of the President's limousine at the time of the shooting, and the grassy knoll, a parklike area that was to the right front of the President's car.
As the Warren Commission itself candidly acknowledged, testimony on the number of shots varied. While the consensus seemed to be three, some witnesses heard only two, and others said they heard four or as many as five or six.
The witnesses on the scene also gave varying accounts of the time span of the shots. Most agreed that they were all fired within a few seconds: The general estimate was five to six seconds. FBI tests indicated that Oswald's rifle could not be aimed and fired in less than 2.25 to 2.3 seconds. Consequently, for the Commission to conclude that only one assassin was involved, there had to be at least that time span between the shots.
As noted above, the Warren Commission had testimony that shots came from directions other than the Depository Building. But the Commission was persuaded that that testimony should not be credited because of the "difficulty of accurate perception" and since the "physical and other evidence" apparently did not support it. This general summary of the witness evidence is useful, but it does not give a full picture of what the Commission faced, particularly as it applies to resolving the issue of the direction of the shots.
Witness testimony may be summarized statistically. The committee has prepared an analysis of the statements of some 178 persons in Dealey Plaza that were available to the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that JFK exhibit F-360 be inserted into the record again and now be appropriately displayed.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record again and displayed at this time.[The information follows:]
The first entry is the obtained data. The number in parenthesis is the expected number of such judgements if the source and number of shots are independent judgements.
*7 other witnesses report 1, 4-5, 5, 6 or 8 shots.
Mr. BLAKEY. The committee's analysis of this testimony shows that out of a majority who could establish a direction, 49 of them--or 27.5 percent--thought the shots had come from the Book Depository; but 21 others--or 11.8 percent--believed that they had come from the grassy knoll; 30 of them--16.9 percent--thought they had originated elsewhere; and 78--or 43.8 percent--were unable to tell.
The actual statements of certain witnesses who felt the shots may have come from somewhere in addition to the Depository may, however, be more illuminating than statistics, especially in the case of law enforcement personnel, whose training could be expected to improve the quality of their judgment.
A Dallas police officer Bobb W. Hargis was for example, riding a motorcycle to the left and slightly to the rear of the President's limousine. He was questioned by Samuel A. Stern, a Warren Commission counsel. I request at this time, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of the Warren Commission testimony of Dallas Patrolman Bobby W. Hargis be entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-644.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The information follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-644 - TESTIMONY OF BOBBY W. HARGIS
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Stern asked Officer Hargis to describe whatoccurred. Mr. Hargis said:
I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around.
Mr. Hargis was then asked if anything unusual had happened to him during the shooting-He replied:
Yes; when president Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet (hit) him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain.
In describing this scene, Mr. Hargis was interrupted by Mr. Stern, who asked about the direction of the shots. Mr. Hargis replied: Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered * * *
I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was (sic) the primary place that could have been shot from.
After the shooting, Mr. Hargis stated that he saw a man holding a child fall to the ground at the base of the incline and cover his child. He also saw other people running-I request at this time, Mr. Chairman, that JFK exhibit F-661 be entered into the record and appropriately displayed.
Chairman STOKES-Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. It is a photograph apparently of what Mr. Hargis saw. Mr. Hargis himself stopped his motorcycle and ran up the incline. The man Officer Hargis saw lying on the ground was William Eugene Newman. I would, at this time, Mr. Chairman, request that a copy of Mr. Newman's statement to the Dallas County Sheriffs Department be entered into the record as exhibit F-645.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
The Newmans were observing the motorcade from the curb near the west end of the concrete standard on Elm Street. Mr. Newman gave this description of their actions after hearing the shots:
Then we fell down on the grass as it seemed that we were in direct path of fire * * * I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vicinity of the garden.
Abraham Zapruder was standing with his 8 millimeter motion picture camera on a concrete abutment on the grassy knoll, just beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign. Here I would request that JFK exhibit F-155 be entered into the record again and appropriately displayed.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record again at this point.
[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. It shows Mr. Zapruder as he is taking his motion picture. I would also ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, that a copy of Mr. Zapruder's Warren Commission deposition be entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-646.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record.
[The information follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-646 - TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER
Secret Service Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., wrote a statement on the shooting, dated November 30, 1963. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that document entered into the record as JFK exhibit F-647.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record.[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Landis was in the follow-up car, behind the presidential limousine, on the outside running board on the right. He may be seen in JFK exhibit 155. He indicated that the first shot sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder. According to his statement, the second shot might have come from a different direction. He said: I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere toward the front, right*hand side of the road.
Another witness, S.M. Holland, also saw signs of a shot coming from a group of trees on the knoll. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter Mr. Holland's testimony before the Warren Commission, JFK exhibit F-648, into the record.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record.[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Holland was standing on top of the overpass above Elm Street, looking down on Elm Street. Mr. Holland indicated that he had heard four shots. After the first, he said he saw Governor Connally turn around. Then there was another report. The first two sounded like they came from the upper part of the street. The third was not as loud as the others. He said: "There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots."
When Commission Counsel Stern asked Mr. Holland if he had any doubts about the four shots, he said: "I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from those trees either."
Later in his testimony, Mr. Holland commented on the activity after the shooting. He said:
Now, do you want to know about the two policemen that were riding in that motorcade and one of them throwed the motorcycle down right in the middle of the street and run up toward that location with his gun in his hand.
Mr. STERN. Toward--
Mr. HOLLAND. The location that--
Mr. STERN. Where you saw the puff of smoke?
Mr. HOLLAND. Where I saw the puff of smoke. And another one tried to ride up the rest of the hill on his motorcycle and got about halfway up there and he run up the way on foot.
In addition to testimony relating to the direction of the shots, several witnesses also reported seeing bullets strike at various points in the plaza. For example, two witnesses said they saw bullets hit the pavement on Elm Street. I would like to enter into the record JFK exhibit F-649.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record.[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. It is a statement by Royce Skelton made to the sheriffs department on November 22, 1963. Mr. Skelton related:
I was standing on top of the train trestle where it crosses Elm Street with Austin Miller * * * I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got m the right hand lane and I heard two more shots * * * I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the South away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane.
Mr. Skelton also testified before the Warren Commission. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter that testimony into the record as JFK exhibit F-650.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record.[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. On that occasion, Mr. Skelton said that he saw smoke rise from the pavement where the bullet hit and that he thought the gunfire had come from the area of the presidential limousine.
* * * I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.
Later he said that the smoke "would be southwest, you know, in a direct line from the Texas Depository."
Another witness to see a bullet was Ms. Virgie Baker. It would be appropriate to enter into the record JFK exhibit F-651, Ms. Baker's statement to the FBI, dated November 24, 1963.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point.[The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. Ms. Baker was standing across the street from the Texas School Book Depository when she heard the shots. She thought they came from the direction of the triple overpass. When she looked that way, she saw what she presumed to be a bullet bouncing off the pavement.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to enter into the record JFK exhibit F-652, Ms. Baker's testimony before the Warren Commission.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it is so ordered. [The information follows:]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Liebeler asked her where the noise she heard came from. Ms. Baker thought it was close to the underpass. Mr. Liebeler then continued with respect to the bullet:
Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side--near the curb side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?
Ms. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was?
Ms. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane--I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there.
Mr. BLAKEY. Later Ms. Baker describes the bullet's relation to the car: "I thought it was--well--behind it."
In addition to those who heard shots, saw smoke, or saw the impact of bullets, there is testimony in the Commission's record of what may be fairly described as suspicious conduct around the knoll--footprints by the fence, an individual who identified himself as a Secret Service agent when no agent was supposed to be in that area, activity that could be called flight--but the fact remains that no one gives credible testimony that he saw anyone with a rifle around the fence at the time of the assassination. In the absence of such testimony or hard evidence that would corroborate or independently substantiate the ear- and eye- witness testimony pointing toward the knoll shot, the Commission concluded the shots came from only one place: The Texas School Book Depository where Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, worked.
In September 1977, the committee learned of the possibility of obtaining what the Commission lacked: An acoustics analysis of a sound recording of what happened in Dealey Plaza. There was in existence a Dallas police tape that had recorded the sounds of the assassination from the transmitter of a motorcycle policeman whose microphone switch was in the on position. The committee hoped it might obtain evidence not considered by the Commission.
The committee searched for the best people in the acoustics field. After careful consideration, it contracted with the firm of Bolt, Beranek & Newman of Cambridge, Mass., for an analysis of the tape.
Early testing by the firm was uneventful, since all that had been made available to the committee was a copy of the orignal tape on which no audio sounds could be discerned. But with the help of a retired assistant chief of the Dallas Police Department, the committee eventually obtained the original of the November 22, 1963, dispatch tape, along with dictabelts that had recorded the transmission.
The analysis of the dispatch tape was conducted by James E. Barger, chief scientist at B.B. & N. After preliminary filtering, Dr. Barger was able to locate several segments of the tape that contained impulses that might have been caused by gunfire. The impulses were then put through six screening tests, as follows:
One: Did the impulse patterns occur at the approximate time of the assassination?
Two: Were the impulse patterns unique and not repeated elsewhere in the tape?
Three: Did the intervals between the impulses approximate the timing of the shots as indicated on the Zapruder film?
Four: Did the shape of the impulses resemble the shape of recorded impulses produced by tests of comparable gunfire through comparable transmission systems?
Five: Was the amplitude of the impulses similar to that recorded in tests of comparable gunfire through comparable transmission systems?
Six: Did the number of impulses in the expected echo pattern of Dealey Plaza approximately correspond to what was recorded on the tape?
In actual firing tests conducted on behalf of the committee by the Dallas Police Department in Dealey Plaza in August, Dr. Barger set out to determine what the echo structure looks like for two shooter locations--the TSBD and the grassy knoll--and several target locations along the motorcade route. He then matched his 1978 Dealey Plaza environment data with the 1963 tape, and he was able to arrive at several conclusions:
First, the motorcycle whose radio transmitted the broadcast was apparently in Dealey Plaza; second, there was a 95-percent probability that two of the impulses were caused by gunshots; and, three, there was a 60 to 70-percent probability there were three shots. And finally, four, there were indications of a fourth shot from the grassy knoll, but at the time he was to testify in public hearing of the committee in September 1978, Dr. Barger was only willing to call it a 50-50 probability.
The committee then asked two independent experts who had been recommended to the committee by the Acoustical Society of America to review the work of Dr. Barger and determine if they might be able to refine it. Prof. Mark Weiss and his assistant, Mr. Ernest Aschkenasy, agreed to try to refine Dr. Barger's work. At the committee's request, they focused on the third shot, the one that Dr. Barger thought might have come from the grassy knoll.
The effort took from September until the end of November. They are available to testify here this morning.
Professor Weiss received a B.E.E. degree from the City College of New York in 1952, and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Columbia University in 1957. From 1957 until 1964, he worked as a project engineer for the Federal Scientific Corp., and from 1965 until 1974 he was vice president of that corporation for acoustical research. He is presently a professor in the Department of Computer Science of Queens College of the City University of New York, a position he assumed in 1974.
Professor Weiss is the author of over 30 articles and technical reports concerning electronics for acoustical engineering. He has worked on projects such as the development of instruments for real-time spectrum analysis of audio signals; development of the first real-time system for extraction of vocal pitch using the cepstrum approach; and he is currently involved in development of techniques for reducing wide band noise and other interference on speech recordings to increase the detectability and intelligibility of speech.
From November 1973 until June 1974, Professor Weiss was a member of a panel of technical experts appointed by Chief Judge John J. Sirica to examine the White House tape recordings in connection with the Watergate grand jury investigation.
He is a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and a member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineering. Mr. Ernest Aschkenasy received a B.E.E. from the City College of New York in 1967, and his M.S. from the City College of New York in 1972. From 1967 until 1974, he worked as an engineer with the Federal Scientific Corp., where he had primary responsibility for the development of computer programs for analysis and reduction of large volumes of acoustic data. In 1974, Mr. Aschkenasy also assisted in the Watergate tape analysis and began his present work as a research associate for the Department of Computer Science at Queens College of the City University of New York, where he is presently acting as Prof. Mark Weiss' assistant.
It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call as witnesses Professor Weiss and his associate, Mr. Aschkenasy.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy. May I ask both of you to stand raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. WEISS. I do.
Mr. ASCHKENASY. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The committee recognizes deputy chief counsel Gary Cornwell.
TESTIMONY OF PROF. MARK WEISS AND MR. ERNEST ASCHKENASY
Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you will recall, the time span between the shots allegedly fired by Oswald from the Texas School Book Depository itself potentially raises the specter of a conspiracy. FBI expert testimony to the Warren Commission indicated that Oswald's rifle could not be aimed and fired in less than 2.25 to 2.3 seconds. Consequently, for the Commission to conclude that Oswald fired two or more shots, there had to be at least that time interval between them.
The acoustics project has now made available to the committee evidence indicating that shots 1 and 2 from the depository were 1.59 seconds apart. If the FBI expert testimony is correct, Oswald could not have been firing alone from the Texas School Book Depository building--there had to be another gunman.
As you will also recall, Mr. Chairman, I reported to the committee on September 11 the results of preliminary tests Conducted by the staff at the Metropolitan Police Department firing range in Lorton, Va, under the general supervision of Sgt. Cecil Kirk. Those tests established that a Mannlicher-Carcano could be operated accurately in considerably less time than had been indicated by the FBI.
I indicated in September that these were preliminary tests and that more refined tests would be subsequently performed. They had been scheduled for the early part of December. Unfortunately, Sergeant Kirk had to undergo surgery, delaying the test results.
Delayed test results are, therefore, not expected until the first of the year. Nevertheless, the preliminary tests are sufficient to cast into serious doubt the previously established FBI time intervals.
The difference between the two sets of tests may be accounted for by the simple fact that a telescopic sight was used by the FBI while the open iron sights of the Mannlicher-Carcano were used by committee staff marksmen It is the view of the committee's expert firearms panel that the open sights on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano would have been preferred given the conditions in Dealey Plaza in 1963. It is worth noting that in firing tests for the committee in Dealey Plaza in August 1978, Dallas Police Department marksmen, using open iron sights, had no difficulty hitting their targets.
The results of the acoustics project not only led the committee to reexamine the FBI firing data, it also led the committee to look for a policeman on a motorcycle. The acoustics experts had predicted that the motorcycle with the stuck microphone was located in an area where neither they nor the committee had seen a motorcycle.
If it could be proved that no motorcycle was in the predicted location at the time of the shots, then serious doubt would be raised about the reliability of the acoustics project. Similarly, when Professor Weiss and Mr. Aschkenasy later told the committee that their analysis of the waveforms indicated that the microphone was. probably located on the left side of the motorcycle, no one knew the identity of the officer, or if, in fact, his microphone was mounted on the left.
The committee then began a review of the available documentation and film coverage of the motorcade to see if the acoustics predictions could be verified. It was a classic, scientific experiment. Our first efforts were disappointing. We found a picture of a DPD motorcycle parked in front of the Texas School Book Depository, showing its microphone mounted on the right side, not the left, and we could not find a motorcycle that appeared to be in the right location in Dealey Plaza.
Nevertheless, the investigation continued. The initial plans of the Dallas Police Department specified that the motorcade would be led by five motorcycles, followed closely by the lead car containing Chief Curry, and then the Presidential limousine. Eight motorcycles were to flank the Presidential limousine, four to its left and four to the right rear side. Motion pictures of the actual motorcade reflect that the initial plans were altered slightly on the morning of November 22, and only four motorcycles remained close to the Presidential limousine during the motorcade two on each side. The other four, ridden by Officers McLain and Courson on the left and Baker and Haygood on the right, were spaced throughout the parade route at varying distances, but generally several car lengths separated them and they were behind the Presidential limousine.
Ultimately, the committee found film coverage, however, of the motorcycle in Dealey Plaza showing a bikeman on Houston Street several car lengths behind the Presidential limousine as it turned in front of the Texas School Book Depository from Houston onto Elm, the place that the acoustics project suggested it would be. The officer riding that motorcycle has been identified as Officer H. B. McLain.
It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Officer McLain.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Officer McLain.
Mr. McLain, may I ask you to raise your right hand, please, and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. McLAIN. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes counsel, Gary Cornwell.
TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER H. B. McLAIN, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.
Chairman STOKES. On behalf of the committee we certainly want to thank you for both your cooperation with the staff and with this committee and for the testimony you have given us here today. Thank you very much. You are excused.
In light of the fact that there are several additional witnesses to be heard from by the committee, the Chair suggests that we recess for lunch until 2:30 p.m., and we will begin promptly at that time. Accordingly, we will recess until 2:30 p.m.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p.m.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, I might initially note for the record that the temperature that was employed in the acoustics project was obtained from the Environmental Data and Information Service at the National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C. The temperature at Love Field, Dallas, Tex., on November 22, 1963, was 63 degrees at noon and 67 degrees at 1 p.m. The skies were clear. This is, of course, the weather service data which would be the most accurate. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have marked as JFK exhibit F-683 and F-682 two photographs taken in Dealey Plaza. JFK exhibit F-683 is a photograph that includes the Texas Book Depository, which had on the top of it a time and temperature sign and the time shown on the sign is 12:40. You can see from the picture, itself, that JFK exhibit F-682 was taken moments thereafter. The same people are in the picture. That indicates that the temperature in Dealey Plaza at approximately 12:40 was 66. It was in this context that the staff recommended to the acoustics people that they take the temperature of 65, which would seem to be approximately within the range of what would be appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that JFK exhibits F-682 and F-683 be incorporated in the record at this point.
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
JFK EXHIBIT F-682
JFK EXHIBIT F-683
Mr. BLAKEY. As previously noted, the committee originally retained the services of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman to conduct its acoustics project. Dr. James Barger, the firm's chief scientist, and a man in charge of acoustical analysis at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, conducted the tests for the committee.
Dr. Barger received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1957, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Connecticut in 1960, and an A.M. in applied physics from Harvard University in 1962. In 1964, he received a Ph.D. in applied physics from Harvard University. He has been a sonar project officer at the U.S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, a research assistant at Harvard University's Acoustics Research Laboratory, and senior scientist and director of the physical science division at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.
Dr. Barger is the author of many scientific papers. He has lectured in the field of applied acoustics in the United States and Canada, and he is currently a lecturer on sound scattering and reverberations with Bolt, Beranek and Newman's antisubmarine warfare course. He has been a National Science Foundation fellow, and he currently is a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America. He is also a member of the U.S. Navy Advisory Board for Underwater Sound Reference Services.
In recent years, Dr. Barger has worked as an analyst of sound recordings in two quite celebrated cases--the shooting episode at Kent State University, for which he studied recorded sounds of gunfire, and the White House tapes in the Watergate case. He helped analyze the mysterious 18-minute gap as a member of the panel headed by Dr. Richard Bolt, who is, himself, the head of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to recall Dr. Barger.
Chairman STOKES. The committee recalls Dr. Barger.
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES BARGER
The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
FINAL COMMENTS BY PROF. G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate at this time to review for the committee and those who are following our proceedings the results of the committee's various scientific projects, making an effort to relate them to the acoustics results, and seeing what light, taken together, they shed on the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
According to the acoustical analysis conducted by the committee, four shots, over a total period of 7.91 seconds, were fired at the Presidential limousine. The first, second and fourth came from the depository; the third came from the grassy knoll. In evaluating the acoustics project, it is relevant to ask to what degree its results are consistent with data obtained in other scientific analyses. Similarly, other scientific disciplines may be evaluated comparing them with the acoustics results.
Following the Warren Commission's analysis that found only three shots, one of which missed, it had been generally assumed that the final shot fired at President Kennedy was the one that is vividly depicted at Zapruder frame 313, although the Commission itself acknowledged that the last shot might have missed. Using frame 312--when the bullet would actually have struck the President--as the point of reference, it can be determined that the four shots would have been heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frames 166, 196, 296, and 312.
A review of the Zapruder film indicates that a shot fired in the vicinity of frame 166 did not strike any limousine occupants, so it must have missed. The committee's photographic panel, while unable specifically to conclude that a shot was fired at this point, noted that Governor Connally's hand moved from left to right at a rate of 540(deg )per second during frames 162 through 164 and 166 through 167, followed by a more gradual shift of his torso to the right. The panel concluded these movements may have been a reaction to a severe external stimulus. The panel considered these actions to be particularly significant because they were consistent with the Governor's Warren Commission testimony that he had turned in response to having heard the first shot and was struck almost immediately afterward. It is also consistent, of course, with the Governor's testimony before this committee and with the testimony of eyewitnesses.
Some of those statements were incorporated in the record this morning. The relationship between the panel's observations concerning Governor Connally and the acoustics analysis is, however, unclear, because Governor Connally appears to have initiated his rapid body movement prior to frame 166, at the time when the acoustics data suggest that the first shot would have been heard in the limousine.
The relationship between the film and the recording is, however, only approximate. It reflects the adjusted real-time characteristics of the recording and the average running time of the film--18.3 frames per second. It was possible to determine the real-time characteristics of the recording because of the knowledge that the recorder was powered by a 60-cycle-per-second electrical current. Since prints of this 60-cycle-per-second current actually appear on the tape, the corrected running time can be determined by comparing these prints with a clocking of the running of the tape.
The 18.3-frame-per-second average rate of the Zapruder film was, on the other hand, determined by the FBI under laboratory conditions in which the camera was set and run in the manner that Zapruder described he had used it at the time of the assassination. In relating this film to the acoustics results, it is important to understand that given the 18.3-frame-per-second average running speed of the film, a differential, for example, of only six frames is actually a differential of less than a third of a second.
For this reason, absolute correlation between the acoustics recording and the film should not be expected. What is significant is that there is an approximate correlation in rough time between the events on the film and the tape. Each, therefore, corroborates or substantiates the other.
The photographic panel's observations were also relevant to acoustics data that indicated the second shot both impacted and was heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frame 196. Specifically, the panel noted that at Zapruder frame 192 the President's movements suddenly froze, as his right hand seemed to stop to 202 his head moved rapidly to the left. The sudden interruption of the President's hand-waving motion,coupled with his rapid head movements, was considered by the photographic panel as evidence of President Kennedy's reaction to some "severe external stimulus."
Finally, the panel observed that Governor Connally's actions at frame 224, as he is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Mr. Zapruder's view, indicated he was also reacting to some "severe external stimulus." Based upon this observation and within the limousine, the panel concluded that the relative alinement of the two men was consistent with the theory that they had just been struck by the samebullet.
The committee's forensic pathology panel based its examination on duly authenticated Kennedy autopsy materials and its personal examination of Governor Connally. It concluded that the first bullet to hit President Kennedy entered his back at approximately 5 centimeters below the shoulder and three centimeters to the right of the midline of the back, and it exited by the front of his neck near the third tracheal cartilage.
The forensic pathological panel, with one member in dissent, stated that the medical evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that this same bullet proceeded to inflict Governor Connally's torso, wrist, and thigh wounds.
A trajectory analysis by the committee was based on the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 197, the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally at that point, and the bullet's course as it could be determined from their wounds. When President Kennedy's entry and exit wounds were used as reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 13-foot radius of a point approximately 14 feet west of the building's southeast corner and almost level with the sills of the sixth floor windows.
When President Kennedy's exit wound and Governor Connally's entrance wound were used as the reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 7-foot radius of a point approximately 4 feet west of the southeast corner and 12 feet above the sixth floor windowsills.
Neutron activation analysis performed by the committee on bullet fragments that had been removed from Governor Connally's wrist indicated a high probability that they were from a bullet that had been recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
Committee ballistics tests also indicated that this bullet had been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which had been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In addition, ballistics tests established that three cartridges found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had been fired in Oswald's rifle.
In contrast with evidence thus available for evaluating the acoustics data with respect to the first two shots, there is no other scientific evidence for a shot that would have been heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frame 296, that is, no scientific evidence other than the acoustics.
There is also no indication on the Zapruder film that a shot struck any of the limousine occupants at this point.
As for the shot that struck the President at Zapruder frame 312, there is again scientific evidence that may be used to evaluate the acoustics results.
With one panel member dissenting, the forensic pathological panel's view of the autopsy materials established that only one bullet, fired from behind, struck President Kennedy's head, entering near the cowlick portion of his hair part and exiting near the top front area of the right side of his skull. When these wound locations were used as the reference points for a trajectory analysis, given the President's body orientation and the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 312, the trajectory intersected the TSBD within a 23-foot radius of a point 16 feet west of the southeast corner of the building approximately 15 feet above the sixth floor windowsills.
In addition, neutron activation analysis indicted a high probability that bullet fragments found on the limousine floor came from the same bullet as fragments that had been removed from President Kennedy's brain. According to neutron activation analysis, these fragments did not match the bullet found on the stretcher at
The forensic pathological panel, with one member in dissent, stated that the medical evidence was consistent with the hypothesis that this same bullet proceeded to inflict governor Connally's torso, wrist, and thigh wounds.
A trajectory analysis by the committee was based on the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 197, the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally at that point, and the bullet's course as it could be determined from their wounds. When President Kennedy's entry and exit wounds were used as reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 130foot radius of a point approximately 14 feet west of the building's southeast corner and almost level with the sills of the sixth floor windows.
When President Kennedy's exit wound and governor connally's entrance wound were used as the reference points for the trajectory line, it intersected the Texas School Book Depository within a 7-foot radius of a point approximately 4 feet west of the southeast corner and 12 feet above the sixth floor windowsills.
Neutron activation alalysis performed by the committee on bullet fragments that had been removed from Governor Connally's wrist indicated a high probability that they were from a bullet that had been recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
Committee ballistics tests also indicated that this bullet had been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carano rifle, which had been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In addition, ballistics tests established that three cartridges found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had been fired in Oswald's rifle.
In contrast with evidence thus available for evaluating the acoustics data with respect to the first two shots, there is no other scientific evidence for a shot that would have been heard by the limousine occupants at Zapruder frame 296, that is, no scientific evidence other than the acoustics.
There is also no indication on the Zapruder film that a shot struck any of the limousine occupants at this point.
As for the shot that struck the President at Zapruder frame 312, there is again scientific evidence that may be used to evaluate the acoustics results.
With one panel member dissenting, the forensic pathological panel's view of the autopsy materials established that only one bullet, fired from behind, struck President Kennedy's head, entering near the cowlick portion of his hair part and exiting near the top front area of the right side of his skull. When these wound locations were used as the reference points for a trajectory analysis, given the President's body orientation and the location of the limousine at Zapruder frame 312, the trajectory intersected the TSBD within a 23-foot radius of a point 16 feet above the sixth floor windowsills.
In addition, neutron activation analysis indicted a high probability that bullet fragments found on the limousine floor came from the same bullet as fragments that had been removed from President Kennedy's brain. According to neutron activation analysis, these fragments did not match the bullet found on the stretcher at
Second, the committee should try to detect the point at which President Kennedy and Governor Connally are hit by the second, bullet and determine if the reactions of each man are visually appropriate in each film or whether one version--the first or the second--seems to be visually more appropriate.
Let me repeat, this is not a sound film of the actual assassination. The sound that has been dubbed onto the Zapruder film is the sound that was recorded in August as part of Dr. Barger's recording in Dealey Plaza. In the first version of the film, the hit to President Kennedy's head is keyed to the shot from the grassy knoll.
Let me repeat, in the first version of the film, the hit to President Kennedy's head is keyed to the shot from the grassy knoll. In the second version of the film, the second one you will see, the hit to the head is keyed to the shot from the Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. Chairman, before this film is shown--and I might say the staff considered and discussed with the committee at some length as to whether this film should be shown--I would remind the committee as well as those who are following these proceedings on television or are present in this room that certain segments of this film may be offensive to people of special sensitivity. They are, in fact, offensive to me. Those who might fit in this category might wish not to watch this film.
I would also like to indicate that the film was put together by Robert Groden, a consultant to the committee, and his help is gratefully acknowledged.
Could I have the lights off, please.
[Film presentation.]
Mr. BLAKEY. May I have the light please?
Mr. Chairman, may we have the film just shown entered as JFK F-666?
Chairman STOKES. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the refined acoustics evidence, the committee obviously has weighed the possible implications of a fourth shot fired from the grassy knoll. It goes without saying that this shot would be of particular significance if it could be determined that it inflicted wounds to President Kennedy and contributed to, or actually caused, his death.
The committee has available to it this afternoon, for the purpose of lending an expert opinion to this endeavor, the moderator of its forensic pathological panel, Dr. Michael Baden, the Chief Medical Examiner of New York. In light of the time factor, however, I will summarize what his testimony would have been.
Dr. Baden reexamined the materials in light of the additional information given to him by the acoustics panel. He went back to the original film, to the original X-rays and to the other materials. His conclusion remains as it was: There is no medical evidence that President Kennedy was hit from the front and to the right. There is no medical evidence to indicate that he was not shot at from the front and to the right. The forensic pathological panel simply says that if he was shot at from the front and to the right, the shot missed.
The medical testimony apparently indicated that if the third shot occurred, it did not hit President Kennedy. There is no evidence that anyone else in Dealey Plaza was struck by a bullet from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll.
Testimony already presented to the committee indicates that one or more persons reported seeing bullets hit in or around the Presidential limousine.
In an effort to complete its investigation of where the third shot, assuming it occurred, might have hit, the committee turned to the presidential limousine itself, which is now in the possession of the Ford Motor Co. in Dearborn, Mich.
The committee contacted Major Louis Smith of the Michigan State Police and requested that an experienced crime-scene team examine the car to determine if there is any evidence that it was struck by a bullet fired from the picket fence on the grassy knoll.
Major Smith expressed a belief that such an examination would prove futile, since extensive refurbishing and rebuilding had been performed on the limousine since the assassination. He did, nonetheless, make his men available to the committee, and an examination was conducted in the past week.
The examination was conducted by laboratory specialist James Bergen and laboratory specialist Michael Arrowood. The committee expresses its appreciation to them for their effort.
Major Smith reports that there is no evidence that a bullet from the grassy knoll struck the Presidential limousine.
To look further at the question of the direction from which the wound-inflicting bullets came, the committee had available to it--again this afternoon--its engineering analysis and consultant for the head-shot trajectory. The purpose of Mr. Canning's testimony was to determine if any conclusions of the committee's expert consultant might have been changed by the refinement of the acoustical data. He would have addressed this afternoon the question, Could the fourth shot have occurred at Zapruder frame 327 and have come, as it must have in light of the other evidence, from the depository? His conclusion, based on rough figures, is that it is highly unlikely that a bullet fired from the depository could have struck the President as number four at frame 327.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation of the staff to the committee.
At this point I wonder, though, if I might be permitted to make an observation?
Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation, as I have not in a personal way previously, to the committee, on the public record, for the support that it has given this staff in pursuing its investigation.
May I be blunt and say that not every congressional committee acts without politics. This one did. This staff appreciates being free from that particular affliction.
In addition, let me say that it is not true of every investigation that it goes the last mile. As you may be aware, I went to Notre Dame where I at least learned one thing. Put in terms of football analogy, it would go something like this: When you are ahead, don't let up, and when you are behind, don't give up. Translated into this investigation, it means that we should have made every effort we could as long as we could.
I want to thank you, particularly and personally, for extending to this committee staff the opportunity to continue to pursue this investigation for the last yard.
As you know, and as I am sure some other people here present know, the staff has over the last several weeks begun going on vacations, well deserved, and to other jobs. Nevertheless, I hope history writes that this staff worked until the last possible minute.
Last, I would like to say what I have not said publicly to the staff as a whole, both those who are here now and those who may be watching this on the outside, that I deeply appreciate the professionalism that you showed, and the hard work, far in excess of what I had any reason to expect, that you gave me. Thank you.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Professor Blakey. I am sure that our entire committee would concur with me that you have done an outstanding job as the director of the staff and as chief counsel for this committee. You have done it with the highest form of professionalism, and we are indebted to you for that.
Additionally, we are very proud of the type of a staff that you did assemble--very bright young people, who served this country so well and in such a dedicated way.
I might acknowledge also that deputy chief counsel Ken Klein and our senior staff counsel, Michael Goldsmith, were prepared to examine fully the two other witnesses whom we are not going to call on in light of time constraints.
At this time I would like to announce the committee will meet in executive session immediately after we have adjourned the full session of this committee, and I have some closing remarks.
If anyone wants to be recognized before I give those remarks--
Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise a question that I would have asked of a couple of the witnesses coming, and possibly for the purpose of the record I could direct them to Mr. Blakey, to see if we can't shed some light on them at this point. One has to do with the question, in light of the implications of the acoustical evidence, with regard to a fragment found, a bullet fragment found in the limousine that for some time has not been easily identifiable as a result of neutron activation tests.
I wonder, Mr. Blakey, if you might just comment on that. There has been some question raised about that particular fragment and I wonder if there are others as well, or just that one that raised that question?
Mr. BLAKEY. I am not really prepared to respond to that, Mr. Dodd, and I probably have done in this record what I should not have on several occasions, and that is, speak from memory.
I think perhaps I will have to discuss that with you later, when I can get a briefing on the details of that and not misstate, or misstate myself.
Mr. DODD. In light of that, I won't ask the other ones then. I don't want to rely on people's memories. I will reserve the questions until afterward, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Chairman--
Chairman STOKES. Mr. Edgar?
Mr. EDGAR. I just wanted to say, on behalf of this member, and I think I speak for the others, how deeply indebted we are to you for taking up the chairmanship of this particular committee over the last year and a half and providing the leadership that this committee so desperately needed. You came on at a tough time, and I think you deserve our deep gratitude for your efforts as chairman. I just want to say thank you.
CLOSING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN LOUIS STOKES
Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much. It has been for me a great experience.
I guess one of the things I am most proud of is that in the 10 years I have been in the Congress I have never seen a congressional committee work as harmoniously, in such a nonpartisan way, as this committee has, and it has been a real honor to have chaired this committee.
I am very proud of the type of support I have gotten from the ranking minority member, Mr. Sam Devine of Ohio, who has been staunch in his support of this committee in every respect and has been tireless in his efforts on behalf of this committee, along with the other members of the minority side; and, of course, our two distinguished subcommittee chairmen, Judge Richardson Preyer, who chaired the Kennedy investigation, and Congressman Fauntroy, who chaired the King investigation, and both of whom worked tirelessly, many, many hours in executive session and in the full sessions, and all of you gentlemen--Mr. Dodd, Mr. Edgar, Mr. Fithian--who I know attended those executive sessions and worked long hours while you tried to do your other congressional work, many times at a very personal sacrifice-I think the country is indebted to all of you. Thank you.
[Additional material included at the request of Congressman Richardson Preyer:]
LAW OFFICES
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH
721 BROWN BUILDING. COLORADO AT W. EIGHTH
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
512 478-2573
December 27, 1978
Congressman Richardson Preyer
Chairman 291978
House Subcommittee on Assassination
of John F. Kennedy
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Subject: Investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy
Dear Chairman Preyer:
At the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was serving as United States Senator from Texas, and was riding in the car with then Vice President and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson in the Dallas Presidential Motorcade.
Having used firearms since I was a small boy, and having qualified, while serving on the staff of the 97th Infantry Division in World War II, with rifle, carbine, pistol and bazooka, and having hunted since with rifles and shotguns, I have some familiarity with the noise made by the firing of such weapons.
In the Motorcade in Dallas, the first explosion was so distinct in its nature, that my mental processes immediately registered "rifle shot" - it was an immediate mental reaction without conscious thought process on my part.
On many occasions since, I have stated that there were definitely three explosions, or shots (this while the F.B.I. was expounding its two shot theory), but during all of these years I have been troubled by the fact that the two subsequent explosions did not sound like that first clear sound of indisputable rifle fire, clear as a signal. I assumed that the difference might have been caused by the changed position of the car, or other movement.
The recent revelations of a possible fourth shot possibly clear up that doubt as to the reason for the difference in sound between the different explosions.
When I read of the scientific experiment through firing weapons at different positions in the parade route at Dallas, I attempted to telephone the Chairman of the Full Committee, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the Chief Counsel or Deputy Chief Counsel of the Assassinations Committee and Sub-Committee, but could reach none of you, but was relegated to someone so far down the line that they did not seem to understand my recommendation at that time.
I have been on hunting trips a number of times when two hunters, neither knowing that the other hunter was firing, fire simultaneously at game, each thinking that they had killed it, each hearing only one explosion. With those experiences in mind, what I recommended to some one of Committee staff (whom I took from our telephone conversation to know nothing about gunfire) was that firing from the Texas Book Depository window and the grassy knoll be synchonized and be made simultaneously, with proper sensitive listening devices at all proper points, in an effort to see if science, so applied, would throw any light on the doubts which increase with the years, as to the accuracy of the Warren Commission Report. My recommendation may never have gotten past the person on your staff to whom it was given, as that person seemed not to understand it.
After the first shot was fired, the Motorcade seemed to momentarily slow down; the resulting close proximity of the principal cars being shown on a photograph which I mailed to the Warren Commission (that Commission having declined to call me as a witness), taken from the Saturday Evening Post, a cropped version of which was printed in the Warren Commission report with my letter of transmittal to that Commission.
The Warren Commission report stated that the Motorcade speeded up, and took off, but it did not say when. The Motorcade did not speed up and take off until all the three explosions had occurred.
In the interest of history, I request that this letter be printed with your report.
If your sub-committee will put aside preconceived ideas, if any, from reading the Warren Commission Report (which I do not charge you have), but pursue truth wherever it leads, you will render a service to history, and build a higher confidence among your countrymen for the integrity of public institutions.
Respectfully yours,
Ralph W. Yarborough
RWY/bc
Chairman STOKES. I would like at this time to make some additional closing remarks:
This concludes the public hearings of the Select Committee on Assassinations. As I previously noted, the committee will meet in executive session this evening, to discuss and vote on its ultimate findings and recommendations, which will be submitted on January 3, 1979, to the Clerk of the House. It will also be made public at that time.
The final report of the committee is now being edited for security declassification, and publication. The final report, a transcript of our public hearings and various appendices will be sent to the Government Printing Office by March 30. They will also be made public at that time.
As January 3 is the termination date of the select committee, all work on the editing of the report, the public hearings and other documents will be done under the auspices of the Clerk of the House.
It seems appropriate now, therefore, to reflect on some of the implications of what this committee has done.
The committee has presented evidence clearly pointing to the identity of the assassins in both cases.
The committee has developed evidence of the outlines of a likely conspiracy in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and if it is accepted, the evidence heard by the committee today could point to a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee has also carefully assessed the performance of the various Federal agencies and looked into each of the assassinations.
The committee has also looked at what recommendations should be made for the future.
The question, nonetheless, arises: What course of action should our society now take with the work of the select committee having come to an end?
As I have said repeatedly, this committee is not a judicial body. In its legislative hearings the committee has looked to the past in a search for facts that might enable it to make recommendations for the future. I emphasize what not all have realized: The committee did not set out to prove or disprove any theory; it did not set out to prove or disprove the existence of a conspiracy in either investigation.
Throughout the investigations of both assassinations, the committee addressed four questions: .
Who was or were the assassin or assassins? Was there a conspiracy? How well did the Federal agencies perform their protective and investigative duties? And what, if any, recommendations should the committee make for the future?
Our legislative work is now done. For the committee to proceed to investigate the issue of individual responsibility in either assassination would be unnecessary and inappropriate, unnecessary because the committee has learned what it needs to know to recommend legislative and administrative reform, inappropriate because fact-finding for the purposes of making recommendations, not an assessment of individual responsibility, is and has been the committee's only mandate.
The assessment of personal guilt is something that the Constitution has rightfully allocated to the Executive branch to investigate and for the judicial process to weigh.
Now I recognize, of course, that there are still loose ends in both of these investigations that I had hoped our work might have tied down. I regret that these matters are still outstanding.
As I have observed before, life itself has loose ends. It may well be that those who continue the investigations also will not be able to resolve all of the troubling issues that this committee has exposed. It has been, after all, many years since these assassinations occurred. I wish them well and hope that they will assess our work and make use of it, just as this committee has assessed and made use of the results of the investigations that preceded it.
We have not been perfect, but we have tried to be conscientious and candid in our work. If history records we at least did that, I then will be satisfied.
There is at least one lesson that our society ought to draw from this committee's work, and I would like to leave that with you this afternoon: Never again should our society respond as it did in the aftermath of the deaths of these two great patriots. We did not give these men the type of investigations in death which were commensurate with the dignity of their lives. We cannot, of course, rewrite history. We cannot bring back President John F. Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The past can be a die for the future. We can and we must promise ourselves that this history will never be again repeated in this Nation. I thank you.
If there is nothing further at this time, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MR. ROBERT GRODEN
The following letter, with accompanying photographs and captions, was received by the committee from Robert Groden .after the termination of the public hearings, and after the committee had voted upon its findings and recommendations. Therefore the committee was not able to evaluate, and did not rely upon, the letter or its attachments, in reaching any conclusion m connection with its investigation. The materials, however, are set forth here for the benefit of those who may continue to study these subjects. The captions are those of Mr. Groden, and not the committee.
Robert J. Groden
385 Florida Grove Road
Hopelawn, N.J. 08861
Rep. Louis Stokes, Chairman
House Select Committee on Assassinations
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Stokes,
As photographic Consultant to the Committee, I've been exposed to a question of central importance relating to the results of the acoustics tests that I feel I can shed some lightupon.
The question is 'was the open transmitter button that received the sounds of the gunshots, in the plaza'.
Professors Weiss and Aschkenasy have proven scientifically that the "stuck mike' was in Dealey Plaza and further, that the motorcycle with the open microphone was 120 feet behind the President's car at the moment of the impact on the President's head.
I am enclosing several photographic exhibits which are the best evidence to corroborate the analysis by the acoustics panel.
The motorcycle seen in the enclosed photographs is Officer H. B. McLain's. This determination was made by the House Committee and was confirmed by McLain himself in his public testimony' in December, 1978.
Officer McLain was riding on the left side of the motorcade at the level of the convertible press cars. This is where the police tape analysis places the open microphone.
Robert J. Groden
Photographic Consultant,
House Select Committee on Assassinations
In connection with Groden exhibit No. 1 above, which portrays a motorcycle riding on the left side of the motorcade as it approaches Dealey Plaza from Main Street, the committee secured, through the cooperation of the Dallas Police Department, a copy of the daily solo motorcycle assignment log sheet for the week of November 22, 1963.
The log sheet reflects that during that week officer McLain was assigned to ride motorcycle No. 352, as Mr. Groden states his exhibit No. 1 reflects.
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 1
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 2
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1A
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1B
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1C
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1D
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-1E
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2A
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2B
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2C
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2D
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2E
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2F
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2G
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 3-2H
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 4
GRODEN EXHIBIT # 5
DAILY ASSIGNMENT MOTORCYCLE RECORD
Friday November 22, 1963
Finally, the following memorandum describes the process of correlating the acoustics analysis with the Zapruder film:
